HIV Innocence Group Truth

We all know Celia Farber as the emotionally high-strung but lovable AIDS Denialist. As with most AIDS Deniers Ms. Farber is drawn to conspiracy theories. For quite some time she has been promoting the scientifically disproved “Vaccines Cause Autism” gambit. And now with the Measles outbreak at Disneyland, she is vehemently and angrily declaring that measles does not kill. She has even gone to the extreme of picking fights with her own facebook friends. Unfortunately Ms. Farber is just flat wrong. She has Cherry Picked her data.

Below I have done a copy/paste from one of the many facebook posts where Ms. Farber goes off the rails about this subject. The post I chose is an article about Melinda Gates defending the measles vaccine. Ms. Farber says such things as:

“Why does she speak of measles deaths when there are no deaths from measles?”

“Please will you tell me on what data you base your assumption that measles is fatal, either usually or ever?”

“I was asking if you are willing to look at data with me. i.e., for example, the stark contrast between measles danger and that depicted in the media.”

And my personal favorite:

“My training is in reviewing and assessing the weight and veracity of information, in many forms.”

The Data

Even though at one point Ms. Farber does mention the “dangers” of the measles, she is mostly focused on deaths. And not all deaths around the world from measles. No, that would put a damper on her righteous indignation. Ms. Farber only seems to care about deaths in America. Her data is carefully selected from the CDC MMWR which she limits to the first 8 months of 2013 and the first 5 months of 2014 when there were no deaths reported. Well, that settles it! Measles does not kill. Oh, wait, that is not completely true. Ms. Farber must have over looked this information from the CDC as well:

• Death from measles was reported in approximately 0.2% of the cases in the United States from 1985 through 1992.
• Since 1995, an average of 1 measles-related death per year has been reported.

Who really cares if only one person dies a year? That is pretty insignificant. Unless, of course, it is your child or loved one. Oh, but wait again. There are people outside of the U.S. aren’t there? What does the World Health Organization have to say about Measles Related Deaths?

Key facts

• Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.
• In 2013, there were 145 700 measles deaths globally – about 400 deaths every day or 16 deaths every hour.
• Measles vaccination resulted in a 75% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2013 worldwide.
• In 2013, about 84% of the world’s children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 73% in 2000.
• During 2000-2013, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 15.6 million deaths making measles vaccine one of the best buys in public health

How do you like that? Measles does indeed kill! Celia Farber is wrong. But why are there so few deaths in America? Well, it wasn’t always that way. It seems those pesky vaccines that Ms. Farber hates so much are the culprits that stopped U.S. deaths:

In the decade before 1963 when a vaccine became available, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years of age. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year. Also each year an estimated 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 4,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles.

The truth is vaccines are good. Ms. Farber is wrong. But why is death the only thing that Ms. Farber seems to care about? The pain and suffering from measles can be horrendous. Pneumonia and encephalitis are no fun. And going blind later in life would suck, too.

For some reason Ms. Farber is anti-science, unless it suits her agenda. She seems to believe one scientist at a time in one field at a time. She did it with Duesberg and HIV and she is doing it again with Andrew Wakefield and vaccines. Forget the fact that Wakefield did one study of about 10 kids as opposed to the many studies done with thousands and thousands of kids that blows Wakefield’s bullshit study to smithereens. No, Ms. Farber loves her martyrs and she will damn well defend them loudly and vehemently no matter how wrong she is. And Ms. Farber has a great track record of being wrong.

Farber Facebook Tirade

Celia Ingrid Farber

January 26 at 11:19pm · 

Why does she speak of measles deaths when there are no deaths from measles?
I posted some stats yesterday. (see below.)

Propaganda depresses me so much, but I don’t know why. Nothing depresses me more, I think. The headline alone is enough to make you want to set your hair on fire.

This is not journalism. I’m not even sure it passes as good propaganda. It’s just watery slime.

http://www.vox.com/…/26/7907…/melinda-gates-measles-vaccines

Melinda Gates has the perfect response to the anti-vaccine movement

Americans have “forgotten what measles deaths look like.”

