NL- A lot of you are upset with me for posting this interview. Please understand that it is the opinion of Clark Baker,  and he has every right to inform us of his thoughts on HIV & AIDS. (And I thank him very much for taking the time to do this interview, and respond to comments on this board)  I would be happy to have Jeremy interview someone from AHF and AIM and any other side of the coin. Reading different opinions, not just the "status quo" helps you make your own informed decision on this issue that is so important to our industry. 


An exclusive Interview with Office of Medical & Scientific Justice Founder Clark Baker
By Jeremy Steele
Depending on who you work for, prepare to read the following and rejoice, or read it and weep… It turns out that AHF has been using junk science in its attempt to push mandatory condom use on the porn industry!  
The dirty little secret is that HIV test manufacturers admit that their tests are not reliable for the diagnosis of, and do not test for, HIV.
Strangely, this story has been kept out of the major news media. I would venture to guess for economic and political reasons, which we intend to briefly examine.
Even in their newest test label information, Abbot Labs inserts their hard-to-find disclaimer on page 9 of their 28-page packaging information that:
(an) individual who has antibodies to HIV is presumed to be infected with the virus.
Why we’re expected to presume is not clear.
But because the presumption of being HIV-positive does not equate with actually being HIV-positive, two judges and eleven prosecutors have dropped all HIV-related criminal charges against 13 US and Canadian defendants during the past 13 months.
The ramification of these revelations are considerable.  After all, if HIV tests don’t detect HIV – a premise that these judges and prosecutors are now uncertain of; is ANYONE actually HIV+?  And if we don’t know, why are people taking deadly HIV drugs if they aren’t even sick?
I am privileged to speak with Mr. Clark Baker – a licensed private investigator and retired member (20 years) of the Los Angeles Police Department.  He is the founder and principal investigator of the Office of Medical & Scientific Justice (OMSJ).  Since 1980, he has conducted thousands of criminal and civil investigations from drug cases to murder.  The evidence collected by OMSJ’s HIV Innocence Project has helped to convince prosecutors and judges that 13 criminal HIV cases were meritless, at best.
JS:  Thank you for speaking with all of us today. First of all, how and why did you end up getting involved with HIV-related criminal cases?
CB:    I’ve been investigating corruption surrounding what I call AIDS Inc. since May 2008.  Since that time, corrupt PhDs and MDs have tried to dissuade and discredit me as a street cop who knows nothing about medicine or science.  For this reason, I created the HIV Innocence Project so that I could compel self-described experts to render their sermons in a real court where they are subject to penalties of perjury.  And as you said, prosecutors and judges in 13 HIV cases during the past year have been unimpressed by tests and clinicians.
JS:  Please explain what "HIV-related crimes" means.
CB: Well Jeremy, most states require individuals who are diagnosed as HIV+ to report their status to prospective partners before engaging in sexual relations.  These laws were mostly drafted by drug industry lobbyists, pharmaceutical reps or other recipients of pharmaceutical funding who neither understand or care about the ramifications of their legislation.  On their face, these laws seem like a good idea.  They do, however, exacerbate the severe psychological and social isolation that comes with being misdiagnosed in the first place:
“Hi Jim – it’s nice to meet you.  Oh, by the way, I’m HIV+ so I just wanted you to know that before you decide to kiss me, have sex, marry or raise a family with me…”
So if you’re a young man or woman, the misdiagnosis can have results more toxic than the alleged disease itself.  And if you try to get to the bottom of the diagnosis on your own, you’ll go crazy trying to track down the evidence among the millions of pages of gibberish that HIV clerics call "proof".
JS: Why do you call HIV clinicians "CLERICS"?
CB:  Because that’s what they are.  While good science speaks for itself, HIV clinicians and experts expect us to BELIEVE what they say about HIV and AIDS.  BELIEF and FAITH are theological exercises that have nothing to do with real science.  If you BELIEVE them, you’ll BELIEVE that you’re HIV+ and you’ll take the deadly drugs like bread and wine.
JS: It sounds like you’re saying that the diagnosis is the only thing that can kill, along with, I suspect, the "therapy", but not the thing itself which is claimed to kill us.
CB:  That’s somewhat correct.  An HIV+ diagnosis can screw up your life without killing you.  If you take the drugs you have a good chance of suffering an unnecessary and untimely death.  I’ve met people who were diagnosed years ago but stopped the treatments or never took them.  Today, most are as healthy as their peers who never took HIV tests or drugs.
JS: Can you give us some examples of so-called "HIV-related crimes"?
CB: Sure.  Our first case involved a woman named Eneydi Torres.  This Florida woman had an argument with her boyfriend, who retaliated by telling police that she failed to disclose her HIV status before sex.  Police arrested her and identified three previous boyfriends as well.  Prosecutors appeared to have a slam-dunk case.  OMSJ forced prosecutors to produce all of the evidence they planned to use against Torres and had the evidence reviewed by a scientist who was involved in the development of HIV testing technologies.
His examination revealed that prosecutors had no evidence to corroborate HIV infection.  Prosecutors then had to decide whether to expose the clinicians who made the diagnosis to cross-examination by OMSJ-approved attorneys.  Rather than go through that trouble, prosecutors simply dropped all HIV-related charges against the woman and reduced their initial offer of fifteen years in state prison to five days of unsupervised probation for something akin to “disturbing the peace.”
Prosecutors typically use these kinds of pleas to maintain their "100 percent conviction" record for political reasons.  Although the arrest and the media wrecked her life, Ms. Torres is a free woman today.  She is also healthy because she doesn’t take HIV drugs.
