Clark Baker Admits Electron Microscopy is NOT the Gold Standard

The fakeruptcy depositions that Clark Baker has been sitting through should be considered the Gold Standard for how to commit perjury. Not only is Mr. Baker misrepresenting the facts, or at least the ones that supposedly don’t elude his recollection, and throwing all his one-time supporters under the bus, he is also making a huge fool out of himself. Once the transcripts are cleared for posting I will have plenty of material that would embarrass Mr. Baker: if he had a shred of integrity, that is. But for now I will give you a little taste.

Mr. Baker has claimed on many occasions that Electron Microscopy is the Gold Standard for HIV and other viruses. Mr. Baker has made that claim in regards to the HIV Innocence Group. He and his co-conspirator David Rasnick in Viral Forensics have made it the anchor of that impotent “business”. In David Rasnick’s White Paper for Viral Forensics he states:

In contrast to these tests, Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) has been the “gold standard” for viral detection and characterization since the 1930s.

The first commercial TEM was not developed until 1939. So Rasnick is not only lying when he says that EM is the gold standard, he is definitely lying when he gives it a definitive time period. But I will not deconstruct that bit of bullshit just yet. Let me first tell you what Mr. Baker said during his deposition:

Page 24 Baker is being asked about EM. Baker had said it was the “gold standard”.

Q: And on what basis do you refer to it as the “gold standard”?

A: A history of virology established a long time ago, long before I was born, that EM is the gold standard.

Baker was born around 1955. EM was first used about 1940 to visualize virus. And it was in 1948 that EM could distinguish features between small pox and chicken pox. And it was 1952 when Polio virus was first seen by EM. So in other words, EM was not the “gold standard” long before Baker was born. Actually, EM is still not considered the gold standard. A fact that Baker finally admits during the deposition by Dr. Murtagh’s brilliant attorney:

Q: What organization has deemed it the gold standard? Yeah, let’s start with that.

A: I–I don’t think any organization deems it the gold standard for diagnostic purposes.

Q: OK, so you’re referring to it as the gold standard for forensic purposes?

A: For our purposes.

Q: And your purposes are forensic purposes?

A: Yes. And to gather evidence for court cases.

Q: And what organization deemed it the gold standard for forensic purposes.

A: Well, so far, none that I — that I know of.

That singular answer, “for our purposes” says it all. And that purpose is just to scam people. They first tried to scam attorneys, judges and juries in HIV criminalization cases. They hoped if they scammed enough people in the court system, that would spill over and influence the general public. They are continuing their public scam with Viral Forensics.

For several years Clark Baker and his co-conspirators have been screaming that Electron Microscopy is the supposed Gold Standard of HIV.

There is only one gold-standard tool used for observing HIV — an electron microscope — but EM is completely off-limits to the public and has never been approved by the FDA to test for HIV.

Side note: What does Baker mean by EM being “completely off-limits to the public…”? Perhaps he is using hyperbole, but it makes absolutely no sense. Most of what Baker writes is just non-sense when you devote even one brain cell to his blatherings. In fact, EM is not off limits to the general public. EM is used in many hospitals for diagnostic purposes in those instances where it is appropriate.

Clark Baker even made EM a lynch pin in the defense of several of his clients with the HIV Innocence Group. Baker wrote the following in a post about the Nushawn Williams Case:

“OMSJ experts contend that, as the ‘gold standard’, EM is the only reliable method that can identify the presence of the virus.”

As I wrote when discussing the Williams Case, Mr. Baker and his so-called experts cannot just arbitrarily bestow EM with the crown of the Gold Standard.

When an adroit attorney challenged his baseless assertions in a military case and got the EM results thrown out, Clark Baker screamed about prosecutorial misconduct. Clark Baker (via OMSJ) even helped to fund an embarrassing “research” paper on EM by Andrew Maniotis. (The previous link does not have the paper, but this is the current working link to that abysmal research paper. Enjoy the crazy.)

That is just a small sampling of the many, many times that Baker and his cronies have made the false and baseless claim that EM is the Gold Standard. Thanks to this deposition Clark Baker has admitted that he and his partners in crime just made it up and acknowledges that no person nor entity ever proved nor even said that Electron Microscope is the Gold Standard for viewing any virus.

Now Clark Baker, David Rasnick, David Steele and David Crowe are once again lying to the general public about EM being the Gold Standard and are charging $1,500.00 for a blood test to challenge a valid diagnosis of HIV, HPV, HCV and other virus for which there are proven treatments. And what could possibly be their motivation for such duplicity? The only end game here is to sew doubt in the minds of people who may have a potentially life threatening virus and get them to stop taking their medication. Hell they did that to Kari Stokely and look how well that turned out for her.

Clark Baker Bites the Hand that Fed Him: No Longer Loyal to Robert Leppo

A little over two months ago I reported that Clark Baker had filed bankruptcy. As I said then, Baker felt this was a smart strategy to stop the impending avalanche of hefty financial judgments against him. Unfortunately for Mr. Baker, this was the worst thing that he could have possibly done. And now Mr. Baker is feeling the pressure.

Last Friday Dr. Murtagh’s attorneys began the first of many depositions against Mr. Baker and many of his cronies. You see, bankruptcy court allows Baker’s creditors much leeway and many options to get to the bottom of this fakeruptcy. Baker has sat through one deposition as the CEO of OMSJ that lasted 8 hours and he is scheduled to sit for another one this Thursday representing himself. Next week Carol Dunn, Baker’s “wife”, will be subjected to the same scenario. It will not be long before Robert Leppo, the multi-millionaire who financed OMSJ to the tune of $1.4 Million dollars since 2009, will be forced to account for his actions. This is just the start of the heat and Baker is feeling it.

Baker testified that he has been forced to retire because Mr. Leppo cut off the money train and Baker appears to be obviously bitter. Baker’s retirement fund is paltry, even by non-LA standards, and Baker is not ready to curb his exuberant lifestyle that was financed by Mr. Leppo. It’s getting ugly and Baker has adjusted his loyalty to cover his own ass.

If you have been even a small part of Baker’s operations you might want to consider coming forward now and save yourself. Contact me via comment (that I will not publish) and I can get you in touch with the winning team. I’m speaking directly to you, Mr. Leppo. Do the right thing and set the record straight.

Viral Forensics White Paper is Not Worth the Paper it is Printed On: Part II in a Series

In this post I am going to examine and deconstruct the White Paper written by David Rasnick to scam potential clients into using explain to potential clients the Electron Microscopy service offered by Viral Forensics (VF).

A white paper is an authoritative report or guide informing readers in a concise manner about a complex issue and presenting the issuing body’s philosophy on the matter. It is meant to help readers understand an issue, solve a problem, or make a decision. The initial British term concerning a type of government-issued document has lately proliferated taking a somewhat new meaning in business, which is closer to a form of marketing presentation, a tool for persuading customers and partners and promoting a product or viewpoint. (all bolding mine)

I have never read a white paper before so I am not sure about the proper format. However, I would assume the paper should appear familiar to the audience to which it is geared. In that respect, Rasnick’s strategy to write his white paper in a format similar to a research paper is brilliant. But Rasnick’s audience is not necessarily scientists, doctors and those in the healthcare industry. That is another reason why Rasnick’s strategy to cloak this non-sense in the format of a research paper is so smart; he is hoping to fool normal people into using this “service” by giving the information the appearance of legitimacy. Unfortunately for Rasnick, his paper falls apart under professional scrutiny.

A hallmark of all scientific research papers is the footnote citation which has several important purposes:

“…to uphold intellectual honesty (or avoiding plagiarism), to attribute prior or unoriginal work and ideas to the correct sources, to allow the reader to determine independently whether the referenced material supports the author’s argument in the claimed way, and to help the reader gauge the strength and validity of the material the author has used.”

Mr. Rasnick liberally peppers his white paper with footnoted citations. However, upon close inspection, all of his citations are woefully deficient. Their deficiency falls into at least one of the following categories:

  • A They are completely untruthful and/or inaccurate.
  • B They do not support the cited statement.
  • C They refer back to another AIDS Denialist.
  • D They are misleading and disingenuous.

To prove these categories, I will provide the statement, the (supposedly) supporting citation and the truth.

Let’s start with the last citation which is both completely untrue as well as misleading (categories A & D). It is the perfect example to prove that the service marketed by Rasnick is bull-pucky.

I. Statement:

Viral Forensics LLC offers the only forensic examination of blood plasma samples to confirm the absence or presence of viral pathogens. Being 100 times more powerful than a conventional light microscope, TEM can make any viral pathogen visible. TEM can easily confirm the presence of HPV (50–60 nm), Epstein–Barr virus (120–180 nm), HIV (100–120 nm), Ebola (700–1400 nm), etc. In light of the shortcomings, abuse, and unreliability of ELISA, WB, PCR, Flow Cytometry, and phylogenetic technologies, forensic TEM is available to physicians and patients to visually confirm the presence or absence of viral pathogens before committing to unnecessary regimens of care and toxic pharmaceutical drugs.12

Citation 12:

Pharmaceutical critics of TEM counter that HIV is not found in blood, which conflicts directly with marketing claims that PCR tests detect viral particles in blood.


Nowhere will you find a legitimate critic make the statement “HIV is not found in blood.”  Quite the contrary. What you will find are statements about the required concentration of HIV that must be present in whole blood. Like this one from the Father of Electron Microscopy, Hans Gelderbloom:

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.

This is the same response I posted in June 2014 when I deconstructed the abysmal Electron Microscope research paper by AIDS Denialst Andrew Maniotis. And yet the AIDS Deniers are still parroting the same “facts” that have been refuted time and again.

II. Statement: (I broke this paragraph down into two parts to deal with each untruth properly.)

While the development of biological testing has made many advances in the detection, diagnosis, and treatment of infectious diseases, FDA package inserts that come with the widely used ELISA, Western Blot (WB), and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests clearly describe the unreliability of such testing.1 (bolding mine)

Further, the use of Flow Cytometry (to count CD4 cells) and phylogenetics (to identify the DNA pedigree of the suspected virus) is still too unreliable for FDA approval.2

Citation 1:

Although polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a reliable technology, its application in the detection of so-called “viral load” of alleged pathogens like HIV has more to do with marketing than science. Comments by PCR inventor Kary Mullis PhD explain further at

Citation 2:

See Nancy Banks MD The Use of Flow Cytometry for CD4+ T Cell Counts in HIV Testing, THE OFFICE OF MEDICAL & SCIENTIFIC JUSTICE (OMSJ), Jan 2012.


Not only is the statement completely untrue, it is also ridiculous. This link to the FDA website has a list of all the FDA approved HIV test kits. All of them describe the tests as being incredibly reliable for both sensitivity and specificity. I should also note that AIDS Denialists claim that the package inserts state they are not approved for the purpose of diagnosis. This is also untrue and each insert clearly states: For in vitro diagnostic use only. AIDS Denialists do not seem to understand the diagnostic algorithm of ELISA + Western Blot which explains the near-perfect degree of both sensitivity and specificity.

