Bobby Russell Case Perfect for Office of Medical and Scientific Justice: OMSJ Refuses to Take Case: UPDATE

UPDATE of Sept 27, 2014 at bottom of post: Mr. Baker weighs in claiming he has helped Mr. Russell and “spent thousands”. Unfortunately that contradicts what Mr. Russell himself wrote to me several days before. Who is being truthful?

NOTE: Many people from ReThinking AIDS have visited this site because of this post. I hope you all look over this site with an open mind and see how Mr. Baker is not being forthcoming with the information he is sharing with you about OMSJ and the HIV Innocence Group.

2nd NOTE: Sept 25 I removed the link to Mr. Russell’s Go Fund Me page so that Mr. Baker will not be able to falsely claim that said link makes my site commercial.

Original Post

The case of Bobby Russell is about a man allegedly misdiagnosed as HIV+ because no doctor read the negative confirmatory test. As a result, Mr. Russell took ARV’s for close to a decade. The case was high profile back in the fall of 2013 and was covered extensively by the general media. Mr. Russell’s website is here. His site contains numerous links to interviews and articles.

The HIV/AIDS Dissidents also ran with the story including podcasts on How Positive Are You (HPAY) with Elizabeth Ely and Russell’s attorney (who is no longer on the case), a HPAY podcast interview with Mr. Russell himself as well as two articles at Clark Baker’s site. It seemed as if Mr. Russell would be the next poster boy for AIDS Dissidence.

But then the publicity went away until the ReThinking AIDS facebook page posted a recent interview with Mr. Russell and David Crowe at The Progressive Radio Network. The interview highlights the fact that Mr. Russell only has 20 days left to come up with $12,000 to continue the case due to a summary judgement based on Statute of Limitations. Mr. Russell has set up a Go Fund Me Page to help reach that goal.

I do not know much about the specifics nor the merits of this case. I do, however, find it strange that Mr. Russell does not have an attorney for a suit like this. If there were legal grounds, attorneys would be lining up for such a lucrative suit.

The most incredibly strange aspect of this case is that Clark Baker and his Office of Medical and Scientific Justice are not part of this suit. The plight of Mr. Russell seems to perfectly fulfill the OMSJ Mission Statement:

  • To protect and defend the victims and witnesses of medical and scientific corruption

Clark Baker should have the resources to handle this case with no problem. This is how he describes OMSJ in his second affidavit, paragraph 9, in his Federal suit against me while discussing the case of Sgt. David Gutierrez:

“I offered OMSJ’s pro bono services from my team of experts who include chemists, an HIV test patent holder, licensed medical doctors, and attorneys experienced in HIV criminal defense.”

From that statement by Mr. Baker himself, it would seem he not only has the resources to handle the case, but the case fits perfectly with Mr. Baker’s own agenda when he created OMSJ. Why in the world would Mr. Baker refuse to help? Mr. Russell told me it is due to money:

I have asked them and they seem to think they did not have the funds to do anything or help me so I am on my own here I guess and if I cannot raise the money, then I guess its over.

It may not be a money issue. Perhaps Mr. Baker told that to Mr. Russell simply because the case is not winnable. Or perhaps it is indeed a money issue. If Mr. Baker were not wasting so much money on a lawsuit that he has lost in arbitration and was dismissed in Federal Court and he has appealed to the 5th Circuit, perhaps there would be money to fulfill the Mission of OMSJ. My attorneys are currently seeking costs from Mr. Baker of $98,000.

This comment from David Crowe at RA facebook confirms that this case is perfectly suited for OMSJ:

  • David Crowe Damian Laster, I agree with you, but as a practical matter it’s difficult enough to get a case like Bobby’s into court. We have to chip away at it unless we can put together the perfect storm (hard nosed lawyer willing to work for no money up front … who gets the AIDS lie, plaintiff with no other confounding issues … and a few other things).

In Mr. Crowe’s comment, he mentions a “lawyer willing to work for no money up front…” This seems like a great investment for Mr. Baker. All Mr. Russell needs is $12,000. That may seem like a lot of money to you and me, but from this Guide Star report on the finances of OMSJ, 12 Grand is nothing. OMSJ received donations of over $421K in 2012 alone.

So where do the donations come from? Mr. Baker has never revealed that. So anyone who has donated to Mr. Baker’s “cause” at OMSJ or HIV Innocence Group should ask themselves where their hard earned money has gone.

Something else that has come out of my investigation into the noble cause of Mr. Russell is just how much influence the every day Dissident has on “the cause”. It is obvious that they are not screaming for help from Mr. Baker, the only person within the AIDS Dissident movement who is really situated to make a legal difference. Where is the outrage? Where are the demands to actually do something?