JS:  And you’re saying that charges have been dropped in all cases because they can’t prove these people are HIV-positive?
CB:  It’s more complicated than that but yes, that’s essentially true.
JS:  What other factors would lead to cases being dismissed, if you can explain briefly?
CB: Well, if an alleged victim recants the case could be dismissed; but so far none have recanted.  And remember, these are felonies so prosecutors initially believe that all they require is an HIV+ test result and a sexual partner.  Once prosecutors know how weak their cases are, they drop the charges.  Some trial attorneys have convinced their clients to plead guilty to HIV charges, but this usually happens in small towns where small-town lawyers and small town judges don’t want to upset voters and neighbors.  In those cases, defense lawyers don’t want us involved – and understandably so.
JS:  How does any doctor have the right to tell anyone they are HIV-positive?
CB:  They certainly have no moral right.  No competent doctor has ever explained to me how they can use meaningless tests to diagnose HIV infection, nor have they explained how prescribing drugs that cause cancer and compromise immune function actually protect patients whose immune function is allegedly compromised.
The first drug ever used – AZT – is now listed as a carcinogenic mutagen by the California Environmental Protection Agency.  Although it cannot legally be flushed down a toilet (for fear of polluting our waterways), it is still given to allegedly HIV+ patients.  If a healthy non-HIV+ person takes the drug, the drug will eventually compromise their immune system and the individual will acquire an immune deficiency syndrome – most often in the form of liver cancer.
During the first day of medical school, students internalize the motto primum non nocere – “first, do no harm.”  Unfortunately, too many doctors and clinicians now weigh that quaint notion against their need to make a profit.  A “good doctor” is defined by patients as someone who helps us stay healthy.  To a hospital or clinic administrator, a good doctor is one that generates profits.
JS: Well said, although I would say the reason (why they push drugs that comprise the immune system on people with compromised immune systems) probably has something to do with money, power, jobs, etc., having more influence over people than truth. I know that for years, when I first started, the porn industry use to rely upon the $35.00 Eliza antibody test. Then it was admitted by the testing labs to pornland during the 1997 HIV scare that the test basically wasn’t worth the paper it was written on. So, today we instead take $135.00 PCR DNA HIV tests (which includes tests for gonorrhea and Chlamydia) and I think because we spend more money it’s generally assumed the test is more accurate.
CB:  Yup – you pay more so it must be better, right?  Although PCR is a legitimate invention, it has nothing to do with detecting HIV.  When it comes to HIV tests, PCR is just the latest marketing gimmick.
In many ways, doctors are trained to be dumb.  I say this not pejoratively, but they are required to accept and do what they are told to avoid deviating from the “standard of care.”  Doctors who deviate from this standard risk the loss of their license and career – not because they’ve done anything wrong but for entirely political reasons.  If doing something wrong is the “standard of care,” deviating to do things right threatens all of those who’ve done it wrong – which can lead to malpractice lawsuits and liability.  Quack doctors avoid liability by following the deadlier standard of care while those who deviate generally keep quiet about it.
Most of what doctors read is published by a drug industry that has, since 2004, spent nearly $9 billion to settle thousands of criminal and civil complaints related to the illegal marketing of drugs that killed or injured thousands of people around the world.  Also, the drug industry pays universities and researchers to conduct studies that require specific kinds of outcomes that will help companies sell products.
Drug companies pay Reed-Elsevier to publish their reports in the journals that doctors rely on to form opinions and prescribe medications.  This results in unindicated (unnecessary) prescriptions to millions of patients who are injured or killed from adverse drug reactions (ADRs) every year.  In fact, the American Medical Association (AMA) reports that if tracked like real diseases, ADRs would rank somewhere between the fourth and sixth leading cause of death in the US.  The AMA also reports that infectious diseases became statistically irrelevant in the US by 1955.  It’s hard to imagine why taxpayers pay billions to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) when infectious disease is statistically irrelevant.
But if you’re the NIH, CDC, a hospital or a drug company, ADRs, disease, and fear of disease are good for business.  If the drug I prescribe to you makes you sick, it’s likely that I can sell you five more drugs that might mask the toxic effects of the first drug that I probably should not have prescribed to you in the first place.
JS: It sounds like Big Pharma rules the medical world. How can physicians be telling us, as the general public, that HIV tests for HIV but then say in court that it doesn’t?
CB:  It’s all about marketing – and illegal marketing pays.  For example, Astra Zeneca paid a $500 million fine last April for illegally marketing Seroquel – a drug that killed or injured thousands.  Seroquel generated about $4 billion in sales in 2007 alone.  No one went to jail and Astra simply paid off prosecutors with a fraction of their profits – a tax if you will.
It’s nothing personal – it’s just business.  As Shannon Brownlee explained in “Overtreated”, drug companies routinely pay physicians to push drugs as marketed by the pharmaceutical reps that visit them.  It’s an important part of pharmaceutical marketing.  They use doctors you trust to push their tests and drugs.  These reps are not scientists or doctors and typically misrepresent the dangers to doctors who simply parrot the propaganda.  With the ever-increasing costs of healthcare, doctors are vulnerable to reps and drug companies that offer cash, travel and prestige to doctors who willingly sell their diplomas.
