Last week I wrote about a case that perfectly fulfilled the Mission Statement of OMSJ:
· To protect and defend the victims and witnesses of medical and scientific corruption
I will not re-hash that story or the (lack of) involvement by OMSJ. You can click the link above for the original story with update and here for the follow-up.
Now I have found another case that would also fulfill the mission statement of OMSJ. But just like the Bobby Russell case, OMSJ is not involved. I discovered the case of Noreen Gray-Martin in the comment section at ReThinking AIDS facebook page discussing the Bobby Russell case. The Gray-Martin case is about using the Electron Microscope as a diagnostic tool for HIV. (all comments are copy/pasted verbatim)
The truth is the Electron Microscope is not a proper tool for diagnosis of HIV. When I wrote this discussion of the dreadful EM research paper by Andrew Maniotis, I asked a PhD Scholar with the California Institute of Technology, Division of Biology to explain why EM was not used as a diagnostic tool for HIV. Here is that response:
Historically, electron microscopy has served as an effective method to identify viral agents of infection. However, the use of electron microscopy as a diagnostic tool is limited by its requirement for a high concentration of particles in the clinical sample. The limit of detection for diagnosis of a virus by electron microscopy is widely accepted as 10^6 -10^8 particles/ml.1 For HIV-1 patients, a “high” viral load may range from 10^4 – 10^6 HIV RNA copies/ml. Because each HIV particle carries 2 copies of the viral genome, 1×10^6 copies/ml would translate to 5×10^5 particles/ml, placing, in many instances, the positive detection of virus outside of the detection limit of electron microscopy. Another consideration is that although HIV can be transmitted through blood and blood products, the viral burden in an infected individual is found primarily in the lymphatic tissue, not in the blood (HIV in the blood may represent just 2% of the total viral burden). Finally, the detection of HIV in blood by electron microscopy may be further complicated by the structural pleomorphism the virus displays.
- Hazelton and Gelderblom Emerg Infect Dis. Mar 2003; 9(3): 294–303
- Courtney V. Fletcher, Kathryn Staskus, etal January 27, 2014, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1318249111
An actual expert gives several excellent reasons (and footnotes) why EM is not a proper diagnostic tool for HIV. Unfortunately, Mr. Baker’s opinion is more important to the AIDS Dissidents than real experts with years of study as well as hands-on research experience. Make no mistake about it; the false idea that EM can be used to diagnose HIV is a direct result of Mr. Baker’s words and actions.
Mr. Baker attempted to introduce EM in the case of Nushawn Williams as well as in a military case of “GBA”. Unfortunately for Mr. Baker, the prosecuting attorney in the military case challenged the laboratory being used and thus the validity of the results and got the EM thrown out. And the jury in the Nushawn Williams case just did not buy it. But none of that has an impact on Baker’s fans.
Mr. Baker has even taken it upon himself to claim that EM is the gold standard of HIV testing despite having done no research or published in any peer reviewed journals to substantiate his claim:
OMSJ experts contend that, as the “gold standard,” EM is the only reliable method that can identify the presence of the virus.
Mr. Baker has ventured beyond the confines of his own website to reach his supporters. He has gone straight to where he knows he can influence the greatest numbers: ReThinking AIDS facebook page. (emphasis mine)