Jonathan Barnett’s Misplaced Indignation

Posted: March 26, 2012 in Uncategorized
0

Jonathan Barnett’s “Open Letter to ‘Nora’” is rife with problems, errors and lies, not least of which is that it was written from a completely emotional state of mind rather than from an intellectual one. Perhaps Mr. Barnett’s emotional state explains why he got the name of his intended wrong and called her Nora instead of Dora.  More likely, it is a manifestation of Mr. Barnett’s poor attention to detail and amateur writing skills. But that is the least of Mr. Barnett’s errors.

Mr. Barnett immediately begins with an ad hominem attack by insinuating that the letter writers are delirious from their HIV Meds, even going so far as to call them irrational, and worse:
Your latest public attack on a respected and admired researcher is nothing, if not irrational. (snip) …amazingly ill-conceived, malicious and detrimental…
That is not the most professional way to start a letter, especially if you want it to be taken seriously. Also, the vicious characterization of the intent of the letter is nothing more than Mr. Barnett’s opinion. Much later in the letter Mr. Barnett continues with even more attacks:
Who the hell are you to try to intimidate someone…
You are shadowy Internet trolls trying to destroy the reputation and livelihood…
Now it’s time for you and your loathsome compatriots (emphasis mine) to come clean.
This is a personal confrontation between two of us who are affected with HIV/AIDS.*
*Please note the irony here that Mr. Barnett has written this vicious, one-sided attack letter, laced with unsupported ad hominems against “Dora” and has the ego to believe that “Dora” is somehow complicit in a “personal confrontation” with him.
The next paragraph contains two distinct lies on Mr. Barnett’s part.  Mr. Barnett writes:
You have accused Ruggiero of advertising for patients to experiment with his probiotic yogurt, and you have claimed that he is putting people with HIV disease at risk by suggesting they not take their AIDS drugs. You offer no evidence that either of these allegations are true,…
 
In fact, the letter does indeed supply links supporting each of those statements. Perhaps if Mr. Barnett had not been so emotional and angry he may have taken the time to review the eleven supporting links supplied in the paper.
Mr. Barnett, while ignoring the supporting links supplied in the letter, claims he has solid proof that will show Professor Ruggiero has never advertised on the net for patients to take his yogurt and that Ruggiero has never suggested people not take their HIV meds. However, the proof that Mr. Barnett claims to be exculpatory happen to be private emails between himself and Professor Ruggiero.  On the other hand, the evidence supplied by the letter writers, and conveniently ignored by Mr. Barnett, is all disseminated widely to the public via the internet, including Professor Ruggieros own site.
But the real issues in Mr. Barnett’s “Open Letter to Nora” are multi-factorial and have nothing to do with Ruggiero per se.  Partially, this letter is nothing more than a vehicle for Mr. Barnett’s Hero Complex as evidenced by his overzealous righteous indignation. Mr. Barnett has long had a history of irrationally defending those who neither ask for his help nor need it. In fact, Mr. Barnett even admits that Professor Ruggiero does not need his assistance, and yet he cannot seem to help himself.
Mr. Barnett uses the majority of this letter to try and validate his history of aggressive pursuit of mostly tested and completely un-proven treatments.  This letter is a manifestation of Mr. Barnett’s irrational, desperate desire for any treatment, tested or not, for his extremely poor health.  Mr. Barnett provides a laundry list of treatments he has tried:
1.      Oriental Medicine
2.      Acupuncture
3.      High Dose IV Vitamin C
4.      Low Dose Naltrexone
5.      Ultraviolet Blood Irradiation
6.      Supplementation of Glutathione Precursors
Mr. Barnett tries to validate his use of these “experimental protocols” as he calls them, by pontificating that perhaps they are why he has been able to put off ARVs since 2003.  But the real problem is when Mr. Barnett makes the following erroneous statement:
Where are our demands as AIDS activists for research into these alternatives and supportive treatments, in addition (emphasis Barnett) to pharmaceutical research?
The problem here is that most of those listed have been researched and shown to have minimal to zero effect on HIV.  In contrast, however, Professor Ruggiero’s research into MAF314 has had a very, very limited sample size:
And with the addition of a feeling of well being never experienced before. With not a single cold or cough during this past harsh winter? This is exactly what we are observing right now in one (only one, I know) friend in Italy.
WOW! A sample size of ONE!
Even Mr. Barnett’s use of High Dose IV Vitamin C, which he painstakingly documented at his blog, showed absolutely no effect on any viral markers. The only upside Mr. Barnett noted is that he gained more energy for a few days, but even that went away and he was back to sleeping 18 hours a day.  Mr. Barnett even noted that when he compounded the Vitamin C himself, he experienced severe adverse events of uncontrollable shaking for hours, hypothermia and then extreme muscle soreness for several days following. But even this did not stop Mr. Barnett from trying it two more times.
I believe this is the real reason Mr. Barnett has written this letter.  This letter is his attempt to preserve the possibility of acquiring MAF 314.  Mr. Barnett seems downright desperate:
I admit that I would do just about anything to get my hands on MAF 314, and indeed I have tried to do so.
Why a person who is in such poor physical health as Mr. Barnett would be so adamant to waste thousands and thousands of dollars (and even beg for money) for unproven treatments is a psychological question that I am not equipped to answer.  However, no matter what mental health a person is in, it does not give them the right to attack, berate and lie about the motives of others.  Especially when they are simply exercising their freedom and right to hold people such as Professor Ruggiero accountable to the standards of scientific truth they have been entrusted to pass on to their students

