It was in late 2008 when I first discovered the “debate” questioning the link between HIV as the cause of AIDS. On one side were those who said HIV does not exist or is not pathogenic: the denialists. On the other side were those who trust the 30 years of solid science: the orthodox. (The term orthodox was created as an ad hominem by the denialists, but I have embraced the term.) If there had ever been any semblance of friendly debate, that time is long gone. By the time I got involved, the discussion was in full-tilt take-no-prisoners mode. Every comment section of every article that remotely addressed HIV quickly devolved into childish name calling and insults on both sides.
The niche community involved in this debate was very small and incestuous. Many people used their own names or stuck with the same moniker and were therefore easily identifiable. Everyone was known to each other and some people were hated more than others. And some people’s hatred was so vicious it made them act irrationally.
One well known rivalry was between me and Jonathan Barnett. When we disclosed that we had buried the hatchet and actually met face to face in May, the ReThinking AIDS group went ballistic. The childish name calling and hateful rhetoric that was once reserved for the rival orthodox was now being spewed at Jonathan. Jonathan had done the unforgivable; he had fraternized with the enemy. If the revelation that Jonathan and I are now friendly created such an upset among the dissidents, I cannot imagine what will happen when they find out what Clark Baker has been up to.
Making the Bed
If there were a way to quantify the hatred between the players, I would say that Clark Baker’s hatred of three people is the most profound. Baker hates three people in this order:
1. Dr. James Murtagh
2. Kevin Kurtizky
3. Yours Truly
As targets of Mr. Baker’s ire, we all have much in common. Mr. Baker has sued each of us. Mr. Baker has written many hateful articles about each of us and cross-posted them to his myriad websites. In some of those posts we are co-stars and some feature us independently. And the internet is littered with creative insults for each of us: I am an unloved, alcoholic meth-tranny; Murtagh is a corrupt doc and perjurer; Kuritzky is a plagiarist, fugitive and felon. Oh, yeah, and we are all Pharma Sluts. All these allegations and more are repeated ad nauseam at cwbpi.com & omsj.org & semmelweis.com & exliberalinhollywood.blogspot & propagandists.org & several other sites. Clark Baker inseminates the internet with defamation like maggots on a carcass.
Whereas Murtagh and I have been lawsuit-tangible, the one person who has eluded Mr. Baker for many years and therefore frustrated him the most is Kevin Kuritzky. Kuritzky and Murtagh were two of the named defendants in a defamation lawsuit filed by Celia Farber. Despite Mr. Baker’s prodigious investigative skills he was never able to locate and serve either of them. In the end it did not really matter because Ms. Farber lost the suit in summary judgment.
Mr. Baker was so frustrated at his own incompetence of not being able to locate Murtagh and Kuritzky, he offered a $5,000.00 reward for their whereabouts:
If you are not convinced to whom Mr. Baker is referring, this may help:
In a separate scenario a few years later, Mr. Baker claims he and his wife were being harassed by an anonymous person. Mr. Baker suspected it was Kevin Kuritzky. Once again Baker’s prolific investigatory skills fell short and he had to resort to filing an expensive “John Doe” lawsuit hoping to uncover Kevin’s identity and location. It was filed in Massachusetts on March 7, 2012 Case #1:12-cv-10434. It was dismissed December of 2012 and Baker was no closer to finding Kuritzky. This humiliating defeat compounded Baker’s frustration exponentially.
In my opinion it would be fair to say that Mr. Baker was consumed with Kevin Kuritzky. Not only did Mr. Baker try to sue Kuritzky twice as well as write many long, disparaging articles about Kevin that he cross-pollinated to six different sites, but he also inundated comment sections with defamatory statements about Kevin all over the web. I could provide pages of examples of websites where Mr. Baker flooded the comment section disparaging Kevin. For example, in the post linked above Mr. Baker wrote 8 of the 14 comments at that site dating from 2009 to 2013. The next comment below has been posted verbatim at sites too numerous to mention: (NOTE: I have redacted what I believe to be Kevin’s new, legal name for reasons to be explained below.)
In the last comment above it is interesting to note the number of monikers that Mr. Baker attributes to Kevin with absolutely no proof. Baker was notorious for turning up in comment sections and if there was another commenter with an unfamiliar moniker, Baker would invariably say it was Kevin Kuritzky and shoot off the same old, tired list of ad hominems; felon, fugitive, thief and more. Mr. Baker would do this to kill two birds with one stone; He wanted to discredit the other person and take every opportunity he could to disparage and defame Kevin.
Baker’s favorite moniker to attribute to Kevin was that of Snout. There are probably 100+ blogs, articles and youtube comment sections where Baker would relentlessly accuse Snout of really being Kevin and start posting defamatory statements. This literally went on for 5 years. Now Mr. Baker has finally admitted that he was wrong. In his affidavit of February 21, 2014 in his Federal lawsuit against me in Paragraph 18, Mr. Baker concedes:
“Kuritzky has previously identified himself as the blogger SNOUT, although evidence now suggests that he may not be SNOUT.”
Amazingly Mr. Baker’s ego will never allow him to fully admit he was wrong. He neglects to say or even attempt to prove when, where and how “Kuritzky has previously identified himself as the blogger SNOUT”, but he does finally admit his error and in doing so, he tacitly admits that he is a terrible Private Investigator and that he never had proof of the countless accusations he made for 5 years. What a stand-up guy!
Pulling Back the Covers
Now I am not saying that Baker was fixated on an angel who did nothing wrong. As I wrote in the beginning of this post, both sides in the “debate” regarding HIV as the cause of AIDS were childish, unprofessional, flung insults and that some acted irrationally. However, from the proof I have supplied above (and trust me, I have left out much more of their history) you may be wondering how these two buried the hatchet. Don’t forget, there is one person Clark Baker hates worse than Kevin Kuritzky: Dr. James Murtagh.
Baker is now on the other end of the litigious stick and is the defendant in a lawsuit brought by Dr. Murtagh for interference with his employment. I will not get into the merits of the case. However, I know from personal experience that Mr. Baker does have a history of calling one’s employer for sinister and nefarious reasons. In this lawsuit Mr. Baker has somehow gotten Mr. Kuritzky to supply an affidavit supporting Baker and claiming that Dr. Murtagh forced Kevin, a full grown, highly intelligent man (he was accepted to Medical School and Law School) to act as his puppet and do all sorts of terrible things to Mr. Baker.
Soiling the Sheets
To me this new partnership is highly suspect and does not reflect well on either party. My reservation has nothing to do with my personal feelings for Mr. Baker or any type of emotional or visceral response. If these two men had come to an understanding, forgiven each other and vowed to move on, I would be supportive. Unfortunately my reservation is based on multiple facts.
1. The affidavit itself
2. My personal knowledge and experience with Kevin Kuritzky
3. The transparently obvious quid pro quo
4. Mr. Baker’s behavior exhibited toward Mr. Kuritzky over the last several years
1. The Affidavit
I encourage you to read the affidavit before you continue with my post. I further encourage you to keep two windows open so that you can refer back to the affidavit. I have an advantage in critiquing this affidavit because I have been “privileged” to read 100’s of pages of documents in Baker’s suit against me. The theme of paranoid-conspiracy-theory-fantasy permeates both the Kuritzky Affidavit and Baker’s suit against me.
In my case I serve as the puppet and liability shield for Robert Gallo, scientists of the NIH, CDC and all of Big Pharma in a concentrated effort to destroy Baker, OMSJ and the HIV Innocence Group. In the Kuritzky Affidavit Kevin is the puppet for Murtagh who is orchestrating a takedown of “Celia Farber, Peter Duesberg, Clark Baker and other credible investigators” (page 2) to protect “the credibility and reputation of some of the world’s top universities and organizations like the United Nations and World Health Organization, which receive and distribute billions in funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the pharmaceutical industry, and governments that support current HIV research, testing and treatment policies around the world. The negative social and political impact of this scandal would be hard to measure.” (page 3)
Just one page later, on page 4, paragraph 11, Baker increases the conspiracy theory to include many other people, most notably the people who created the AIDS Truth website. And all of this is being coordinated through Dr. Kalichman’s blog Denying AIDS as well as my two blogs which he neglects to name. Baker also neglects to say exactly how this coordinated attack was carried out. All of a sudden Kevin and Murtagh are not lone wolves but part of a grand conspiracy and Kevin is just “one of their foot soldiers.”
There is no denying that Mr. Baker wrote the affidavit. It is so complex, far-fetched and has too many characters as well as being irrelevant to the lawsuit. If Baker wants to convince a judge that Kevin harassed him and Murtagh was behind it, it would be much more believable to provide specific, detailed examples. Don’t try to incorporate the UN, WHO, NIH and universities around the world and many world governments. Such an incredible story just looks silly and desperate.
2. Knowledge & Experience
My personal knowledge and experience with Kevin Kuritzky is another way I can debunk this fiction. Back in 2009 I spoke on the phone with Kevin at least four times. Each and every time he would call to brag, gloat and laugh about some shenanigans he was pulling on Baker. I finally had to put my foot down and tell him to stop the harassment because Baker would be on-line accusing me of the harassment. I can give a specific example. The last time I talked to Kevin he was telling me that he would use SKYPE to call Baker and encourage me to do it as well. Kevin told me that there was no way to trace the call with SKYPE. He would send me recordings via email of him calling Baker and taunting Baker about his lack of science knowledge. That was when I finally asked Kevin to stop calling me. I can also attest that Kevin never once sounded remorseful nor did he ever say that Murtagh put him up to it or that Murtagh ever suggested that he continue this type of behavior.
3. Quid pro quo
I believe Kevin has acquiesced to this affidavit for the simple reason that he is tired of all this and he is tired of Baker cross-posting the mistakes he has made in his life all over the internet. I believe that is why he has changed his name legally and that is why I redacted the name from the comment I posted above. It would be easy for others to locate that name but out of respect, I have chosen to redact it. More than likely Kevin regrets his mistakes and what he has done to Baker, but I do not believe he volunteered this affidavit. I believe Kevin agreed so that Mr. Baker would not only stop posting a litany of Kevin’s mistakes around the internet, but that Baker would also scrub the internet of as much of the defamatory statements as possible.
Mr. Baker is attempting to clean up his graffiti in several ways. For example, if you go to Baker’s OMSJ website and click on Kevin’s name, the hyper-link no longer takes the reader to a list of articles that discuss Kevin; It now takes you to the generic home page. Baker has done this as well at many of his other sites. Baker has also removed any mention of Kevin’s new, legal name from the posts. Now you will only find the felon and plagiarist “Kevin Kuritzky”, who no longer exists.
However, the most notable and obvious example of Baker removing the defamation of Kevin is at a website called Propagandists.org. This site once included 5 “propagandists”. If you go to the main page and hover over the tile “The Propagandists” you will get a drop down menu that includes the name of Kevin Kuritzky. And as I wrote about on July 21, 2014 you will see that I discussed the inclusion of Mr. Kuritzky. However, now that Kuritzky has “voluntarily” supplied an affidavit for Baker in his current suit against Dr. Murtagh, you will no longer find Kevin included on that list nor will you find his picture which was once there. As a matter of fact, if you click on Kevin’s name, you will get a 404 Error Page Not Found. BTW I have kept a screen shot showing the drop down menu contains Kevin’s name.
Also, and in a tie for most obvious example of Baker’s quid pro quo is that Baker has now blurred or pixelated the images of Kevin in the mug shots and news articles describing Kevin’s trouble with the law on Baker’s sites. Let me just say as an aside that it is contemptible and disgusting that Baker ever posted those in the first place. Such behavior shows that Mr. Baker was doing everything he could to humiliate Kevin.
Lastly, and perhaps most notably, there are potentially 750,000 more reasons for Kevin to “volunteer” this affidavit: Baker filed a civil suit against Kevin after he finally found his identity and location. In the second suit against Kevin, Baker demands damages “in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $750,000”, as well as attorney fees and punitive damages.
One can be relatively certain that this threat was looming large in Kevin’s mind although Baker knew he could never collect. Baker says as much in his February 2014 declaration paragraph 46, in his Federal suit against me:
Although I tracked a link to Kuritzky’s Comcast IP address, it wasn’t until August 2012 that the state court in Boston issued a subpoena in one week that the federal court had delayed for eight months. I hired two law firms – one in New York and the other in Boston – to identify and prosecute my civil complaint against Kuritzky in federal and state court. Kuritzky was served in March 2013 and never responded. My attorneys filed for default judgment in September 2013 and, as of the date of this declaration, the federal court has not yet responded to our motion for default judgment. Despite the fact that Kuritzky paid $150,000 in cash to avoid his five-year sentence in Fulton County, Georgia, it is unlikely that I will ever recover from the injuries and costs of my defamation claim against him. (emphasis mine)
4. Baker’s behavior toward Kevin over the last five or six years (see all the examples above) clearly show a man for whom Baker considers to be contemptible, dishonest and untrustworthy to say the least. How can anyone believe that Baker and Kuritzky have now come forward as a united front? And what judge or jury is ever going to believe this scenario?
There is definitely something untoward going on here. Mr. Baker does not seem like the type to spend years of his time, energy and a huge sum of money tracking down Kevin Kuritzky only to wind up sweet talking him into helping out his new buddy. The facts only add up in Mr. Baker’s fantasy world where he is the victim and vast numbers of people and organizations are conspiring against him. Although none of Mr. Baker’s court documents tells the story from both sides, he gives just as good as he gets.
Baker has created a no-win situation for himself and yet now he expects others to forget the past (which he has attempted to scrub) and come along on a new adventure. But I guess anyone who believes that his “work” is so important that it poses a threat to the NIH, the CDC, the WHO, the UN and many governments and that Murtagh, Kuritizky and myself are the puppets on the front lines, then I guess he will believe anything. The real problem, however, is getting rational people to believe it as well.