JS: Sell their diplomas?
CB:  When we think of doctors, we often think of Doogie Howser, Hawkeye Pierce or House.  But what about the thousands of doctors whose licenses have been suspended or revoked because they molested, assaulted or killed their patients with incompetent care?  Those doctors often find work pitching drugs at pharmaceutically-funded medical conferences, earning hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.  Shannon Brownlee calls them drug whores – I call them pharmasluts. Whatever we call them, they’re a vital part of pharmaceutical marketing.
JS:  Doesn’t it come down to a willingness to either lie or state "common knowledge" (in other words, repeat what they’ve been told), but when it comes to testifying under oath, under threat of prison if they perjure themselves, it’s no longer a sales pitch they can tell us but the "inconvenient truth"?
CB:  Before OMSJ, these doctors simply brought their theological gibberish into courtrooms where defense lawyers and judges were too intimidated to ask the right questions and didn’t want to look stupid.  Today, OMSJ is holding these doctors accountable.  So when OMSJ is involved, doctors who rely on science have nothing to fear.  But if the doctor relies on theology, they have much to be concerned about – including malpractice lawsuits, class action and mass tort complaints that could result in the bankruptcy and closure of their clinics, the revocation of their licenses and financial ruination.  All of this sounds pretty harsh, but just as we wouldn’t want cops who murder walking our streets in uniform, it’s hard to imagine why we’d want dangerous doctors treating patients.
JS: Why is the general population not aware of such Earth shaking revelations?   Why has this news not been presented by the major news media?
CB:  There are several reasons.  Although investigative reporters like Celia Farber, John Crewdson, John Lauritsen and others have written much on the topic, they’ve been battered by the pharmaceutical goons.  Shannon Brownlee’s book "Overtreated" is also a must-read.
The politics are a long story, but here are some examples:
Bob Navarro was a long-time reporter on a major LA news TV station and eventually became the editorial director there.  During the 1990s, he questioned the HIV theology in a report.  The next day, gay activists threatened to stage protests at the station unless they stopped their homophobic reporting.  As a result, the station killed the report and they stopped editorials shortly thereafter.  The station didn’t want the political heat.
In 2008, HIV discoverer and Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier MD of the Pasteur Institute admitted in the documentary “House of Numbers” that HIV can be cured within a few weeks without drugs, but that the drug industry pushes drugs and vaccines because they cannot profit from clean water or good nutrition.  Montagnier even implicated NIAID Director Tony Fauci by name!
Think about that for a moment: The discoverer of HIV (the other one, Robert Gallo, was found guilty of scientific misconduct in 1993) says he has the cure for HIV and the New York Times won’t report it?  So if the media won’t report that, why would we expect them to report the findings of a licensed agency with 30 years of investigative experience?
In 2006, pharmaceutical goons (including Kaiser) hosted one of many conferences to teach journalists how to destroy the careers of doctors like Peter Duesberg and Nancy Banks.  So if you’re a reporter, chances are that you don’t want your career destroyed the way other reporter’s careers were destroyed.  No one gets into trouble when they report what Reed-Elsevier publishes for the drug industry.
Check out what Cornell University’s resident AIDS Cleric John P. Moore PhD wrote to filmmaker Brent Leung after his documentary House of Numbers began winning awards at film festivals around the world:
"Your friend Celia Farber learned what happens to the career of individuals in the communications media whose judgment of the facts is so poor that they promote AIDS denialism. Your future experiences will surely be similar to hers. You have, in effect, destroyed your career for nothing."
This missive is consistent with the threats he made to a friend of Christine Maggiore in 2007:
"This IS a war, there ARE no rules, and we WILL crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly (at least the more influential ones; foot-soldiers like you aren’t worth bothering with)."
Not very professorial, huh?
Clerics like Professor Moore expect us to believe what he says, just as Pope Urban demanded that the world believe the Earth is the center of God’s universe.  When Urban accused Galileo and his little telescope of heresy, Galileo was forced to recant to avoid torture and death.  Professor Moore demonstrates how little some scientists have not evolved since the 17th century.  But what should we expect from the profession that conducts human experiments in places like Tuskegee?
These are the clerics who enforce HIV theology.  And if you’re a news reporter at the New York Times, the last thing you want is Professor Moore writing letters to your editor on Cornell letterhead.
JS: I’ve been privy to the HIV/AIDS controversy for years. I met Christine Maggiore in 1996 and did volunteer work for her. What do you think about her case?
CB: I was Christine’s principal investigator from May 2008 until she passed away in December.  She’s an example of what happens when you take an HIV test.  From the time she identified the fraud until she died, she became the target of drug industry propagandists and gay activists.  When her daughter died of anaphylactic shock (allergic reaction to antibiotics), the drug industry shamelessly blamed Christine for her daughter’s death – going as far as getting the LAPD to investigate a child neglect/abuse complaint against her.  They wrote countless stories and generated countless crank telephone calls and unwanted magazine subscriptions and even used shows like “Law & Order” to discredit her with pharmaceutical propaganda.  As a licensed investigator, I looked at her with great skepticism at first but I quickly determined that she was an honest woman fighting an industry that pays more than a billion dollars every year settling illegal marketing cases.  We were close to discrediting the LA County Coroner when she died and the county settled the case in 2009.
Although Christine died unexpectedly of adverse drug reactions, the clerics and goons called it an AIDS death months before the pathology report established that ADRs were the actual cause of death.  Christine was a loving mother who fearlessly challenged the drug industry.  In the end, the industry killed her and continues to market and celebrate her death.  I’ve met more psychopaths in the drug industry past two years than I met during my 20 years as a street cop.
JS: Have you been aware or following the current AHF case against the adult industry?
CB:  Yes, at least what has been published by the media.
JS: In your opinion, what is AHF’s motivation for pushing condoms? Is it based on the foundational spirit of altruism and "saving lives" as they love to advertise?
CB:  Condoms are part of the $174 million in revenues AHF generated in 2009 alone.
JS: How did they acquire these revenues?
CB:  According to their website, they push “cutting edge medicine” e.g. (AIDS tests, medication and condoms) and advocacy (marketing propaganda) to 100,000 people in 22 countries around the world.
In the beginning (1981~1988), AIDS was about homosexual politics.  From the time the NIH started to market the carcinogen AZT as a lifesaving drug in 1987, it was about drug company patents and profits.  During the 1990s, it was about enlisting an army of drug addicts and homosexual activists “to educate” the public about AIDS.  With billions of dollars at stake, it’s easy to see how the theology saturates the media. AHF simply wants their cut.  If I convince you that you have cooties and that you will die unless you buy my drugs, would you buy them?
AHF pushes condoms because they are an intrinsic part of AIDS marketing and hysteria.  If AHF can compel the adult industry to incorporate their condoms into a spontaneous sexual fantasy (Hey Baby… here we are in paradise… just you, me and this AHF condom), they will get the best product placement money can buy.  In this way, AHF is a pharmaceutical shill that pushes fear and hysteria to sell tests, drugs and condoms all over the world.  Once this scam is discovered, AHF will collapse like Enron and Bernie Madoff – and for the same reasons.
But for now, if you don’t believe the clerics, they will dispatch hoards of meth-trannies and gay activists to disrupt your life and write nasty things about you.  And why NOT?  This model has worked pretty well since the 1980s.
JS:  This is very important news for adult stars who have been told they are HIV-positive, as well as the adult industry in total, which is already reeling from economic hardships.  What do you recommend adult performers who have been told they are HIV-positive do now?  Can you help them?
CB:  You raise issues for actors and the industry.
1.    First of all, no one should EVER submit to HIV tests until manufacturers prove that their tests detect HIV AND that HIV causes AIDS.  Despite the theology, this has yet to be proved.
2.    Actors who have been diagnosed HIV+ should consider filing lawsuits forcing their clinicians to show exactly how they diagnosed them as HIV+.
3.    If actors have taken drugs like AZT or highly addictive psychotropic drugs like Sustiva, they should consider filing claims against their clinicians and clinics for malpractice and fraud and join future lawsuits that will hold drug companies accountable.
4.    Actors who are on the meds should use caution when getting off of them.  Although some are poisonous and easily stopped, some – like Sustiva – are highly addictive psychotropic drugs that can cause horrible withdrawal effects, including suicidal and homicidal ideation when suddenly stopped.  Those effects produce symptoms that are virtually identical to symptoms clinicians use to identify the onset of “full-blown AIDS”.  The withdrawal symptoms won’t last forever but can take a few months to recover from.  Some former HIV patients reported that reduced doses of benzodiazepines like valium or xanax can make the withdrawal less painful.  I’m no doctor – it’s what they report.  But those reports are consistent with my considerable experience and training related to drug addiction and withdrawal.
As for the industry, adult movie makers might consider forcing agencies to make arrests and close studios so that the accused can compel agencies to prove what we’ve discussed.  OMSJ can help the industry fight the AIDS clerics just as we have helped HIV defendants prevail in court.
JS:  Please clarify "agencies". Porn performers might think you’re talking about their porn agents.
CB:  Agencies meaning local law enforcement, the Health Department and possibly OSHA.  But the right strategy will require a dialogue between filmmakers, their lawyers and OMSJ before decisions can be made.  Actors should consider taking immediate action.
JS:  Regarding your point that the drug companies own the AHF and other "non-profit’ organizations, this is based on what facts?
CB:  Although the drug industry has begun to launder their support through organizations like Tides and Open Society, their connection is clear.   For example, the Treatment Action Group (TAG) was founded by gay meth addict Peter Staley, ostensibly to generate funding for AIDS research and treatment.  A glance at their annual report shows that most of their funding still comes from the drug industry.  Their records show that TAG funds South Africa’s Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), which denies receiving any pharmaceutical funding.  TAC has their own cadre of meth trannies and activists.
AHF works on a different model.   In 2009, they sold $174 million in so-called HIV “healthcare services,” using fear and hysteria to market HIV tests, drugs and condoms all over the world.  Remember, they’re using HIV tests that manufacturers admit do not detect HIV and then they are treating patients based upon questionable test results.  So they use these meaningless tests to tell people they’re sick and convince them to take toxic and addictive drugs that eventually cripple and kill.  After a while, these people get sick and die and AHF and affiliates then use their mortality as evidence that HIV is killing people around the world.
If HIV tests were suddenly known to be meaningless, how would clinics like AHF push tests and drugs dangerous?  How long would they stay in business?  What kind of work would corrupt clinicians be able to find in an honest world?  The drug industry needs AHF to market hysteria and drugs and AHF need the drug industry to keep them in business.
JS: So they use meaningless tests used to push expensive and deadly drugs. And when you say they sold $174 million, do you mean they received that much from drug companies?
CB: AHF reported $174 million in revenues in 2009.  They generate profits by marking up drugs, selling services and billing Medi-care, Medi-cal and insurance companies.  They also receive funding from the LA County Health Department and the federal government.  Simply stated, the more patients they test, the more they can bill.  Thanks to the “Magic (Johnson) Effect,” the more hysteria they create the more people will come in to get tested and the more patients they’ll get.  The hysteria they generated in the adult industry is good for AHF and the makers of HIV tests and drugs.
AHF sues companies like Abbott to increase their profit margin.  But until someone compels AHF to prove that HIV tests detect HIV and that HIV causes AIDS, AHF should be forced to stop all operations until they deliver that proof.  For the drug industry, AHF is a necessary evil – AHF markets fear and hysteria that drug companies profit from.  The lawsuits are simply a way of extorting additional profits from the drug industry itself.  AHF just wants a bigger cut from the scam.
AHF belligerence comes from the marketing that would come with adult films that use condoms and products.  If the adult industry decides to make movies that market HIV theology and treatments, AHF would be happy.  Forcing actors to wear condoms is just part of the extortion.  When actors wear condoms, it perpetuates the myth and helps AHF and other clinics market their products.
JS: What should the adult industry now do, in lieu of these revelations, and how can you help?
CB:  The adult industry should continue to make movies without condoms and ignore the rants from AHF.  When AHF pressures officials (like health departments and OSHA) to make laws or enforce condom use and HIV testing, the industry should compel the AHF and government officials to produce evidence (not CDC theology) that HIV tests detect HIV and that HIV causes AIDS.  Since manufacturers admit that tests don’t detect HIV, all policies built upon the assumption that they detect HIV should be suspended and ignored until that proof is delivered.  OMSJ has legal, medical and scientific experts who can assist with the evaluations of that evidence and the preparation of any subsequent legal challenges.
JS: How may performers, production companies or anyone else reach you?
CB:  Anyone can reach us by visiting our website at
JS: I’m sure everyone reading this is stirring. Do you think the adult industry needs to continue testing for HIV?
CB:  NO.  HIV tests are a marketing scam – PERIOD.  Testing was originally designed to “raise awareness” and educate.  It’s simply been marketed as a reliable test.  Until manufacturers can establish verifiable proof and standards for HIV testing, the tests are entirely meaningless.  People are in prison for life today simply because they took HIV tests and had sex.  Until tests mean something, no one should risk their freedom by taking these tests.  And here’s a promise – if you never take an HIV test, you’ll never suffer or die from an HIV infection – even if you’re an actor in an adult movie.
JS: It appears based on your consecutive successful court cases that porn performers who have been declared HIV-positive have the right to sue, am I correct? And presume you can assist with that, and successfully, as well?
CB: HIV theology is comprised mostly of pharmaceutical gibberish that takes years to sift through and understand.  OMSJ’s cadre of medical, scientific and legal experts can help litigants mount effective complaints.  I personally know of no other licensed investigative agency that offers those kinds of resources.
JS:  I noticed that you made a short comment in response to a piece by Brooke Ashley.  Shortly after posting that comment, a critic posted an article that called you a homophobic ex-cop.  Do you know what I’m talking about?
CB: Yes.  This is part of what Christine Maggiore and others endure.  The fact is that, if the allegations were true, the California Department of Consumer Affairs wouldn’t have issued two investigator licenses to me.
Since a large portion of our clients are homosexual, the claim is preposterous.  But if I hated homosexuals, I can’t think of a better way to torture and kill them than to convince them that they’re dying from a fake disease and that they need to take carcinogens like AZT to survive.  Next to boxcars and camps, I can’t think of anymore more efficient.
But seriously, readers will have to weigh my untarnished credibility against the defenders of an industry that has paid $9 billion in criminal fines since 2004.  Cops are accustomed to felons and their families writing nasty things about them.  It comes with the territory.
JS: So, in quick summation, can you explain once again, if it’s proper to say this, how the drug companies literally own or hire the not-for-profit foundations to generate testing so the drug industry can continue to reap enormous profits at the expense of human lives which are sickened, murdered, not to mention terrorized and ruined? Or have I said it as succinctly as it can be said?
CB: Since 2004, the drug industry has paid $9 billion to settle thousands of criminal and civil complaints related to the illegal marketing of drugs that killed or injured thousands of people around the world.  Those fines represent a small fraction of the profits that the industry reaps by illegally marketing drugs.  The drug industry owns the theology.  They need marketers like AHF to “spread the word” and AHF needs industry pharmasluts to lend AHF credibility and influence.  There are hundreds – if not thousands of for-profit and non-profit clinics and activist groups that rely on pharmaceutical funding.  Without it, those groups would collapse.
JS: Thank you very much, indeed. And I hope and expect we will be having more conversations…
CB:  I look forward to it.


  1. jeremysteele11

    I feel like I’m back in college, working late, last minute to finish an independent study paper.

    more excerpts, p. 49-50:

    After the Gallo-Heckler announcement, an AIDS industry was created that has given employment to thousands. For starters, Reagan released about a billion dollars to give the AIDS private sector industry more government money for the development of their “free enterprise” anti-retroviral drug products. Suddenly, old cancer virus hunters from the National Cancer Institute whose work was dwindling as a result of the failed cancer/virus theory became AIDS researchers. Years and billions of dollars have been spent trying to find this virus in the immune cells that the virus is claimed to be killing. Big problem- among the HIV positive, less than one in 1,000 of their CD4 immune cells normally show any “signs” of possible infection (source: Bard Rosak, et al., “Correlates of Latent and Productive HIV Type 1 Infection in Tonsillar CD4+ Cells” 19 August 1997 PNAS, v.94(17):9332-9336)… they never isolated a virus. What they were calling HIV was nothing more than certain cellular characteristics and activities of cells in a laboratory setting produced under very special conditions… the proteins claimed to be specific to HIV can be found at some level in everybody (source: Giraldo, Robert, “Everybody reacts positive on the Elisa test for HIV”, Continuum, Midwinter 1998/9)…

    AIDS is not a mistake… It is no less than an act of war. HIV/AIDS is a false construct patched together with sloppy science used by former Nixon’s War on Cancer virus hunters to transition from one failed medical venture to a new money pit. Overnight, a virus type that was said to cause cell proliferation (cancer) was now claimed to cause cell death (AIDS). It was a lazy and profitable way of explaining the body’s response to physiological pro-oxidative stressors that overwhelm the function of the intracellular energy factories, or mitochondria. It is a politically useful tool employed by the recurrent destructive energy predictably arising from an underground cesspool of utilitarian eugenics misfits. It is at best an idea promoted to cloud the consequences of elite high crimes and economic exploitation as they create new and enlarging markets to stay ahead of their expanding empire of debt. Sooner or later every imperial structure becomes too big and too expensive for its own creators to maintain…

    My notes: Regarding the last sentence above by Mrs.
    Banks. Just like any evil leader or abusive power, eventually through their laziness, arrogance and assumptions they step too far and they finally get outed and put in their place. This is my hope and purpose for writing, keeping in my mind that AHF’s attempt to control and violate the porn industry’s freedom of choice based on sloppy science sponsored by Big Pharm. REMEMBER FOLKS: BIG PHARM CAUSES BIG HARM!

    Comment #500!!!! I’M ON TOP OF THE WORLD!!!!

    Again (as if I’m on stage during the Oscars), I want to thank Joe Don’t Know… Without his abuse, none of this would have happened!

  2. jeremysteele11

    BAAH-HA-HA-HA-HAAAA! Thanks Cindi for opening up this record thread again (Sorry Joe, Frank and Colonel), as there is some new news on the front:

    I just got this email from Clark Baker

    FYI: NBC-affiliate KSN is running this story
    on OMSJ’s appeal of the David Gutierrez case.
    My affidavit is posted here, along with those of Nancy Banks MD and Rodney Richards PhD.
    The story won’t make a difference to the trolls, but it finally corroborates our work and legitimacy.
    Clark Baker CPI #26869


    My reply:

    Thanks. Good to know. And I look forward to reading all the affidavits. I watched the news link. No surprise they don’t address the fact that the HIV testing science is a fraud.

    Clark’s response:

    I was in Indianapolis last Tuesday to depose a director of the Indiana Dept. of Health, Joan Duwve MD, who was called as the prosecution’s HIV expert in the Tony Perkins case. After blathering about her expertise and declaring that Perkins is HIV+, we asked if she’d ever read the test label information.

    A No.

    Q Would it make a difference if you learned that the test used to identify Perkins as HIV+ was recalled by the FDA?

    A NO(!)

    After we checkmated her on 70+ other points, she finally admitted that she was not an expert on HIV testing and could not answer further questions about testing.

    Donna and Joan demonstrate why goons attack us on blogs – they can’t afford to have their experts testify under penalty of perjury.

    We’ve got some important cases coming up – we’re VERY busy.

    I plan to post the full transcripts of the experts we depose so that your readers will understand how moronic HIV experts really are.


  3. jeremysteele11

    As PHd Rodney Richards’ affidavit states (see pdf above),

    “In short, the standard lingo “HIV test,””testing HIV positive,” or a “confirmatory test for HIV,” is a complete and total misnomer, because none of these tests confirm the actual presence of the virus in a patient’s sample. As such, all diagnoses of HIV infection in patients are presumptive based on their risk factors, immune status, and clinical condition (actual health) in combination with other indirect diagnostic evidence…”

    And, as Clark notes regarding the defense questioning of the prosecution’s “HIV expert” witness:

    “After blathering about her expertise and declaring that Perkins is HIV+, we asked if she’d ever read the test label information.

    A No.

    Q Would it make a difference if you learned that the test used to identify Perkins as HIV+ was recalled by the FDA?

    A NO(!)

    After we checkmated her on 70+ other points, she finally admitted that she was not an expert on HIV testing and could not answer further questions about testing.”

    Look, I understand that for years people believed the world was flat. And to this day many believe that JFK was killed by Oswald. I know it is as shocking as it is to a kid who discovers that it isn’t Santa Claus who leaves gifts under the Christmas tree, but one day we must face the facts, regardless of what it is we have been (mis)lead to believe for years and years and years and years!

  4. Frank

    Gee, Jeremy. It looks like WISH-TV has cottoned on to the fact that Clark Baker is a self-promoting loon, and as a result they have now pulled the article you linked about Tony Perkins’ bid to have his conviction overturned.

    now gets a “Page Not Found” message.

    WISH-TV have replaced it with this one, deleting all references to Clark Baker and his fantasy organization:

    Note that the person referred to as a “Colorado doctor” in the rewritten story is Clark’s friend and notorious AIDS denialist Rodney Richards, who is not a physician and has no medical qualifications at all.

  5. jeremysteele11

    “cottoned on”, Frank? Are you on meds? The article you linked only says that The accused predator says he doesn’t have HIV. There’s no mention of a Rodney Richards, and even if were true as you claim that Richards has no “medical qualifications” as you say, there are scores of qualified medicine men with advanced degress in science who have pointed out that HIV/AIDS science is a scam. And what are your medical qualifications? Even Robert Gallo, himself, who was found guilty of scientific misconduct twice and only barely avoided prison time (based on the politically controlled scientific Warren-like commision who cleared him criminally based on the conclusion that Gallo’s doctored data wasn’t proven to have been intentional. Duesberg has already addressed this issue, pointing out that when one abaondon’s scientific procedure, there is is an obvious conscious intention to mislead for personal and professional gain.

    The truth is, the likes of you are nervous, and you’re trying to act “Ha ha. We got ya”, which is a complete lie… That’s precisely why this issue won’t die. It can only, as you desperately hope, be buried and ignored by the mainstream, politically controlled corporate media.

    The simple fact is there is no gold standard for HIV testing. Different labs use different arbitrary, unproven markers to determine “HIV+” status (and it is obviously unproven, otherwise all labs would make determinations based on the same markers). “House of Numbers” explains this clearly. Michael Whiteacre has seen it and agrees. This AIDS thing has been an ongoing genocidal big money hu$tle, with Big Pharm making billions pushing overpriced death “medicine” (skull and crossbones on the label!) based on bogus diagnoses. It’s obviously bogus. Different criteria for what’s supposedly positive means that a “+” test in one place will mean a “-” somewhere else! You’re the same liar who claimed that when Luc Montangnier said you can get rid of HIV with diet and exercise in a couple of weeks and with no need for deadly drugs, that he was supposedly taken out of context. Yeah right. When someone says 2+2 does not = 5, he is being taken out of context, right?

    How much longer do you think your charade is gonna go on? Maybe it’ll keep going on and on, but don’t try to act like you got the facts on your side. Just keep on hoping the masses with continue to blindly trust medical authorities and not do the research.

    Experts for the prosecution have been on the stand and they are losing.

  6. jeremysteele11

    “Clark Baker and his fantasy organization”:

    His organization (Office of Medical and Scientific Justice) is real. It has been used in court. If it has been proven to be a fraud (or “fantasy organization” as you call it) then certainly an article would alert us all to this important discovery. Fraud is a serious charge and we should all know about it, you scumbag! And the multi-billion dollar genocidal fraud you’ve been part of is being taken to court as we speak.