Putting My Money Where My Mouth Is

Posted: March 5, 2012 in Uncategorized
0

Below are 7 unsubstantiated claims in Mr. Baker’s most recent blog post, most of which are Mr. Baker’s standard regurgitations.  I am offering a $1,000.00 Award to anyone who can provide proof to validate these and similar claims. I will even pay the money to Mr. Baker himself if he will provide the proof I have been asking him for the past two years.

1.      This week, prosecutors dismissed charges against Joseph D. Thomas, who was accused of unlawfully exposing a former girlfriend to HIV.  When OMSJ produced evidence that the defendant’s doctors were incompetent, (emphasis mine) his case became OMSJ’s 39th victory in less than three years. 
2.      Since 2009, OMSJ’s HIV Innocence Group has saved dozens of misdiagnosed HIV patients like Thomas from prison sentences that can extend to decades. 
3.      OMSJ’s now-routine impeachment of “HIV experts”…(emphasis mine)
4.      Because few general practitioners understand the alchemy of HIV and AIDS, they typically refer patients to “HIV experts” like those routinely discredited by OMSJ in criminal and civil court. (emphasis mine)
5.      As OMSJ’s attorneys now routinely expose dangerously incompetent clinicians during criminal trials…(emphasis mine)
6.      Unless challenged by OMSJ’s legal, medical, scientific and investigative team, defendants have little hope to avoid a wrongful conviction.
7.      Just as OMSJ’s team now routinely exposes “HIV experts” as incompetent…(emphasis mine)
I would also like to point out that NONE of the 39 cases Mr. Baker lists at his OMSJ site are Civil Cases as he claims in #4 above.  Also, Mr. Baker has only been (supposedly) involved in 2 criminal cases that have gone to trial. In one of those, the Andre Davis Trial, Attorney Baron Coleman, (who actually claims association with Mr. Baker), lost miserably.  And he did not discredit the HIV Expert in that trial. So for Mr. Baker to claim that OMSJ routinely discredits HIV Experts in criminal court is a demonstrable lie by itself.  However, if anyone can provide direct evidence validating Mr. Baker’s other claims, I have cold, hard cash available.
I will also sell my house, both my cars and one kidney and give a $100,000.00 Award to anyone, including Mr. Baker himself, for proof that Humanitarians around the world became interested in HIV Criminalization Cases as a direct result of Mr. Baker’s direct efforts and supposed successes via OMSJ as Mr. Baker recently claimed.

Clark Baker Equates HIV Non Disclosure With Rape

Posted: February 13, 2012 in Uncategorized
0

For someone who constantly brags about their law enforcement background and accomplishments, Mr. Baker is woefully ignorant of actual laws.  During the Andre Davis Trial which was blogged live by wlwt.com journalist Travis Gettys and I wrote about here, Mr. Baker constantly misrepresented the law. For example, Mr. Baker repeatedly said the lab techs that tested Mr. Davis’ blood were the accusers in the trial and should testify so Mr. Davis could confront his accusers.  That is completely false.  Yet that did not stop Mr. Baker from expounding on this misinformation and saying that this violated Mr. Davis’ constitutional rights. Again, that is blatantly false.  The accusers were the women who Mr. Davis potentially infected and they all testified and were subjected to cross examination.