VOX.COM

Like · Share

·        

Jerry Guern When I traveled would rural Malawi, Tanzania, and Ethiopia ten years ago, it was a fact in minds of every African I talked to that AIDS was created by Western doctors. I didn’t know what to make of that.

Yesterday at 12:08am · Like

·        

Rebecca Romani Weren’t there two deaths here in San Diego?

Yesterday at 1:11am · Like

·        

Laura Seegers What you should make of that is that Africans are not as stupid as they are made out to be.

Yesterday at 1:51am · Like · 4

·        

Jim Te Water Naude What makes anyone think measles is not deadly?

Yesterday at 9:56am · Like

·        

Brandy Wood So the fact that there are hospitalizations is not of any concern? We have to wait for death to be concerned?

Yesterday at 10:19am · Like · 2

·        

Celia Ingrid Farber You guys don’t get what they are doing do you? Jim–what makes anyone think measles is deadly. I am officially offering to have this debate with you, here and now. I posted stats yesterday. Did you see the CDC stats I posted? May I refer you to them? (Scroll down on my page.) Please will you tell me on what data you base your assumption that measles is fatal, either usually or ever?

Yesterday at 11:38am · Edited · Like · 2

·        

Celia Ingrid Farber Brandy Wood: I am reposting data, which I hope you will take a moment to look at. First this:

Perspective on Measles hysteria, which should really be called Anti-Wakefield hysteria:
During the first 8 months of 2013, the CDC reported 159 cases of measles in adults and children, including infants.
There were zero deaths.
From CDC Website:
During January 1–August 24, 2013, a total of 159 cases were reported to CDC from 16 states and New York City (Figure 2). Patients ranged in age from 0 days to 61 years; 18 (11%) were aged <12 months, 40 (25%) were aged 1–4 years, 58 (36%) were aged 5–19 years, and 43 (27%) were aged ≥20 years. Among the 159 cases, 17 (11%) persons required hospitalization, including four patients diagnosed with pneumonia. No deaths were reported.

Yesterday at 11:08am · Edited · Like · 2

·        

Celia Ingrid Farber Brandy Wood and Jim Te Water Naude: In the first five months of 2014, there were 288 cases of measles reported to the CDC, from 18 states, ranging in age from 2 weeks to 65 years. Of those, 15% were hospitalized.
There were no deaths.
From the CDC’s website:
Patients with reported measles cases this year have ranged in age from 2 weeks to 65 years; 18 (6%) were aged <12 months, 48 (17%) were aged 1–4 years, 71 (25%) were aged 5–19 years, and 151 (52%) were aged ≥20 years. Forty-three (15%) were hospitalized, and complications have included pneumonia (five patients), hepatitis (one), pancytopenia (one), and thrombocytopenia (one). No cases of encephalitis and no deaths have been reported.

Yesterday at 11:10am · Like · 2

·        

Celia Ingrid Farber Few hospitalizations (11% and 15%) and no deaths. (IN this slice of time/data.) Brandy, this is a yes or no question: Are the media drumming up a distorted picture of how “terrifying” measles is or are they being good reporters and getting it right? If the former, why? What’s behind it? Do you know anything about the cross-pollination of vaccine manufacturers and the Murdoch Empire’s board of directors? I do.

May I tell you about it?

GSK, manufacturer of MMR vaccine, exerts heavy influence and sits as board members on newspaper that attack Andy Wakefield, that ordered the hit job by Biran Deer. Yes, it’s that blatant.

Are we talking about this now or am I wasting my time? I only engage in conversations where both sides have gloves off and are willing to get into the dirt, with real facts. Not ideological positions.

Yesterday at 11:15am · Like · 1

·        

Brandy Wood I am more interested in the majority of scientific research than I am in ideology, which is why I vaccinate my kids and believe that global warming exists. I can absolutely agree that the tone of this article is preachy and self righteous. And, of course, uncalled for, when you look at the science. 15% hospitalization rate in a country without universal health care is a serious cause for alarm in my book. My kids was constipated and a visit to the ER cost is $2,100. Money we do not have. Not to mention the number of infections which can be picked up during a hospital stay. Melinda Gates existence is based on getting headlines, so I have no doubt that she dramatizes for effect, but it does not diminish the concerns about hospitalizations for me.

