I am often amazed by the sheer audacity of Mr. Baker to completely change his statements to fit the situation or to shamelessly mislead. As parts 3 and 4 in a continuing series I will present two examples of such exaggerated behavior in his Federal lawsuit against me.

III. Mr. Baker tries desperately to make the court believe that he is not an AIDS Denialist

Paragraph 7 of Baker’s affidavit he writes:

Since 2008, DeShong and his “colleagues” have alleged that I am an “AIDS dissenter or “AIDS denialist.” …I don’t know how to respond because DeShong’s mischaracterizations have nothing to do with my business operations or income. Neither OMSJ nor the HIV Innocence Group has anything to do with the alleged debate over AIDS.

Mr. Baker’s claim of “I don’t know how to respond” is so disingenuously melodramatic that every time I read it I picture him typing with one hand while clutching his pearls with the other. There is no need for me to go into detail to prove Baker’s assertion that he is not an AIDS denialist and that he is not engaged in the “alleged debate over AIDS.” It is so preposterous it is laughable and so obviously untrue as to completely strip him of any credibility.

I believe part of the reason he is trying to distance himself from being an AIDS denialist is because this lawsuit is not only about shutting me up: It is also about deposing Dr. Robert Gallo. (We have made this fact a major part of my defense.) I know this from personal experience when Mr. Baker himself told me as much on a phone call after I won arbitration. Mr. Baker also told Robert Scott Bell the same thing, just in more detail on The RSB Show July 14, 2011:

1:22:56 CB: Actually Robert Gallo received a subpoena on one of our cases as well last year. As did Sam Broder who is behind the AZT debacle and both of them basically forwarded their subpoenas to the NIH. The NIH stonewalls such subpoenas they don’t listen to state subpoenas. They simply ignore them. And it cost so much time and energy we basically learned in our future subpoenas to them they will be Federal Subpoenas. And Federal Courts don’t let the NIH ignore such things.

This leads me to the second and most egregious part of this post:

IV. Mr. Baker tries to minimize the supposed importance of Gallo’s Egg.

Paragraph 21 of Baker’s affidavit he briefly mentions Gallo’s Egg without naming it:

DeShong claims that I have “a strong interest in discrediting Robert Gallo.” (DeShong 5) In 2008-2009 I conducted a brief investigation of Gallo.

Here is how Mr. Baker originally described this “brief investigation”:

“…I have become involved in the most important criminal racketeering case of my investigative career.”

“The investigation I call Gallo’s Egg took me from America’s “War on Cancer” (1971-1981) to the early history of HIV and AIDS. It reaches from the cities of West Hollywood and San Francisco to the continents of Africa, Asia, and Australia. It led me to the steps of the National Institutes of Health, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and some of America’s most prestigious universities and research centers. It involves hundreds of billions of dollars of misdirected tax-supported funding and some of the most financially successful pharmaceutical companies in the world.”

“I have never written about anything more important. This story changed my life, and if you have the time and patience to understand what I have written, it may change yours as well.”

Such a radical change in Baker’s description of Gallo’s Egg specifically for this lawsuit can only be seen as perfunctory. (Wait, no, that’s not the right word. I know it begins with “per” and ends with “ry” but I’m not sure what the legal word is at the moment.)

But the absurd hypocrisy does not end there. Throughout his website Mr. Baker repeatedly provides hyperlinks to Gallo’s Egg from the main page as well as sub-pages.

On the page entitled Winning Criminal HIV Cases, the very first sentence links to Gallo’s Egg:

Shortly after I completed my first pharmaceutical corruption investigation in 2008…

On the Due Diligence page he writes (in third person, no less):

In 2008, Mr. Baker investigated their allegations and corroborated many of Ms. Farber’s findings.  His investigation resulted in Farber’s libel lawsuit against AIDSTruth cohort Richard Jefferys.  That case is still pending.

The phrase “investigated their allegations” links to Gallo’s Egg on Mr. Baker’s Ex Liberal in Hollywood site. By the way, the case of Farber V Jefferys is not “still pending”. Farber lost that suit in November of 2011, almost three years ago.

It is important to note that Mr. Baker attributes a lawsuit filed by Celia Farber in New York Supreme Court completely to his “brief investigation of Gallo”.

You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Baker. Either Gallo’s Egg is:

“…the most important criminal racketeering case of my investigative career.” And you “have never written about anything more important.” And it was the sole reason for “Farber’s libel lawsuit against AIDSTruth cohort Richard Jefferys.”

OR

“…a brief investigation of Gallo.”

I guess in Mr. Baker’s world you can have it both ways. And if someone calls you out on it, sue them.