Now Mr. Baker has written a new post at his OMSJ site in which he writes:

The failure to disclose a potentially deadly infection prevents victim from giving consent.  Under most circumstances, non-consensual sex is considered rape. (emphasis Baker)

First let me give Mr. Baker props for admitting that HIV is “a potentially deadly infection”. This is a big step for him and should be commended.  But that does not mean we can give Mr. Baker a pass on his comparison of Non-Disclosure of HIV Status to rape.  HIV Criminalization laws stigmatize and de-humanize those who are HIV positive as it is.  Do we really need to compare them to rapists as well?  Rape connotes anger and violence and therefore denotes HIV+ people as angry and violent.  However, the egregious nature of Mr. Baker’s statement does not end there. Mr. Baker also implies that no one in his or her right mind would ever consent to an intimate physical relationship with an HIV+ person if they themselves were not also HIV+.  This is not only false, but highly offensive.  My last two long term relationships were with HIV= individuals.  Of course I must disclose that I am completely irresistible.

Of course Mr. Baker has an agenda.  He has made it quite public that he supports the belief that HIV is not pathogenic.  But that does not excuse his blatant obfuscation of laws.  Complete mangling of the law is inexcusable especially when a person presents themselves as credible based solely on their investigative experience as Mr. Baker does:

To the issue of credibility, I honorably served as a US Marine and LAPD officer and licensed investigator since 1980.  Despite thousands of criminal, civil and military investigations, I have never been accused of misconduct by any credible source. 

Despite the fact that having been a US Marine is completely irrelevant, that statement is not exactly true.  And if Mr. Baker is so certain of his honor, why supply the caveat “by any credible source”?  We all know that Mr. Baker was charged with Police Brutality and lost the initial case.  The conviction was only overturned on appeal based on a technicality that the District Attorney compared Mr. Baker’s violent attack to the Rodney King beating, potentially biasing the jury.  By that standard it must be noted that the person who originally accused Mr. Baker of misconduct, the jay walker whom Mr. Baker handcuffed, beat, knocked to the ground, kicked in the ribs and dragged ten feet by his pony tail, was never impugned as not being credible.  But hey, let’s ignore this one little bit of memory lapse.  Mr. Baker always does.

If we do accept this statement and consider Mr. Baker as credible and honorable, then Mr. Baker himself must understand why we cannot tolerate his obvious, intentional bastardization of the law.  We must also require Mr. Baker to do more than simply give lip service to all the outlandish statements he makes.  Consider this:

While I know little about microbiology, I know when government officials are lying or obfuscating the truth.

Although I am happy to finally see a semblance of truth from Mr. Baker (regarding his microbiology knowledge) I still cannot simply accept his word that he knows “when government officials are lying”.  Unless, of course, it is because he is such an adroit liar himself then he is certainly an expert. Mr. Baker needs to realize that simply saying something is true does not make it so. He may indeed be able to fool some of his most ardent fellow HIV dissidents regarding his involvement in HIV Criminalization Cases.  But his refusal to supply any evidence only proves him to be a complete fraud to discerning skeptics and will not win him any new fans in the long run.

I acknowledge that Mr. Baker has an agenda and is attempting to use the court system to validate his erroneous beliefs to the world, but disregarding the truth is not the way to do it.

Office of Medical and Scientific Justice: Reach, Impact & Influence

Posted: January 27, 2012 in Uncategorized
0

Clark Baker claims that OMSJ is incredibly important, powerful and influential.  It is so powerful and influential that Mr. Baker recently claimed he and his OMSJ are the sole catalyst for all humanitarians around the world to begin the work of decriminalizing HIV laws.  Because of these immaculate claims, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at just how much traffic he gets at his website and therefore just how much influence this site truly has.