I believe the answer is obvious: There are not enough AIDS ReThinkers to make a difference. (RA wants you to believe there over 6,200 supposed members of RA facebook, but that is falsely inflated.) You can see that is true just from the Go Fund Me Page set up by Mr. Russell. That page has received $215 out of a needed $20 Grand by all of FOUR people. And NONE of those four is from Clark Baker!

This is an injustice and not from the medical establishment. As this article demonstrates, there is not a case here:

“We are pleased that the Court has granted summary judgment to the University’s physicians. While this legal ruling was based on statute of limitations, we feel equally strong that the underlying allegations of misdiagnosis had no merit. The court record includes evidence that Mr. Russell has had 5 subsequent Western Blot tests that were positive for HIV after the very first Western Blot test was negative.”

If there truly were over 6 thousand AIDS ReThinkers, then it would be no problem to fund Mr. Russell’s lawsuit; less than $2 per person. But the number of members at the ReThinking AIDS facebook page is really irrelevant. The real issue here is why The Office of Medical and Scientific Justice has turned its back on a person that fits the Mission Statement of OMSJ like a glove: Perhaps it is because it is a glove in the vain of OJ Simpson.

UPDATE: Mr. Baker commented at the RA facebook page discussing this very post. As I wrote above, Mr. Baker’s new revelation completely contradicts what Mr. Russell wrote to me several days ago. Either Baker is trying to save face due to the popularity of this post, or Mr. Russell was not being honest in an attempt to gather more donations. I will provide the facts and leave it up to the reader to decide.


  • Clark Baker We spent thousands to assist Mr. Russell. The biggest obstacle we face is cases like this is what they call the “medical standard of care” – i.e., the doctor/hospital is not at fault “if everybody” does it wrong. What’s even more perverse is that doctors who understand the science and unreliability of tests deviate from doing it wrong risk medical board complaints and the loss of their license. This is how the corruption and incompetence is enforced. Mr. Russell’s doctor was not not just another doctor – she’s the elected president of the American Medical Association (AMA). These are tough cases. As for the story above by “HIVInnocenceGroupTruth”, that hate blog is managed by Todd DeShong – an unaccomplished 50-year-old alcoholic gay activist (lives with his mother) who is groomed and managed by Gallo, Kalichman, Moore, and the AIDSTruthers. DeShong is particularly attractive to these goons because he is judgment-proof (no assets). Gallo’s goons pay for his legal defense to attack/harass/defame me/OMSJ. We’re slowly peeling their onion with a lawsuit, but it takes time and money. If you want to help, a recurring monthly donation of $5 or more will be applied to our case.

And here is Mr. Russell’s response when I asked him a direct question about the involvement of OMSJ. Here is the question and response in full.

  • Conversation started September 20
  • 9/20, 9:42am

    My facebook name redacted for privacy issues.
    I have seen your request for donations at ReThinking AIDS. Is it not possible for OMSJ to fund this appeal? Or couldn’t Mr. Baker and his team handle it pro-bono? I thought that was what OMSJ was all about.
  • Sunday
  • Bobby W. Russell

    I have asked them and they seem to think they did not have the funds to do anything or help me so I am on my own here I guess and if I cannot raise the money, then I guess its over. I will refried you as I had thought you might have been an ad. I am sorry but will send a friend request back t o you.

Mr. Baker claims he “spent thousands” (I assume U.S. dollars, but who knows with Mr. Baker: He may have meant hours.) However, Mr. Russell clearly says that OMSJ “did not have the funds to do anything”.  Using the word “funds” when asked about Russell’s request for monetary donations is unambiguous that Mr. Baker has not contributed any money at all. Once again I have presented facts.

It is also quite humorous to make note of another part of Mr. Baker’s comment. He claims that this blog is a “hate blog” with the purpose to “attack/harass/defame me/OMSJ.”  Why is that humorous? Because Mr. Baker seems to not even realize the irony of his hypocrisy. While claiming that I am attacking and harassing and defaming Mr. Baker and OMSJ, he does so by attacking and harassing and defaming me in the process. His exact quote:

“Todd DeShong – an unaccomplished 50-year-old alcoholic gay activist (lives with his mother)…” with “no assets”.

To me that is some funny sh*t! Of course I am used to it. In the past Baker has also said that I live in my mother’s basement, that I clean bed pans in a hospital and that I make less than minimum wage. The truth is, anyone who resorts to such a characterization of their critic shows their own immaturity and childishness. It also shows how desperate and scared Mr. Baker is. If I am so “unaccomplished”, why bother with me at all, much less spend over $100,000 (and counting) trying shut me up? I think we all know the answer to that.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: