Shilling for Viral Forensics: Elizabeth Ely’s Editorial of Errors

Elizabeth Ely and David Crowe are using their How Positive Are You podcast to shill for Viral Forensics. They are even trying to scam a referral fee for a “service” that does not require a referral. I’ll discuss that in more detail in another post when I deconstruct the actual podcast with David Rasnick.  For this post I want to take a look at a post by Ms. Ely ahead of the actual podcast on the importance of accuracy in testing.

Ms. Ely cleverly called her post an “editorial” which is nothing more than a person’s opinion. However, after crafting a caring, nurturing tone in her opening paragraph, Ms. Ely immediately assumed an air of authority on the subject. This propensity for those lacking in any scientific discipline to assume such authority is both frustrating and humorous to me. Being a trained and certified Medical Laboratory Scientist who actually does diagnostic testing on a daily basis, I find it difficult to imagine the amount of hubris and arrogance Ms. Ely must possess to speak with supposed authority on this subject. After receiving a B.S. in Biology I then spent another year in MT school, 8 to 5 Monday thru Friday. I then spent six months training in an actual hospital laboratory after which I had to pass a very strict test that took several hours. Now I am required to perform 12 hours of continuing education every year to maintain my certification. Ms. Ely calls herself an “Alternative Health Journalist” but her contently page leaves much to be desired in any journalistic field.

Let’s get to Ms. Ely’s actual post. I first want to reiterate something I have discussed many times: In the context of any scientific discussion, citations to supporting evidence, especially in the form of peer reviewed literature, are paramount. I recently documented how Mr. Rasnick’s own White Paper for Viral Forensics is woefully deficient in this area. Ms. Ely’s “editorial” suffers in much the same way; Her citations are simply circular logic that track back to other AIDS denialists’ articles which themselves have no supporting documentation OR her citations prove exactly the opposite of what she is trying to prove.

I. Sciencey-Sounding Shit

“The commercially available tests for “HIV positivity” or “viral load” have never been validated to the presence of live, infectious virus in human blood.”

WOW! That sounds impressive. But when you stop to consider the statement you realize that it is totally lacking in substance. It also makes zero sense. Furthermore, Ms. Ely has no knowledge of how these tests were designed, engineered or validated. To make such a bold statement would require at least a somewhat detailed explanation along with a link to a valid, verifiable source.

Not only is the statement lacking substance, it is also not true. Dr. Peter Duesberg, a once respected virologist and the Father of AIDS Denial has publicly stated that HIV has been isolated and validated by the most rigorous methods modern science has to offer:

HIV exists, and has been properly identified as a unique retrovirus on the grounds that (i) it has been isolated – even from its own virion structure – in the form of an infectious, molecularly cloned HIV DNA that is able to induce the synthesis of a reverse transcriptase containing virion, and (ii) that HIV-specific, viral DNA can be identified only in infected, but not in uninfected human cells. I will base my case for the isolation of HIV on the most rigorous method available to date, ie. molecular cloning of infectious HIV DNA, rather than only on the much less stringent, traditional “rules for isolation of a retrovirus … discussed at the Pasteur Institute, Paris, in 1973” that were stated criteria of isolation in the Continuum”s Missing virus reward (Continuum, 1996) . Indeed I will show that molecular cloning of infectious HIV DNA exceeds the criteria of the old “Pasteur rules”.

Ms. Ely’s next sentence is equally clueless:

“The accepted procedures of microbiology would require culturing cells from live persons and then looking for evidence of “HIV” in them under an electron microscope…”

Again, Ms. Ely is not only wrong on this matter, she offers no source to support her erroneous statement. Furthermore, this “accepted procedure” is not what Viral Forensics offers either. Viral Forensics simply looks at whole blood neither cultured nor amplified.  As I have shown before, Dr. Hans Gelderbloom, the Father of Electron Microscopy has stated that viewing whole blood with EM is not adequate nor sufficient for finding HIV in whole blood:

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.

But who needs to listen to actual experts in their field like Dr. Duesberg or Dr. Gelderbloom when you have an actual Alternative Health Journalist?

II. Commercial Tests are not Sufficient for Diagnosis of HIV

“Further, all commercially available “HIV tests” and “viral load” assays are packaged with warnings that they are not sufficient to diagnose HIV infection or any known disease without also considering clinical symptoms.”  (bolding mine)

Let’s first consider what I put in bold. That is just a silly statement. Testing and symptom presentation go hand-in-hand. A patient that presents with vomiting and chills will get a plethora of tests and questions from the doctor because those symptoms could be a myriad of illnesses. You wouldn’t want to go to an ER with a week long persistent headache and the doctor to immediately schedule a brain surgery. How about a little common sense.

Ms. Ely’s main goal here is simple obfuscation about the reliability of the tests. If you click on the link to the word “warnings” you will be directed to a page with several package inserts for HIV tests. This is a favorite gambit of the AIDS Denialists; create the false illusion that even the test manufacturers admit their tests are fatally flawed.

Let’s discuss a few things about these inserts:

  1. Each insert should be viewed as giving the reader the facts. If you are an AIDS Denialist trying to misinform, you can do as Ms. Ely does and make a blanket statement to obfuscate the truth and mislead and scare the reader. The truth is, the inserts state how the tests should be used; responsibly, taking into account symptoms and advising repeating of positive results and if still positive, further testing with different modalities. In other words, responsibly.
  2. The tests themselves state how highly accurate the tests are. Here is one example from the simplest test on the list: “OraQuick test will produce one false positive result out of about every 5,000 tests in uninfected individuals.”
  3. Not all the tests state they are not intended for diagnosis. The tests for diagnosis state there should be confirmation testing. The tests that explicitly state they are not for diagnosis NOR confirmation are those tests that are strictly for following disease progression and prognosis.

III. The old “cross reactivity” trope

“They (clinicians, doctors, healthcare workers) also never, to our knowledge, warn patients of the cross-reactions documented in mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific papers.”

Again, this is just a scare tactic. In fact, as Ms. Ely admits, these cross-reactions are well documented by a plethora of “mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific papers”. Even the previous link to the package inserts states this on many of those inserts. What Ms. Ely wants the reader to think is that these cross-reactions happen every time and not the rare occurrence that the peer reviewed papers prove them to be. That is also what duplicate testing and confirmation tests are for. No doctor, clinician or health care worker would ever tell a person that their tests are definitive and they should not nor could not seek a second or even third opinion.

IV. The situation is getting worse…NOT!

This is the most ridiculous, misleading and completely false statement Ms. Ely makes:

“The situation may be getting even worse, as the CDC announced in April 2014 that testing is not even required for a diagnosis of “HIV infection.” It is also widely – yet quietly – acknowledged that the Western blot, long used to “verify” an initial ELISA test, is problematic and no longer considered a useful confirmatory test.”

Ms. Ely’s first outrageous statement that “testing is not even required…” is complete non-sense and her link simply circles back to an AIDS Denialist podcast that is not true. Once again Ms. Ely thinks she can get away with making an outrageous statement and not link to a legitimate, verifiable source. As for her next statement that WB “is problematic and no longer considered a useful confirmatory test” is both false and misleading and demands further explanation as well as citations to legitimate, verifiable sources. The truth is, the WB is still used but newer, more appropriate supplemental tests are suggested such as Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests. The fact is, HIV testing is now in it’s Fourth Generation of testing and includes combination Antigen/Antibody tests. Also, each generation of testing is improved upon and HIV testing is definitely some of the most accurate testing there is.

In conclusion, Ms. Ely has no education or experience in this field and her title of “Alternative Health Journalist” is circumspect at best. Furthermore, Ms. Ely has proven over the years that she has chosen to believe that HIV tests are fraudulent and worthless and her only agenda is to deceive the general public based on nothing more than her emotionally informed belief.

Elizabeth Ely Explains the Science used by Viral Forensics, LLC

Nothing makes me happier than when AIDS Denialists discuss science and show just how pathetically ignorant they really are. The latest entry is by Elizabeth Ely at the How Positive Are You? facebook page where she tries to explain to someone the procedure and technology of the latest AIDS Denialist scam, Viral Forensics. I guess that is what she is attempting to do. I don’t have the ability to translate her rambling non-sense.

Elizabeth Ely Elizabeth Ely It’s a service that leaves the AIDS debate behind. They examine those usual “particles resembling HIV” in a sample done by the usual, contaminating methods. That’s what “HIV” looks like. Then they examine the patient’s blood just as it is, basically. If they find “particles resembling HIV,” okey-dokey. If they don’t, well I guess you’re not “infected.” No matter what kind of “viral load” you just got. 

The discussion came about when Ms. Ely promised a new HPAY? podcast with David Rasnick of Viral Forensics. She promised to post it in the next few days and when she does, I will deconstruct the crazy as best I can. I am giddy with anticipation!

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.)