I was amazed to find that the Alexa Ranking for OMSJ.org is quite abysmal indeed.  Mr. Baker’s OMSJ.org site, which includes HIV Innocence Group, has an Alexa Ranking of 1,761,973.  That is terrible.  For a comparison, let’s look at other single blogger sites in the HIV/AIDS realm:

  1.   OMSJ.org = 1,761,973
  2.   HIVSkeptic = 1,054,383
  3.   ResistanceIsFruitful = 853,807
  4.   DenyingAIDS = 780,491 an HIV orthodox site

If you are not familiar with how Alexa ranks websites, let me explain.  It does not merely tally up the number of visits per day, it also relies on the number of “clicks” each visitor makes as well as other sites that link into a particular site.  For instance, Mr. Baker has 179 other sites that link to OMSJ.org.  That is very impressive.  So why does it not translate to a higher ranking?  If a site has many other sites linking in, and still has a terrible ranking, this is even more telling of just how pathetic a site’s reach and influence truly are.

Another driving factor that increases a site’s Alexa Ranking, as I said above, is the number of clicks each visitor makes.  And Mr. Baker’s site is set up in such a way that this feature alone should sky rocket his site’s ranking.  For instance, every post at OMSJ.org only shows the title of the post and two or three sentences.  Each visitor must click the post to read it.  But that is just the beginning with OMSJ.org.  Each post literally contains 40% of hyperlinks.  For a reader to really understand what Mr. Baker is trying to convey, it is necessary to click on most if not all of those hyperlinks.

Lastly is the number of new posts.  The more times a blogger posts new content, the more often a visitor is likely to return.  OMSJ.org has been up and running for several years which is plenty of time to garner a loyal following.  And Mr. Baker adds new content several times a week.  So again I must ask, why does all of this not translate to a better Alexa Ranking?

It’s quite interesting to see that among the sites that deal with HIV/AIDS dissidence, the top ranked site is an “orthodox” site.  This tells me that more people like to get their information from a reputable, credible source.  And if you look closely at Denying AIDS, you will see that it does not try as hard as OMSJ does.  It does not have extensive hyperlinks nor does Dr. Kalichman add new content very often.  No, Denying AIDS simply gets much more traffic from people who want information from an educated source, not from a conspiracy theorist who lies incessantly.

This is just one more bit of evidence to prove just how delusional Clark Baker is.

U.S. Air Force Slams Clark Baker and OMSJ as Frauds

Posted: January 23, 2012 in Uncategorized
0

Case: Sgt David Gutierrez

This is the case of a U.S. Air Force Officer who tested HIV+ and potentially exposed hundreds of men and women to the virus by attending swingers parties with his wife and gay bath houses by himself.  The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to 8 years in prison.  Clark Baker has filed an appeal based solely on the defense not accepting an offer of help from OMSJ and not for any legal justification.  Clark Baker accuses the defense attorneys of conspiracy, incompetence and no interest in putting on a rigorous defense:

From the time OMSJ Director Clark Baker received word of the case, USAF officials resisted OMSJ’s efforts to assist.  From August 30th through January 7th 2011, Whiteman Air Force Base (AFB) Area Defense Command (ADC) showed little interest in defending their client from charges that threatened to end Gutierrez’ honorable 20-year career and send him to Fort Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary for life. 

However, Mr. Baker provides an email from defense counsel which clearly states that this is a flat out lie:

“I appreciate your time, but at this time, based on defense decision and informed client consent, we will not be needing your services.”

The email from Captain Aaron Mannes states that it was “based on defense decision and informed client consent…”

According to Clark Baker’s own words, it seems as if the defense counsel was well aware of Clark Baker’s lack of credibility and crack pot theories:

Gutierrez said that USAF Major James Dorman and Capt. Aaron Maness told him that Baker and OMSJ were frauds and that both attorneys would quit if Gutierrez accepted Baker’s assistance. 
The defense attorney, Capt. Mannes, did not emphasize Baker’s strategy that HIV is not pathogenic, but instead utilized the facts of real HIV science and transmission.  Because the defense counsel used logic, facts and science, Baker is claiming incompetence.  It is also important to note that the defense attorney also utilized current case laws as well as a constitutional argument to try and get many of the counts dismissed.
During opening statements, defense attorney Capt. Aaron Mannes had asked the judge to note the conduct of Gutierriez’s wife when considering the adultery charges.* Mannes also argued that having sex without disclosing one’s HIV status is not necessarily aggravated assault and urged him to consider recent science regarding HIV transmission. (emphasis mine)
When it came time for cross examinations, defense attorneys emphasized that none of the witnesses who testified had been infected with HIV and that during many of the encounters they described, Gutierrez either used a condom or did not ejaculate.
*The woman said Gutierrez’s wife also participated in the swinger lifestyle.  ”She was talking about opening a bed-and-breakfast for swingers,” the woman said. “She was all for it.”
*A Wichita man who said he participated in swinger events with the couple also testified that Gutierrez flatly denied being HIV positive and that the airman’s wife pushed him into having sex with others. (emphasis mine)
Military judge Lt. Col. William Muldoon rejected a defense attorney’s request to dismiss the aggravated assault charges as unconstitutional because similar case law on aggravated assault in effect says his client can’t ever have sex again.
It looks to me like the defense counsel utilized every legal strategy available and did indeed put on a rigorous defense.  It will be interesting to see if Mr. Baker’s assertion that defense counsels’ refusal to accept Mr. Baker’s help is legal justification for a new trial.  However, Mr. Baker could not simply write a post discussing the legal aspects of the trial.  For fun I will also dissect another of Mr. Baker’s crazy theories.
Obfuscation Vaccination
It is very interesting to note that Mr. Baker has a very hard time staying on point, which always leads to compounding lies.  This tactic always gets him into deep trouble which further destroys his credibility.  Take for instance Mr. Baker’s discussion of Vaccinations in this post.  It would have been much more credible for Mr. Baker to simply state that Sgt Gutierrez had received multiple vaccinations before his HIV test which caused a false positive result.  This overused canard of HIV denial would have been incredibly dubious in and of itself to any normal person. But Mr. Baker could not help himself.  Let’s break this down, shall we?  Baker writes:

“…he was subjected to more than 40 experimental vaccinations for anthrax, hepatitis, influenza, meningitis, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, pneumonia, tuberculosis, tetanus, diphtheria, typhoid and yellow fever…”
The most egregious part of this statement is the one word “experimental”.  Perhaps if Mr. Baker had only thrown in a couple of scary sounding and less well known vaccines like Anthrax, Typhoid and Yellow Fever (boo!) he could have gotten away with it.  But since even these vaccines are well established (1970, 1937 and 1896 respectively) he would have needed to really lay into the scary aspect and foregone the word experimental completely.  Because Mr. Baker does not consider the logic of his lies, he failed as usual.
Baker runs headlong into the next bit of bullshit:
Although none of these disease (sic) kill or injure more than a few dozen Americans in any given year, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports that thousands of Americans are injured or killed every year by the vaccinations that are marketed to fight these diseases. (Terrible sentence fragment is all Baker.)
One look at the link Baker provided exposes his lies:  First look at Adverse Events:
Since 1990, VAERS has received over 200,000 reports, most of which describe mild side effects such as fever. Very rarely, people experience serious adverse events following immunization. By monitoring such events, VAERS helps to identify any important new safety concerns and thereby assists in ensuring that the benefits of vaccines continue to be far greater than the risks.  Many different types of adverse events occur after vaccination.About 85-90% of the reports describe mild adverse events such as fever, local reactions, and episodes of crying or mild irritability. The remaining reports reflect serious adverse events involving life-threatening conditions, hospitalization, permanent disability, or death, which may or may not have been caused by a vaccine. (all emphasis mine)
Do I really need to expose the lie “none of these disease kill or injure more than a few dozen Americans in any given year”. 
2010: 3 short months in New York and New Jersey alone, 1,000 people suffered from Mumps.

2009: New Hepatitis A Cases: 1,987
2009: New Hepatitis B Cases: 3,405
2007: Mortality from Viral Hepatitis: 7,407
I could go on, but why?  Mr. Baker’s claim, “none of these disease (sic) kill or injure more than a few dozen Americans in any given year”, is obviously complete and utter nonsense.  Or to put it succinctly: Mr. Baker is full of shit.

Clark Baker: Inspiration to Humanitarians Everywhere

Posted: January 15, 2012 in Uncategorized
0

Clark Baker has made the outrageous claim that the change in policy regarding HIV Criminalization in the U.S. and the world is a direct result of his supposed success in 38 HIV cases since 2009 via his Office of Medical and Scientific Justice:

OMSJ Victories Raise Humanitarian Complaints

Mr. Baker egotistically claims that he started his HIV Innocence Project (now Group) in 2009 and lo and behold in 2010 the rest of the country and the world followed suit.

Despite 25 years of criminal prosecutions against hundreds of factually-innocent men and women, US and UN officials – along with pharmaceutically-funded gay activists – are suddenly calling for the end of all HIV-related criminal prosecutions. Their demands coincidentally began months after OMSJ began to expose HIV experts as incompetent in several prominent criminal trials. (emphasis mine)

Mr. Baker even claims that the Obama Administration announced a major change in its HIV/AIDS policy producing a 60 page document in 2010 called National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States all because of Mr. Baker’s successful track record regarding HIV Criminalization cases since 2009.

Beginning with the Obama Administration and United Nations in 2010 and members of Congress a year later, lobbyists and activists have suddenly decided that the prosecution of HIV-patients violates basic human rights (emphasis Baker) and should stop immediately…human rights only became an issue after (emphasis Baker) OMSJ began to expose “HIV experts” as unapologetically corrupt or, at best, grossly incompetent.  OMSJ’s success exposes the 30-year hoax and threatens a wave of multistate class-action lawsuits against thousands of incompetent clinicians throughout the US .

Here is the problem with Mr. Baker’s assertions: as usual, he is completely full of shit.

I can justifiably go back to 2002 to prove that Mr. Baker is undeniably wrong by presenting this document from UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS:

Criminal Law, Public Health and HIV Transmission: A Policy Options Paper  Geneva, Switzerland June 2002

Just a sample from the table of contents from this 52 page document shows not only was the U.S. way ahead of Mr. Baker on this issue, but the rest of the world was as well:

Guiding principles
· Best available evidence should be the basis of policy
· Prevention of HIV must be the primary objective of the policy of criminalization
· Policy must respect human rights
· Infringements of human rights must be adequately justified
Broader policy considerations
Difficulties with proof
Possible detrimental effect on public health initiatives
(1) Reinforcing HIV/AIDS-related stigma
(2) Spreading misinformation about HIV/AIDS
(3) Disincentive to HIV testing
(4) Hindering access to counseling and support
(5) Creating a false sense of security
Risk of selective prosecution
Gender inequality and criminalization
Invasions of privacy

There is also this 36 page follow up in 2007:
Summary of main issues and conclusions
International Consultation on the Criminalization of HIV Transmission
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
United Nations Development Programme
31 October – 2 November 2007
Geneva, Switzerland

In 2002, UNAIDS issued a policy options paper on this issue.  In light of renewed calls for the application of criminal law to HIV transmission and concerns raised in this regard by the UNAIDS Reference Group on HIV and Humans Rights and others, UNDP and the UNAIDS Secretariat decided to bring together a number of legal experts and other concerned stakeholders to discuss this issue in the context of an effective human rights and public health response to HIV.

Moving along chronologically is this document distributed in 2008 (researched/data compiled since 2006):

Ten Reasons to Oppose the Criminalization of HIV Exposure or Transmission

Date: December 1, 2008
Open Society Institute
While these issues must be urgently addressed, a closer analysis of the complex issues raised by criminalization of HIV exposure or transmission reveals that criminalization is unlikely to prevent new infections or reduce women’s vulnerability to HIV. In fact, it may harm women rather than assist them, and negatively impact both public health and human rights. This document, co-produced by OSI, provides ten reasons why criminalizing HIV exposure or transmission is generally an unjust and ineffective public policy. It has been endorsed by leading human rights, AIDS, and women’s organizations and networks throughout the world.

All the above information adequately proves that Mr. Baker is completely wrong in his assertion that he is the Supreme Instrument of Change regarding HIV Criminalization in the U.S. and the world.  But let’s look specifically at Mr. Baker’s claim regarding the U.S. and the Obama Administration.   Even though National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States was published in 2010 it was inspired by research from Scott Burris et al published in 2008:  

In July 2010 the White House announced a major change in its HIV/AIDS policy, a change informed by public health law research carried out by Scott Burris, professor of law at Temple University and the director of the Public Health Law Research program. The official National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States concluded that “the continued existence and enforcement of these types of laws [criminalizing HIV infection] run counter to scientific evidence about routes of HIV transmission and may undermine the public health goals of promoting HIV screening and treatment.”

The administration strategy credits “The case against criminalization of HIV transmission”, a piece by Burris and Edwin Cameron, a South African judge, in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2008. They wrote “The use of criminal law to address HIV infection is inappropriate except in rare cases in which a person acts with conscious intent to transmit HIV and does so.”
Professor Burris has produced a prodigious amount of research on this very subject going back to 2002 which the Obama Administration used as a basis for its new policy:

Evaluating the Impact of Criminal Laws on HIV Risk Behavior Scott Burris, JD 2002
Do Criminal Laws Influence HIV Risk Behavior? Scott Burris, JD 2007
The Criminalization of HIV: Time for an Unambiguous Rejection of the Use of Criminal Law to Regulate the Sexual Behavior of Those with and at Risk of HIV Scott Burris, JD 2008
HIV is a Virus, Not a Crime: Ten Reasons Against Criminal Statutes and Criminal Prosecutions Scott Burris, JD 2008
The Case Against Criminalization of HIV Transmission Scott Burris, JD 2008
Ten Reasons to Oppose the Criminalization of HIV Exposure or Transmission Scott Burris, JD 2009

I should also note the existence of an extremely comprehensive blog started by Edwin J. Bernard in 2005 simply titled HIV Criminal Transmission Blog. This blog constitutes specific laws and cases from around the world including the history of HIV Criminalization laws. Edwin J. Bernard also literally wrote the book on this subject, again titled HIV Criminalization and was published in 2007.

Here is a very interesting history of HIV Criminalization by James B. McArthur published in the Cornell Law Review 2009:
As The Tide Turns: The Changing HIV/AIDS Epidemic and the Criminalization of HIV Exposure

Mr. McArthur concludes that making new laws have proven to further stigmatize those with HIV and that current laws should be adequate.  New, HIV specific laws lead to stigma, discrimination and fear as well as serve to deter people from being tested.

All of this information is simply a drop in the ocean regarding the research, discussion and evolution on the topic of HIV Criminalization Policy in the U.S. and the world.  This discussion has been going on for almost as long as the disease has been identified.  For Mr. Baker to claim to be even remotely responsible is egotistical at best and ridiculously delusional at worst. .  My point is further driven home by this very website which meticulously details that Mr. Baker has not even been involved in many of the cases he lists at his OMSJ site.  How can he possibly claim victory for something he has not even been involved with?   I could not have asked for better proof that Mr. Baker is a complete and utter fraud lacking not only an ounce of truth, but a smidgen of integrity or dignity as well.

Clark Baker Caught In Another Lie

Posted: January 12, 2012 in Uncategorized
0

The recent Nature.com article by Zoe Corbyn regarding Duesberg’s overworked   re-worked paper that was published in a small time Italian peer reviewed publication had quite the busy comment section.   At least it did until the moderators at Nature saw the libel, slander and defamation posted there mostly by Clark Baker and made the smart decision to shut down the comments.  This of course has Mr. Baker crying foul.  Fortunately for us, Mr. Baker is such an ego-maniacal gas bag that he saved some of his comments and posted them for us at his OMSJ site.  Although at second glance, I guess even Mr. Baker saw the potential lawsuits he had made for himself and left off the many comments where he directly called people meth addicts, meth trannies and other worse, pointless and unsubstantiated lies.

However, because Mr. Baker’s ego is so overblown, he left at least one very big lie AND he provided a link to prove that it was a lie:

From: donotreply@nature.com [mailto:donotreply@nature.com]

Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 1:33 AM

To: OMSJ

Subject: [Nature News] Your post has been hidden

Dear Clark Baker,

The following post you wrote on the Nature News website has been hidden by the moderator in accordance with our terms and conditions.

I’m usually too busy preparing cases and questioning HIV experts like Joan Duwve MD MPH to waste time with blogs like this. (snip)
However, when you click the link you will find a court document that is indeed a deposition of this HIV expert.  Unfortunately, it clearly states that the questions were not only prepared by Attorney Barron Coleman, but were also asked by Attorney Barron Coleman.   In other words, Mr. Baker is clearly lying.  He had absolutely nothing to do with the document to which he linked.
Why in the world would Mr. Baker try to take credit for this document and then link to said document, proving he is lying and seal his fate?  This is just one more example of Mr. Baker’s complete lack of credibility and possibly his tenuous grasp on reality.
Older Entries