Citation 1 fulfills deficiencies B & D. Not only was the quote about PCR viral load being “more marketing than science” never uttered by Kary Mullis, and therefore does not support the statement (B), it is also misleading (D) because, ironically, the rambling statement by Mullis is about his elusive search for that one, sole, singular “scientific reference to support a statement I had just written: ‘HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.'” This is ironic because my entire post right now is about scientific citations to support important statements.

BTW, there is no disease (or any scientific discovery) that has one, singular, definitive research paper that proves it’s existence. NONE! That is NOT how science works. Anything that is proven in science is done so with the Scientific Method which not only requires, but is dependent upon, the validation by other scientists who duplicate and repeat the exact procedure step, by step, by step and come up with the same, exact results!

Citation 2 fulfills deficiency C in that it refers back to the work of another AIDS Denialist. Which AIDS Denialist authored this particular bit of buffoonery is interesting because it was originally attributed to Clark Baker only. After I wrote two separate posts debunking the science, (Part I here and Part II here) Nancy Banks was added as second author. Now, Nancy Banks is listed as the only author. I have no idea why we should accept Nancy Banks as knowledgeable about Flow Cytometry when her education and experience is that of an OB/GYN doctor. There is no citation to show that Dr. Banks has ever used Flow Cytometry herself nor is there any citation showing Dr. Banks’ education in said technology.

III. Statement:

In contrast to these tests, Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) has been the “gold standard” for viral detection and characterization since the 1930s. Unlike the ELISA, WB, and PCR tests, the undirected “open view” of TEM provides the rapid, and objective detection, identification, and quantification of any virus present in a person’s plasma, pustules, sputum, urine, feces, and tissues.


Surprisingly there is NO citation for the above statement which DEMANDS proper citation. Dr. Rasnick can not make such a bold statement about TEM being“the ‘gold standard’ for viral detection and characterization since the 1930s” and expect people to take him at his word.


Actually, EM is quite limited in the identification of virus. It can not identify a virus past the Family level:

“EM, though it may not be able to identify a virus beyond the family level, at least points the way for more specific identification by other methods such as biochemical assays for specific pathogens.”

“Family” is one of the seven designations within the Taxonomy naming system in the Biological Sciences. Here are the designations from broadest to most narrow:

  1. Kingdom
  2. Phylum
  3. Class
  4. Order
  5. Family
  6. Genus
  7. Species

HIV is Classified thusly:

  • Family: Retroviridae
  • Genus: Lentivirus
  • Species: Human Immunodeficiency Virus

So if TEM can only identify down to the Family level and HIV is two levels LOWER, then how can TEM be the “gold standard” of detection?

IV. Statement:

This white paper presents a concise explanation of TEM and its usefulness in verifying the presence of suspected pathogens reported by less accurate technologies. More importantly, we propose the scientifically indisputable and cost-effective solution of employing TEM to confirm the presence or absence of viral pathogens.3

Citation 3:

While this White Paper often uses HIV tests as an example, the same technology and limitations applies in the testing of HPV, HCV, Ebola, and other pathogens.


First of all, Citation 3 is not a citation at all, but a wide-ranging, blanket-definition that shows just how lazy and pathetic the Viral Forensics service is in challenging tried and true diagnostic testing modalities. Also, and this can not be over-stated: Dr. Rasnick never cites nor proves that other “technologies” are “less accurate”.

Secondly, I have already shown the extreme limitations “…of TEM and its usefulness in verifying the presence of suspected pathogens…” by proving that EM is limited to the “Family” level of taxonomy, the Biological Naming System.

Lastly, I have proven that this Viral Forensics White Paper is NOT “the scientifically indisputable and cost-effective solution of employing TEM to confirm the presence or absence of viral pathogens.”

The White Paper of Viral Forensics is so lugubrious and loaded with so much misinformation that this post is already bordering on 2,000 words. I will have to stop for now and finish this post at a later date as Part III.

Jason Alexander Young: Ex-Client of Clark Baker Arrested Again. What is Clark Baker’s Culpability?

I have written two separate posts about the saga of Jason Alexander Young. This will be my third. Mr. Young was the first “client” that Clark Baker attempted to provide proof that his “group” was beneficial in helping. Mr. Young has now been arrested again in Georgia for 7 counts of Reckless Endangerment after spending time in prison in Aiken, SC for the same offense.

My first post was about the original plea deal and was supported by court documents and news articles.

My second post was about my direct correspondence with Mr. Young via email and the telephone after Mr. Young discovered my original post about 3 years after his release. The second post showed just how much Mr. Young believed that Clark Baker’s involvement was crucial in securing his plea deal. In that post I provided Mr. Young’s complete comment to me which spurred my phone conversation with Mr. Young. The complete, unaltered comment is here. (All bolding in mine. All bad grammar and punctuation belong to Mr. Young)

Jason A. Young
Submitted on 2014/08/11 at 6:36 pm

“My name is Jason Young and I am the defendant mentioned in this case. I am sending you this comment while I sit in from of my bank here in Georgia. Not from a prison cell. Now i have made it a point not to look on the Internet since I was released from prison but my new wife text me this link for me to read. I ask you to please remove this page and I will tell you why. You are wrong. I sat in Aiken County Jail for over 10 months, housed in solitary confinement the entire time, only allowed out of my small cell for 1 hour a day all while the courts denied my fast and speedy trial because they said their docket was to full to accommodate. My daughter, who I love with all my heart and have even worked out to me getting for 2 weeks a month with her mother was 6 months old when I was arrested. Her mother is the one who started the investigation because we were fighting over custody. Long story short, I am a Freemason, member of Phi Beta Sigma, spoke at different churches in the area, cub scout leader and coached kids soccor. Even though I was well known in the community I did not take a plea deal of “no contest” to spare anyone embarrassment. My attorney (Aaron Walsh) did not give the affidavits to the prosecution until 3 days before they offered the plea deal. And yes, my attorney told me that I would be home by Christmas. All I thought is that I’m not going into a courtroom and saying that I’m guilty of something I’m not and the paper that my attorney gave me even had a release date of December 12, 2011 if I can remember. Aaron told me that I can fight this once I get out through a PCR. Now being that I have never been in this situation before I believed everything he told me. I should not have become I took the plea as instructed and was not out by Christmas. All and all I only did a year and five months in prison. But when someone is housed in solitary confinement for no reason other then being trained by the military to escape, they would do anything they can to get their lives back. Anything… If it was not for Clark Baker my life would have been over with. I owe everything to him. But to say the solicitor offered the plea to spare the so called victims (none of witch had tested positive) is so wrong. The solicitor has tried a case just like mine 5 years before that and wanted to make a name for herself. She told my daughters mother that they were no interested in a plea deal because I was an animal that should have been stopped. That was told to her 2 weeks before the plea deal. So what is the difference between that moment and the deal???? The affidavits… So please do not sit in the outsiders point of view and act as though you were riding shotgun in the car with me. If anyone knows the truth, I would. So with all due respect sir, you are wrong… And don’t try and judge me due to this so called crime spree when even if someone does have HIV, they are no different then you or I. They are normal people who just want to be treated the same as others. On ALL levels. If they don’t disclose their status to their partner they are ethically wrong. But it has no place in any court room. Just like have hepatitis C is not a crime not to disclose then so should hiv. By allowing this to remain a crime to telling people that they are not personally responsible for their own health. When it’s your responsibility to protect yourself. Not someone else. Thank you for your time and understanding.”

Mr. Young has now been arrested a second time for sleeping with women and not disclosing his HIV Positive status. Less than two weeks before his arrest, Mr. Young left the following comment on my blog:

Jason Young
Submitted on 2015/08/04 at 2:26 pm

“All of this about Clark Baker is a lie. I have been out of jail for a few years and have put my life back together after this ordeal. I have been married now over a year and have a child on the way. Both my wife and child are STILL negative. Clark Baker saved my life. As for the plea. Let someone keep you in solitary confinement for over 10 months, only allowing you an hour a day to take a shower, watch tv, write letters, read letters, use the phone, clean your cell and exercise. Then back in your cell you go. Imagine the only thing you look forward to is meal time. All this after serving your country. You would have taken a plea to if it ment getting out 2 less then 2 months so that you can hold your 1 year old child again. Now i have already spoken to you over the phone about what I went through and what happened. Why you still post things like this about Clark is besides me. Either way, you talk about the truth. Then tell the truth.”

There are many things about these two comments that stand out for me (and I have highlighted them) and show why Mr. Baker has exhibited an undue influence on Mr. Young that may have contributed to Mr. Young’s reckless behavior.

Before Mr. Baker became involved in Mr. Young’s life, Mr. Young understood the ramifications of his behavior. Mr. Young was adhering to his medical treatment regimen. He understood the science and the positive impact on his health. However, after his experience with Clark Baker, Mr. Young stopped believing in the science of HIV and the medication that would save himself, his wife and his unborn child. After Clark Baker’s undue influence, Mr. Young has put himself, his wife, his children and countless women whom he seduced via social media at unnecessary risk. Mr. Young is a grown adult who has lived through this horror before. His own words above tell the real-life truth of the horror he experienced:

  • I sat in Aiken County Jail for over 10 months, housed in solitary confinement the entire time, only allowed out of my small cell for 1 hour a day…
  • Let someone keep you in solitary confinement for over 10 months, only allowing you an hour a day to take a shower, watch tv, write letters, read letters, use the phone, clean your cell and exercise. Then back in your cell you go. Imagine the only thing you look forward to is meal time. All this after serving your country.

Mr. Young has either forgotten or chose to ignore these obscene realities and decided to supplant his real-life experiences with Mr. Baker’s fantasy of lies and bullshit. This denial is the only thing that can explain why Mr. Young has chosen to dive head first into a life of misery and possible death for himself, his wife, his children and the women to whom he has used to his fulfill his own selfish biological urges.

And Mr. Baker’s culpability can not be ignored in any future criminal charges.

Viral Forensics: Another OMSJ Scam Venture – Part I

When I decided to deconstruct Viral Forensics, the latest fraud being perpetrated on the general public by AIDS Denialists Clark Baker and David Rasnick, the hardest part was deciding where to start. Their website offers up a plethora of lies that beg to be corrected. I decided to start with the name:

Viral Forensics; A Private Investigation Agency.

The first part, Viral, is self explanatory. The “service” claims to use Electron Microscopy as a tool to scan whole blood to look for a myriad of different viruses, although it is really just a new, clever way to perpetuate their AIDS Denialist agenda. The second part, Forensics, was puzzling. No where on the website will you find any mention of “solving crimes”, “courts of law” or anything having to do with the legal justice system. Nor does the site say how this “service” could be used in any type of “investigation” whatsoever, despite the fact that the words “Private Investigation Agency” make up 60% of the name. The word “Forensics” in the name of the company is just a clever way to try and avoid California Business and Professions Code Section 1241(b):

1241.  (a) This chapter applies to all clinical laboratories in
California or receiving biological specimens originating in California for the 
purpose of performing a clinical laboratory test or examination, and to all persons
performing clinical laboratory tests or examinations or engaging in clinical 
laboratory practice in California or on biological specimens originating in California,
except as provided in subdivision (b).
   (b) This chapter shall not apply to any of the following clinical
laboratories, or to persons performing clinical laboratory tests or
examinations in any of the following clinical laboratories:
   (1) Those owned and operated by the United States of America, or
any department, agency, or official thereof acting in his or her
official capacity to the extent that the Secretary of the federal
Department of Health and Human Services has modified the application
of CLIA requirements to those laboratories.
   (2) Public health laboratories, as defined in Section 1206.
   (3) Those that perform clinical laboratory tests or examinations
for forensic purposes only.
   (4) Those that perform clinical laboratory tests or examinations
for research and teaching purposes only and do not report or use
patient-specific results for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment
of any disease or impairment of, or for the assessment of the health
of, an individual.
   (5) Those that perform clinical laboratory tests or examinations
certified by the National Institutes on Drug Abuse only for those
certified tests or examinations. However, all other clinical
laboratory tests or examinations conducted by the laboratory are
subject to this chapter.

In other words, Baker and Rasnick are breaking the law trying to avoid the law via strict regulations such as CLIA (Clinical Laboratory Amendments) and CAP (College of American Pathologists) that apply to other labs handling human blood products containing potentially infectious agents. Once again Clark Baker believes that he is above the law. And he is not shy about stating it:

“Because we are not a diagnostic laboratory, Viral Forensics is not subject to the limitations set by the College of American Pathologists (CAP)…”

When they state right on their website that “we are not a diagnostic laboratory…” they are outright lying!

“Has a clinician told you that you are infected with HIV, HPV, Hepatitis C, or other infectious disease?  How certain are you that the diagnosis (bolding mine) was accurate?”

“TEM is the ONLY reliable way to establish whether HIV or other pathogens are present in your blood.”

“Few doctors are aware of these cross-reactions and even fewer rule them out when ordering ELISA, Western Blot, or PCR tests to “diagnose”  (bolding mine) patients.  Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) is the only technology available to visually confirm the presence or absence of pathogens in human blood.   If you have questions about your blood test results, contact Viral Forensics for an optical examination of your blood samples.”

All of those examples prove that their “service” is strictly meant to diagnose…or, in their minds, “correct” a false diagnosis. And when a laboratory blatantly says that they already know the outcome of their tests, you really should see that as a huge red flag that their “services” are not objective. And objectivity is a hallmark of a credible, reliable laboratory.

And their Disclaimer should be another huge, red flag to anyone thinking about utilizing this “service”. The disclaimer proves the hypocrisy and outright bullshit of this joke-of-a-service. At the disclaimer you will find that they bend over backwards to protect themselves from the obvious lies they state as fact on the rest of their website. Their disclaimer is truly a melange of contradictions to behold as well as lifting directly from B&P Code Section 1241(b):

“The medical information on this site and linked websites are provided as an information resource only, and is not to be used or relied on for any diagnostic or treatment purposes. This information is not intended to be patient education, does not create any patient-physician relationship, and should not be used as a substitute for professional diagnosis and treatment.

Please consult your health care provider before making any healthcare decisions or for guidance about a specific medical condition.  Viral Forensics LLC expressly disclaims responsibility, and shall have no liability, for any damages, loss, injury, or liability whatsoever suffered as a result of your reliance on the information contained in this site. Viral Forensics LLC does not endorse specifically any test, treatment, or procedure mentioned on the site.

By visiting this site you agree to the foregoing terms and conditions, which may from time to time be changed or supplemented by Viral Forensics LLC.  If you do not agree to the foregoing terms and conditions, you should not enter this site.”

There are way too many lies and blatant bullshit to devote to one post. My next posts will deal with:

Part II: Viral Forensics’ “white paper”. A white paper is written in the style of a peer reviewed science paper. In actuality, it is nothing more than a marketing ploy. This will be quite delicious to deconstruct.

Part III: Why EM is not an appropriate application for HIV. And don’t be fooled, HIV is really the only virus that Viral Forensics is concerned with.

Part IV: The criminal cases using Electron Microscopy in the defense of HIV+ persons charged with reckless endangerment. These were cases supported by the HIV Innocence Group that has been defunct for 18 months thanks to my meticulous documentation of the lies of said group on this very website. (And why I was sued by Clark Baker in a Texas Federal Court. BTW, I won the case. Oh, yeah, and I won the appeal. And it cost Mr. Baker at least $150K.)

Celia Farber & James Murtagh: The Irony of Common Ground

Celia Farber recently wrote an incredibly moving and poignant essay about the traumas of her childhood that manifested in decades-long deep depression and sleepless nights. If you have not read it, I highly recommend it. Ms. Farber courageously details just how depression and sleeplessness ruined her life for years.

I am not writing this post to discuss the specifics of Ms. Farber’s ordeal, but rather to discuss the vehicles of her salvation: Dr. Brooks and ketamine. Ms. Farber does not specifically say so, but Dr. Brooks must be a sleep specialist. This is ironic because Dr. James Murtagh is also a sleep specialist (as well as Pulmonary Specialist) who sometimes uses ketamine in his sleep practice. Back in 2011 Dr. Murtagh was the director of three sleep labs in Cincinnati until Clark Baker reignited his harassment.

Ms. Farber and Dr. Murtagh have a somewhat confrontational past, to say the least. However, after reading this essay and the horrible ordeal she went through, I wonder how she would feel about Clark Baker’s incessant harassment of Dr. Murtagh’s employment over the past ten years if she knew that Dr. Murtagh could be the vehicle to others’ salvation. I wonder how many people have suffered much the same horrible ordeal as Ms. Farber and have been denied the salvation she received as a direct result of Clark Baker’s harassment. And if Ms. Farber were made aware of this, would she appeal to her friend Clark Baker to finally end his childish behavior and let Dr. Murtagh treat other people like Ms. Farber?

I have often said that those of us engaged in the “debate” regarding the validity of the science of HIV probably have more in common than we would like to acknowledge. This truth was never more evident than by the fact that Jonathan Barnett and I, once long-time bitter rivals, acknowledged our similarities and buried the proverbial hatchet. We have since engaged in many civil discussions about our differences and have even met in person and had a nice lunch.

Now through Ms. Farber’s candid essay we can see that a person she considers to be a bitter rival could have actually helped her many years ago. And now that this truth is being acknowledged publicly on this blog, it would be a nice, humane gesture if Ms. Farber would contact Mr. Baker and ask him to let bygones be bygones and stop his harassment of a man who has the potential to help many people just like her.

Perhaps we can all take a minute to think about the humanity of our rivals before lashing out. Perhaps we can start a new social medium to engage with one another in a thoughtful, rational manner instead of name-calling in a vacuum.

David Crowe is Pimping for Viral Forensics

On August 6th David Crowe started a thread at the ReThinking AIDS facebook page to survey his readers. Mr. Crowe was on a fishing expedition to find out how much money people would pay to have their blood scanned by an Electron Microscope:

Serious question. If you could get a series of electron microscope photos of your blood, with appropriate controls, probably showing you had no virus in your blood, would you pay $1000 plus or minus $500 for the set plus a report? Reply here or privately.

The question by itself is interesting for several reasons:

First, I wonder why Crowe is being so cagey and not coming right out and telling his readers this is for the new Baker/Rasnick joint, Viral Forensics. And why is Crowe limiting his discussion to HIV when Viral Forensics claims to be able to find ANY and ALL virus in blood.

The second thing that comes to mind is why are Baker and Rasnick using Crowe to find out how much to charge for their service? I would think that before they launched their slick website they would have a fully completed and comprehensive business plan. They should have performed their due diligence and should know precisely what their goods and services are worth in the marketplace. The truth is, what they are selling is just another one of Baker’s grifts or scams. Their service is completely useless in the marketplace. I will write more about that later.

Lastly, and most tellingly, Crowe admits this service is rubbish. He writes: “…probably showing you had no virus in your blood…”  Those 9 words prove there is no objectivity in the tests performed at Viral Forensics. Well, those words and the “white paper” found on their website as well as every other tab at the Viral Forensics website, but I will discuss all this in detail in the next week or so.

The responses by the readers of RA are the most interesting. (I will copy/paste the full thread at the bottom.) Most of them are dead set against any testing, EM or otherwise, because for so many years they have been fed the notion that HIV is not real because it has never been properly isolated or purified. And because of this lack of proper isolation, there is no test adequate. And this falsity has been fed to them for 30 years by the very people who are now telling them: “Forget all that; we’ve changed our minds; follow us off this new cliff, but first give us $1,500! I swear this is for real! This is the Gold Standard!”

But David Crowe, being the Persistent Pimp that he is, digs in and tries to sway the minions:

David Crowe This has been used in court before and is compelling evidence that a high viral load does not mean a lot of virus. I’d like people to think about this seriously. And, for people who think that finding nothing means nothing, it is possible to have a control sample using laboratory particles of the right size. If those can be detected it proves that HIV would also be detected if present.
David Crowe If there is a control sample showing particles, and a real sample not showing particles, why would you need multiple samples taken over a period of time?
David Crowe Peter Capainolo, the experience so far is that particles of the HIV size and shape cannot be detected in fresh blood, but can be detected when blood is spiked with particles of the expected size and shape, meaning that the techniques are not missing them.
David Crowe Richard Jannaccio the spiked particles are spiked in particles per unit volume. And viral load is also an estimate of particles per ml.
David Crowe Ted Stearn, proving that the particles are HIV is not important … if no such particles are found. If particles were found (which we don’t believe is ever the case in fresh blood, as opposed to cell culture) then the question is … what are they?

What is truly hilarious to me is seeing just how wildly off topic the comments became. They were discussing anal sex and lubes versus vaginal sex; Darwin and evolution; the words pee-pee, poo-poo and vomit are included…why? I can’t answer that; and of course, Cal Crilly Silly Willy showed up to include the “fact” that no one knows what is in human blood. And all the while our Persistent Pimp was futilely trying to keep the discussion on topic.

BTW, only one person said they would pay for this “service”.

As I wrote above, I will be writing a comprehensive post about why Viral Forensics is a scam and a fraud in the next week or so. But for now, enjoy the entertaining thread on the subject courtesy of ReThinking AIDS facebook.

Serious question. If you could get a series of electron microscope photos of your blood, with appropriate controls, probably showing you had no virus in your blood, would you pay $1000 plus or minus $500 for the set plus a report? Reply here or privately.

  • Mário Évora $1000?! 🙉🙊🙈
  • Richard Jannaccio I wouldn’t pay more than zero cents because such electron micrographs alone would conclusively prove zero.
  • David Etheredge I agree that it would prove nothing except that the virus was not present in that sample. It is highly likely, considering the difficulty that they have in producing electron micrographs of the virus. that it would even show up in 1 out of 1000 attempts. A better test would be to take the blood and apply it to a culture of CD-4 cells and see if they become infected.
  • Beldeu Singh Pls check out my new publication on ResearchGate on glycoproteins including p24.
  • Nilo De Roock Is that a freely accessible publication Beldeu Singh? If so, then provide a link.
  • Nikki Keersemaker yes!! It would be worth it to have a definitive result…even to check for a full spectrum of pathogens.I also wish the SNP chip DNA workup would become affordable to all…already widely used to check Equines why not humans?
  • Beldeu Singh Nilo, it’s on my Facebook. One more paper coming up within the week.
  • Eduardo Mateo Interesting… How would it help those who already don’t believe in the virus? More peace of mind? Legally? Would it override the other “tests”?
  • George C. O’Connor I would first have to be shown the indisputable dynamics by which this ever-mutating virus caused a pathological deficiency in my “immune system”. No one knows how many biologically inactive viruses have “infected” their CD4 cells with no ill effects.
    Once it was finally demonstrated how “HIV infection = CD4 rapid depletion” or “future rapid CD4 depletion” I would happily talk high prices to determine its presence.

    *However*, although this may seem counterintuitive to many if not most, I would not then, if found to be indisputably “infected with a ‘Human Immunodeficiency Virus'” decide upon which anti-retroviral combination would best suit me. That’s inviting disaster. A continuum of toxic chemicals? That’s not even done with anti-neoplastic chemotherapy with cancer! It’s not done with antibiotics used for a multiplicity of bacterial infections!

    But today we’re so goddamn stupid, crazy and, quite likely true for some, murderous that little trouble is found with “PrEP (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis”) and that little trouble that is voiced is from those whose concern is that “safe sex” might be abandonned because of “overconfidence” with it and a rise in the “rate of infection with ‘HIV’ would be the result.

  • Peter Capainolo Use sera from hundreds of critters across taxa. I hypothesize that particles would be found that could be deemed “HIV”.
  • David Crowe This has been used in court before and is compelling evidence that a high viral load does not mean a lot of virus. I’d like people to think about this seriously. And, for people who think that finding nothing means nothing, it is possible to have a control sample using laboratory particles of the right size. If those can be detected it proves that HIV would also be detected if present.
  • Beldeu Singh David, they use PCR for measuring viral loads but the developer of this technology has clarified that it cannot be used to quantify viral loads. And, yes, researchers with integrity in science use the terminology HIV virus particles.
  • Jim Clayson If I was diagnosed hiv+ and you took out the ‘probably’ disclaimer, yes… definitely. I might even agree, with the disclaimer… depends on my finances at the time.
  • David Crowe Peter Capainolo, could you elaborate on your hypothesis, I’m not sure I understand.
  • Yvonne Bonde I think it takes many samples taken at different times over years to make a point. I don’t have 15k
  • David Crowe If there is a control sample showing particles, and a real sample not showing particles, why would you need multiple samples taken over a period of time?
  • Les Bell David, I would pay it, however the UK Courts refuse to acknowledge the validity of E.M. test results.
  • Peter Capainolo I mean simply that particles are present in the blood of all vertebrates at various levels and at various times. They are not “HIV” but some are likely close enough in their morphology to the “established” identification of “the probable cause of AIDS”. I suggest that this might skew results.
  • Yvonne Bonde Les Bell they don’t? Is there a link to the case?
  • Jesus Alvarez Peter Capainolo, all vertebrates have endogenous retroviruses, but none of them are very similar to the lentiviruses. In EM, the lentiviruses have a cone shaped core in the mature particles. Immature lentiviral particles look like all other retroviruses. Serology, or sequencing the genomes (or a part of them) in the particles is the way to determine exactly what they are.
  • David Crowe Peter Capainolo, the experience so far is that particles of the HIV size and shape cannot be detected in fresh blood, but can be detected when blood is spiked with particles of the expected size and shape, meaning that the techniques are not missing them.
  • David Crowe Les Bell, I’d also be very interested in info on the UK courts. Is this an absolute prohibition? One case? The background is very important.
  • Richard Jannaccio David Crowe, to equalize the probability of finding the alleged HIV, you would have to have the same concentration of particles in the control as the “HIV”– and how would you measure the concentration of a virus that you can’t even find to verify its existence? The particles should also have properties that convey similar visibility under the EM. Second, asGeorge C. O’Connor stated, you’d have to show that this “HIV” lived up to its name and really does cause Human Immunodeficiency. Third, all of the dynamics would be different if HIV was shown to be endogenous and/or non-transmissible. So you’d also have to prove that the HIV was exogenous and transmissible.
    I think the price tag just soared.
  • Eduardo Mateo Vitamin C “can suppress the symptoms of the disease and can markedly reduce the tendency for secondary infections”. What the hell is the “disease”? AIDS? Then what are the secondary infections? Crazy. AIDS is not a disease. “HIV infection” is not a disease either. WTF. There seems to be an obsession out there with disease and cures. The healthiest people I have known never took anything at all.
  • David Crowe Richard Jannaccio the spiked particles are spiked in particles per unit volume. And viral load is also an estimate of particles per ml.
  • George C. O’Connor Constantine Makaveli Maniatis, Given your description of the results of infection with “HIV” and such a low, if not incidental frequency of transmission the designation, “Human Immunodeficiency Virus” is entirely unwarranted and for it to be thought the pivotal causal in a “worldwide epidemic (“pandemic?”) of immuno-compromise” resulting in such an extraordinarily wide and diverse number of diseases makes it more absurd.
    It’s as if one said, “immunodeficiency from a variety of causes is a necessary condition for HIV to cause this pathological state known as “Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, the acronym for which is ‘A.I.D.S.’.”
    Jesus Alvarez, I have no idea what you are trying to say about the morphology of lentiviruses especially since all retroviruses are lentiviruses (slow viruses — Latin, “lentis” for “slow” + “virus”). It just lacks all definition.
  • Richard Jannaccio Viral load is not an estimate of particles in blood, which is what the original post says will be examined by EM.
  • Peter Capainolo 1.”Immature lentiviral particles look like all other retroviruses” seems like a major problem to me. 2. I have my doubts about sequencing genomes. Lots of manipulation involved with primers etc.
  • Eduardo Mateo I wonder why is insertive penile vaginal intercourse 4 and insertive anal is 11??? Must be because asses are tighter? haha.. Throwing semen? I never heard of that sexual practice.
  • Peter Capainolo “HIV virus” lest we forget.
  • Eduardo Mateo They sure have come a long way, from a mere guess that the “virus”was sexually transmitted to such an exact level of transmission by various sexual procedures. Ha! I wonder when for the first time it was “proved” that it was sexually transmitted, but why do they not call it an STI?
  • Eduardo Mateo Or the sexual transmission aspect of it is like Karri Mullis looking for the paper that proves that HIV causes AIDS…. right? Nobody wants that credit on their shoulders. It’s all such a mystery…. everybody knows everything but nobody knows who proved that.. like a rumor or a gossip gone viral…
  • Peter Capainolo “Gone viral” haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
  • Eduardo Mateo And Constantine, I was asking about insertive, not receptive….
  • Peter Capainolo Yes, everyone became a fucking expert overnight. High School guidance counselors, coaches etc. Just change the sign on the door.
  • Peter Capainolo Ummmm no, then you would need a tear on the pecker no?
  • Eduardo Mateo So.. Constantine Makaveli Maniatis.. You do believe in all this science that many of us call garbage ?
  • Peter Capainolo Of course Eduardo Mateo. Science must have determined that insertive and receptive are the same thing.
  • Eduardo Mateo So if I penetrate the same woman anally I have four timesmore chances to get the virus because it only has one layer? What about all the fluids from the vagina? I suppose it is a lot easier to accept and find explanations for everything we are told as opposed to questioning anything.
  • Eduardo Mateo Or perhaps the lubricating fluids in the vagina can’t carry the virus. Just like saliva, yet there’s the oral swab tests. We’re just supposed to believe all the nonsense they throw our way ! Most likely these statistics from the CDC are based on answers to surveys lol. Science.
  • Peter Capainolo Fluids, fluids and more fluids!
  • George C. O’Connor Constantine Makaveli Maniatis, The unanswered question remains: How did a *biologically inactive* retrovirus whose existence remains to be established, abruptly begin to infect males anally and in such impossibly large titres? We only know “it” by the antibody test which is so unreliable it can’t be trusted to measure anything.
  • Peter Capainolo How about tears, pee pee and poo poo itself? Don’t forget sweat. What about pre-ejaculate? Is vomit involved? Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
  • Peter Capainolo The hypothesis of Evolution answers all of that George C. O’Connorr. Chance mutation and natural selection of course. And a lot of mathematical improbability. It just “is”.
  • Peter Capainolo Long live the Messiah Charles Darwin.
  • Peter Capainolo It’s a fucking religion.
  • Les Bell Yvonne Bonde and David Crowe the NHS refuse to carry out EM tests so any “specialist Consultant” would testify that the use of such would be futile for use as evidence of presence/absence. All part of the Orthodox view which will also be carried by the Judge – they are unlikely to do anything but take a fellow professional at their word. Sadly. To date, I don’t believe anybody has challenged any of the flaws in the testing procedure/test kit disclaimers in a UK Court. All cases to date have been lost by the prosecution on a legal technicality only. OMSJ were paused to fight in a UK Court on behalf of a chap called Henry using all of their evidence & knowledge but unfortunately he died due to the stress of it all.
  • Ted Stearn I wonder how anyone would or would not know that the particles are HIV. I guess I don’t know enough about it. I thought that was never established, visually.
  • George C. O’Connor It never was, Ted. But hell knows what is used in “HIV studies” for specific isolates every time we hear of “a leap in progress” fed to the media to justify “further studies in this area are promising for possible newer, more effective drugs and possible vaccines in the fight to control or even cure ‘HIV/AIDS’!” (Always note the *spelling*, “HIV/AIDS”, it was intended to be *spelled* [?] that way for conceptual confusion.)
    Need I really point out why “HIV/AIDS news” is put before the public as if “HIV” could be retrieved and counted as though it were a little bug you could see under a 1600x, $500, $600 student-hobbyist microscope?
  • David Crowe Ted Stearn, proving that the particles are HIV is not important … if no such particles are found. If particles were found (which we don’t believe is ever the case in fresh blood, as opposed to cell culture) then the question is … what are they?
  • Les Bell Following on from this post, I have just formally requested an Electron Microscope test by the UK NHS. (5th request now) Previous requests were refused by the clinic giving the reason “We just never have a need for it but as you have an undetectable viral load, it would be pointless anyway” (I was on meds then but not now) Reading between the lines that tells me they know it would read negative. Anyway, I have resent the demand to the NHS’ Solicitor as all communication from me now is answered by their lawyers. On a separate note, the NHS & their lawyers were unable to find or supply me with a test kit disclaimer when I formally requested it – even keeping me waiting 9 months to then say “we don’t have any”. The bastards know exactly what we know!