HIV Innocence Group Truth

I love when Mr. Baker gets on a roll at one of his websites or on facebook or in the comment section of an article or website discussing HIV. This time Mr. Baker has outdone himself and given me an early Christmas present straight from the arms of baby Jesus. On December 12th Mr. Baker left a string of comments at this military website discussing the case of Sgt David Gutierrez that lead the moderator to close the comments because they were so wildly off-topic.

Mr. Baker goes through the same, old, tired litany of conspiracy drivel that has become a staple of his rhetoric. I will not enumerate them here as you can read them for yourself at the link. However, I found several places where Mr. Baker proves that he is not an objective, unbiased investigator but has an ingrained theory that completely ignores the established science. Most importantly I found several specific statements where he not only contradicts himself in a big way, but he also exposes his extreme bias and therefore his hypocrisy. These contradictions clearly highlight that Mr. Baker has an agenda to perpetuate his AIDS Denial via the court system.

In his first comment at 1:16 pm, Baker writes these two statements:

“In the numerous military cases that the Office of Medical & Scientific Justice (OMSJ) has assisted in, we found that NONE of the accused HIV+ servicemembers were ever competently tested or diagnosed for HIV.”

&

“In the numerous cases where OMSJ examined the blood of these servicemembers, OMSJ found no evidence of clinical symptoms (in their medical record) or HIV in their blood.”

Then at 7:39 pm Mr. Baker gives this answer to another commenter who asks what tests should be used to detect HIV:

“With regard to what test a real investigator would approve to detect HIV, that doesn’t exist because the first proof doesn’t exist.”

That is what Oprah would call and Ah Ha moment. It is no wonder then that Baker and his “experts” with OMSJ and the HIV Innocence Group always come to the same conclusion with each and every examination of a client’s medical records. It should also be noted that Baker says “…OMSJ examined the blood of these servicemembers…”  I for one would love to know how Baker examined this blood and where the results are. Perhaps we get a glimpse of this in his next comment.

At 8:14 pm Mr. Baker further contradicts himself as well as opening the door for many more questions:

“Several years ago, OMSJ conducted a series of experiments using blood and cultured HIV.  We drew samples of my blood, spun it, and spiked it with the cultured HIV, which was easily found by using electron microscopy (EM).”

Now Mr. Baker is claiming that he has worked with “cultured HIV” and yet there are no tests for HIV because there is no proof that HIV exists. It all so convoluted, contradictory and ridiculous. But let’s look a little further at Baker’s statement regarding these supposed tests with cultured HIV:

“We then drew samples of blood from allegedly HIV+ patients, sending 5ml for viral load testing and the rest for EM.  We found that – even with viral loads of 3 million per ml – there was no evidence of HIV in the blood…using PCR.”

Now Mr. Baker says that PCR is an acceptable testing methodology for HIV whereas above he says that no tests are adequate to test for HIV because there is no proof that HIV exists. OH, but Baker does say he has seen HIV with an Electron Microscope and he has worked with cultured HIV…and yet HIV has never been proven to exist! This clearly demonstrates that Mr. Baker will say whatever he wants in any situation no matter how contradictory it is.

I will not attempt to deconstruct all of his comments as there are just too many things that meander aimlessly. But you really should do yourself a favor and read his analogy of HIV testing to a cop and a drunk driver. It’s priceless.

Let me just leave you with one thought that shows just how ridiculous and contradictory Baker can be. Baker has some harsh words for virologists at the end of his 1:16 comment:

“But when Americans are finally aware of the facts regarding HIV, HEP C, Ebola, H1N1, and other gov’t/pharmaceutical marketing schemes, virologists will find their rightful place in fading strip mall storefronts, between the astrologers and palm readers.” emphasis mine

But then Baker ends his entire three comment diatribe with a quote from the Father of Virology, implicitly calling him a “reputable man”.

Let me start this post by saying that Clark Baker may very well deserve the credit for getting this appeal off the ground. When Gutierrez was originally tried, Baker offered his “expert services” to Defense Attorney Aaron Maness. Maness turned down Baker because he did not agree with Baker’s anti-science strategy. Baker’s dainty feelings got butt-hurt and he cried ineffective counsel. However, this military document clearly shows that charge was false and the appeal did not proceed on Baker’s false allegations.

“The record clearly rebuts the appellant’s claim that his trial attorneys proceeded without expert assistance. The convening authority appointed an HIV expert to assist the trial defense team, and the expert actively participated in pretrial interviews of the Government’s expert who, as a result of challenges by the defense expert, modified her opinions concerning the likelihood of transmission during various forms of sexual activity in favor of the appellant. A voucher shows payment to the named defense consultant for over 16 hours of consultation and records review. The specific error claimed by the appellant that his trial attorneys proceeded without expert assistance is simply incorrect. Rather, the appellant’s argument is essentially a request to try the case again with a different expert. Having considered the record of trial and the post-trial submissions of counsel, we find that the appellant has failed to meet his burden of showing that his counsel  were in any way deficient under the standards of Strickland.”

No matter how this appeal happened, one thing is certain: The appeal is going forward based solidly on the current, orthodox science despite Mr. Baker’s claims:

Clark Baker London’s Daily Mail has a fair report about OMSJ’s appeal for USAF Sergeant David Gutierrez in Washington DC. I’m leaving for DC in three hours. The case could change military law and end the practice of charging people like Gutierrez who aren’t infected at all. Our examination of the evidence showed that he was never infected at all. Our examination of the evidence showed that he was never infected, but that his doctor received $2.9 million from the makers of drugs he was given.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2865033/Military-appeals-court-hear-case-Kansas-airman-exposed-multiple-sex-partners-HIV-swinger-parties.html

Is anyone surprised with Baker’s claim that Gutierrez was not infected at all based on OMSJ “review of the evidence”? Mr. Baker has steadfastly claimed that out of all the cases (real or imagined) he has been involved with, not one, single, solitary time has OMSJ ever found evidence that any of those clients was actually HIV+. Shocker! Mr. Baker just makes a fool out of himself with such statements. For this to be a significant revelation Mr. Baker would have to be a non-partisan, unbiased and objective investigator. Mr. Baker has proven time and again that he is anything but objective and that he has a clear cut agenda to promote his AIDS Denial via the court system. A more accurate analogy would be that Mr. Baker is like a grifter operating a shell game; you know that pea is under the shell no matter how adroit the huckster’s sleight of hand. Baker just further stretches his own credibility when he pretends that anyone is fooled by his supposed objectivity.

But I digress.

The defense of this case is focusing steadfastly on the current, orthodox science. This military trial is not hidden away and we have actual proof in the form of audio. You can go to this military blog to hear the trial audio for yourself.  At no point does the new defense attorney, Kevin McDermott mention anything about Gutierrez not being HIV positive or any of Baker’s other anti-science strategy. To the contrary Mr. Mc Dermott discusses his client’s Viral Load and CD4 counts, thus validating the testing methodologies. McDermott also states that HAART has made HIV a chronic, manageable disease. And much to the chagrin of AIDS Deniers everywhere, McDermott throws his support squarely to Nancy Padian:

“I am NOT here to argue that AIDS is not a potentially deadly and dangerous outcome of sex.”

Again, the defense is laser-focused on the current science. McDermott even begins with a discussion of other diseases and how society and laws have changed as our knowledge of the disease, progression and transmission has advanced. McDermott brings this evolution back around to HIV. I will not go into dissecting the argument. You can listen for yourself and know that if this case is won, it will be because of science, not denial.

However, McDermott does shed light on the only case that Clark Baker claims to have won at trial: Tarence C. Dixon. McDermott clearly says in the court audio that the judge in the first Gutierrez case stated that when a condom was used in previous cases, those charges were dismissed. That would further support my belief, along with other information I have published, that the one and only case that Clark Baker claims to have won, that of Tarence C. Dixon, was because, as stated at trial, Mr. Dixon wore condoms.

Military Courts Are Out of Control Regarding HIV Cases

The most important, dramatic and amazing thing that I discovered because of this case is just how much Military Courts are out of control. This Amicus Brief filed in support of the Gutierrez Case demonstrates just how the Military Courts have grown to ignore their own rules, regulations and laws. This document is a great read and highlights the problems with the Military System and how this case and others are set to change the way these cases are adjudicated in the military: with solid science! I will not deconstruct the issue. The Amicus Brief does a beautiful job of that and I suggest you read it and support getting the justice system back on track, not just in the military, but in civilian courts as well.

I may be responsible for the death of the HIV Innocence Group, but if the Gutierrez Case is overturned on appeal, this will be the nail in the coffin of that dangerous group…and it was done with Orthodox Science. How bittersweet will it be for Clark Baker to have been so vigilant to get this appeal going only for it to end on such a beautiful, scientific note.

Elizabeth Ely has once again made false statements about me. This time she has used her podcasts with David Crowe, episode 92, How Positive Are You? At about the 3 minute mark Ely refers to a comment that I left on episode 71 about the Bobby Russell Case. Even though I only left a link to this blog where I discussed the Russell Case, Ely still characterized that comment as:

• “a really nasty comment”
• “snarky”
• “it was an attack”
• “trashing someone’s lawsuit”

How she got all of that out of a simple link is mystifying, but understanding Ms. Ely’s logic or rationale has never been my strong suit. Once I went back to episode 71 I saw that Ms. Ely had expounded on her false allegations in a big way by leaving a comment of her own. In that comment she accuses me of being “mean-spirited” and “taunting” and “attempting to discourage patients” and “mocking his (Russell’s) quest for justice”.

I am not sure if Ms. Ely just has a reading comprehension problem or if she is intentionally being misleading, but my post on the Bobby Russell Case is not about the merits of the case. I even say so in the post. The clear object of the post is to point out that Clark Baker and OMSJ were not helping in this case despite the fact that the case perfectly fulfills the Mission Statement of OMSJ. I will not re-hash that post here.

I am only writing this post to clear up the false statements Ms. Ely seems to enjoy perpetuating about me. I also would like to say to Ms. Ely that she and Mr. Crowe should have me on their podcast. I would be more than willing to discuss any subject with you and we could clear up any misunderstanding you have. I highly doubt Ms. Ely will take me up on this offer for two reasons:

1. I do not believe she has the courage to lay this all out on the table and take responsibility for her false allegations.
2. I also do not believe she can have a professional and rational discussion with me.

The ball is in your court, Ms. Ely.