Yesterday at 11:43am · Like · 1

·        

Celia Ingrid Farber Who’s talking about Global Warming Brandy? Who asked you not to vaccinate your kids? I was asking if you are willing to look at data with me. i.e., for example, the stark contrast between measles danger and that depicted in the media. I wonder if you have watched any of the video testimonials from thousands of parents whose kids regressed into autism within hours of getting vaccinated. I wonder if you have followed the disappeared CDC whistleblower story, or looked up the correlation between infant vaccinations and “SIDS.” I will keep posting data for you here (data, not opinion) and you can read it if you like. I am not asking to have any emotional discussions. My training is in reviewing and assessing the weight and veracity of information, in many forms.

Yesterday at 11:49am · Like · 1

·        

Jerry Guern Celia, I would certainly like to read more about the vaccine industry / media empire connections, if you have any links. Rebecca, I’d urge you to engage Celia on this topic; she’s tapped into a hell of a lot of important info and perspective that you’re NOT going to see in corporate media.

Yesterday at 11:57am · Like

·        

Celia Ingrid Farber Via a family blog, taken off the internet recently, after it started having too mud of an impact, and over one millions readers.

“AM I SCARED OF A MEASLES OUTBREAK?
No.
I can give my child 9 shots (3 doses of a 3-in-1 shot) for a disease that is not deadly, that a child is more likely to catch if they are vaccinated, that doesn’t offer permanent immunity, and that has high risks associated with the shot including seizures, encephalitis, blood disorders, sensory impairments, learning disabilities, immune system suppression, inflammatory bowel disease, inflammation of the brain, and many other severe allergic reactions.
Nope. I’ll just stick with my anti-vaccination movement label. And head off to Disneyland…”

Yesterday at 12:01pm · Like

It is not surprising that Mr. Baker has such a poor grasp of science. After all, he has no formal training, education or experience in any scientific discipline. However, it is really sad that he also has such a poor grasp of the law. Mr. Baker was with the LAPD for 20 years and has been a Private Investigator for about ten years and he has been working on criminal HIV cases since 2009. It is unforgivable for him to be so wrong on the law.

For example, take a look at this statement he wrote when discussing the Eneydi Torres case:

“Torres was complicated by a competent defense attorney and a recent US Supreme Court ruling that requires prosecutors to prove that HIV tests are reliable and that defendants are actually infected with an infectious disease.” (bolding by Baker)

The SCOTUS ruling Baker links to is that of Melendez-Diaz V. Massachusetts. That ruling is strictly about forensics testing certificates and the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment. It does not address diagnostic testing generally and has absolutely nothing to do with HIV test reliability or infectious disease specifically. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Zip. This resource is specifically dedicated to that case:

The issue presented in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (No. 07–591) was:

Whether a state forensic analyst’s laboratory report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution is ‘testimonial’ evidence subject to the demands of the Confrontation Clause as set forth in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).

Also from that site:

On June 25, 2009, in a 5 to 4 opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court held that certificates of forensic analysis are “testimonial” and “the Sixth Amendment does not permit the prosecution to prove its case via ex parte out-of-court affidavits.” Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 129 S. Ct. 2527, 2542 (2009) (No. 07–591).

Just how it is that Mr. Baker came to such an erroneous conclusion is perplexing to say the least. Unless, of course, this is another example of Mr. Baker saying whatever he wants to say in order to perpetuate his agenda with complete disregard for the facts.

Perhaps this is why Mr. Baker had so many completely wrong opinions during the live blog of the 2011 Andre Davis Case.  During that live blog Mr. Baker continually and erroneously stated that the person(s) who “tested and diagnosed” Andre Davis is/are not in court to testify and therefore Davis can not “confront his accusers”.  He also kept saying that the “persons” (Medical Technologists) who performed the HIV tests at Quest are Davis’ accusers.

The only thing that Baker got right is that it is the 6th Amendment that allows defendants to face their accusers. And in the case of Andre Davis it is the women with whom Mr. Davis slept that are his accusers and those women were in the court to testify and to be cross examined. Yet Mr. Baker continually said it was everyone involved in the testing:

• Unless prosecutors deliver the witnesses who collected, packaged, transported, opened, and tested the biological samples, the evidence is meaningless.
• There is a basic 6th Amendment issue here… defendants have a right to cross-examine their accusers… In this case, his accusers are those who allege he’s infected with HIV.
• The prosecutor had six months to prepare this case…any idea why she couldn’t find the doctor and techs who performed the tests?

Mr. Baker is conflating those who do the testing with those who are the actual accusers and in this case, it is the victims who slept with the defendant. I hate to use the term “victim” but that is the correct word for the women who were subjected to a potentially deadly virus by sleeping with Mr. Davis without the knowledge that Davis was HIV positive. And for Baker to say the defendant is the victim is not just factually wrong, it is morally wrong as well. Whatsmore, we see that Mr. Baker still does not understand the ruling of Melendez-Diaz V. Massachusetts.

But this is not the first nor the last time that Mr. Baker makes such false and improper accusations. Even in the comment section at the military blog about Sgt David Gutierrez last month, Mr. Baker makes similar false and erroneous statements:

In another high profile case in Atlanta this year, doctors all testified that the labs diagnosed our client, while all the Quest and LabCorp officials insisted that the doctors diagnosed him.  The Clayton County jury convicted our client, who was sentenced to ten years in prison – even though the record showed that our asymptomatic client was never diagnosed by anyone.

Here Baker is simply trying to sew doubt where none exists. A laboratory is never and has never been an entity to “diagnose” anyone. Ever. Laboratories, (and in this case, as with all HIV criminal cases, we are talking about diagnostic labs and not forensic labs), are simply the place where the testing is done. It is a doctor who would make the diagnosis. Baker is obviously trying to make some sort of blame-shifting game in an attempt to discredit the lab and the doctors all at once. It is silly and transparent. Also, Baker does not link to any proof of such a silly allegation. Why does Mr. Baker not supply a transcript in the case with the specific section highlighted? After all, Mr. Baker was part of the defense team. He could easily get such proof. Alas, that proof only exists in Baker World.

That is not the only way Mr. Baker tries to discredit the testing process and those involved. Notice how Baker describes them as “unknown and untested third parties”. He did it in the Andre Davis case and he does it again at the military blog regarding Sgt David Gutierrez. It is also another example of Mr. Baker’s extreme hypocrisy I discussed in the previous post. Mr. Baker became indignant that a commenter called him and his co-horts “AIDS Denialists”. Mr. Baker said this statement was meant to “dehumanize” them. Yet Mr. Baker went even further in his later comment about the Medical Technologists who perform the diagnostic tests:

Blood is drawn by unknown people and transported to a testing facility where other lab rats run tests that look for proteins that all of us are born with.

Here Baker not only dehumanizes the Medical Technologists, he calls them rodents. It is silly, I agree. But it is one more great example of his hypocrisy.

That statement also gives us another example of Mr. Baker not understanding science. He says that the HIV tests “look for proteins that all of us are born with.” This is hogwash. It is also a shortened version of what Mr. Baker tried to pull in the comment section of Myles Power’s youtube video part II debunking House of Numbers. In the comments Baker was trolling as “Rick Haines”. (Which is another of example of Baker’s hypocrisy because he accuses those who use “anonymous” and fake names to be part of Big Pharma etc just as he did at the military blog: Anon81 (and associates) make their claims anonymously because, if they did so publicly, we would know that his employers are funded largely by the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry,…) NOTE: Yes, I have two comments by “Rick Haines” that prove he is Baker but they are too long to post here.

Back to the youtube page where Baker, er, I mean “Rick Haines” says:

SNOUT corrects him thusly:

The Snout

This is a military case that was botched for many reasons, not least of which it was one of Clark Baker’s 5 trial losses. Now Lt. Colonel Kenneth Pinkela has a chance to get proper counsel and right this wrong. Please help by signing this petition that has over 40K signatures.