    The media might be repressing OMSJ for political reasons, but if he was proven to be a fraud that would be big news!

  7. jeremysteele11

    Sorry I didn’t complete this sentence… follow
    “…” at the end…

    Even Robert Gallo, himself, who was found guilty of scientific misconduct twice and only barely avoided prison time (based on the politically controlled scientific Warren-like commision who cleared him criminally based on the conclusion that Gallo’s doctored data wasn’t proven to have been intentional. Duesberg has already addressed this issue, pointing out that when one abaondon’s scientific procedure, there is is an obvious conscious intention to mislead for personal and professional gain)… admitted that HIV needs “co-factors” to cause AIDS.

    A mega-money monster was created in the 80s with Gallo’s “HIV=AIDS” proclamation. Since then, he went on trial for “scientific misconduct” and the guy Gallo stole his lab sample from (Luc Montangnier) has said HIV might be harmless and that it can be ridden from the body in a couple of weeks without drugs.

  8. Frank

    Jeremy if you are too ignorant to know what an expression like “cotton on” means, why not look it up rather than assume someone is on drugs?

    cotton on: to begin to understand a situation or fact.

    If you are in any doubt about Rodney Richards’ lack of any medical qualifications, why not consult the pdf you posted yourself in comment #503? Didn’t you read it before you posted it?

    And no, it was no me who claimed that Montagnier was taken out of context – it was Montagnier himself:

    ““My statement—taken out of its context in a film that glorifies the “Dissidents” and posted on Internet by a website that is searching for polemical debate—is based on observations I made while I was director of the Centre of reference on AIDS virology at the Pasteur Institute…”

    Are you calling Montagnier a liar?

  9. jeremysteele11

    I’ve never heard of cottoned on, but thanks. I’ll make sure not to use that, anyway, as no one else does.

    Rodney Richards, as stated in his sworn affidavit is an expert according to Kansas Law. I presumed you had some link which claimed he is not an expert. Regardless, HIV experts for the prosecution are buckling under cross-examination and forced to admit HIV tests don’t test for HIV, are presumptive and depend on other presumptive tests to “confirm” a “positive” status.

    And please provide a link to this Montagnier claim that he is now saying he was taken out of context when he warned that drugs are not needed to fight HIV, that it can be eradicated with diet and clean water within two weeks, and that this kind of news is not what Anthony Fauci and his cohorts want to hear. Certainly Fauci wouldn’t want to hear this. It’s really, really bad for business and all who profit from AIDS “medicine” and “research”. I would love to read how Montagnier allegedly explains himself.. in detail. Was he hallucinating when he said it? What DID he mean when he said those things? It’s definitely possible, that, under pressure from his peers who profit greatly off the status quo, he may have to now say “I didn’t quite mean it that way”… after all, he could end up like Duesberg and lose grants and money, etc and get ostracized from the scientific community for being so politically incorrect/HONEST! That’s politics as much as Obama saying before being elected President that he believes marijuana should be legalized, and then, after getting elected, doing a 180 degree turn on that stance.

  10. jeremysteele11

    Here’s the Montagnier interview for anyone who missed it:

    Q: “So if you have a good immune system, then your body can naturally get rid of HIV?”

    A: (Montagnier) “Yes.”

    No edit/cuts between the question and answer, folks! How… was… he… taken… out… of…. context?

  11. jeremysteele11

    Btw, I’m reading Henry David Thoreau’s “Walden”, a real gem, and would like to share this excerpt which I, but minutes ago, read:

    “It is never too late to give up our prejudices. No way of thinking or doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof. What everybody echoes or in silence passes by as true to-day may turn out to be falsehood to-morrow, mere smoke of opinion, which some had trusted for a cloud that would sprinkle fertilizing rains on their fields…”

    And keep in mind Thoreau lived well before the current endless blitzkrieg of t.v. and billboard brain-washing announcements paid for by the multi-billion dollar AID$ industry!

  12. Frank

    “…this Montagnier claim that he is now saying he was taken out of context when he warned that drugs are not needed to fight HIV, that it can be eradicated with diet and clean water within two weeks…”

    Jeremy, watch the whole interview. Montagnier is talking about the body getting rid of HIV following exposure but before chronic infection is established a few weeks later:

    “I think this (treating oxidative stress) is one way to approach, to decrease the rate of transmission, because I believe HIV we can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected, our immune system can get rid of the virus within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system.”

    While it remains to be seen whether Montagnier’s theory that treating oxidative stress might make a difference to the chances that an exposure to HIV will result in chronic infection, his observation that many exposures do not result in chronic infection (HIV positive status on completed diagnostic algorithms) should be no news to anyone familiar with HIV transmission.

    Many factors affect the chances of chronic infection following exposure to HIV: the viral load of the infected partner, the type of sex, the presence of genital ulcers or other infections, ones genetics. Using antiretroviral post exposure prophylaxis at the right time can reduce the chances of chronic infection by 80%.

    But once chronic infection is established it is permanent. No one who has been chronically infected with HIV has ever cleared their infection through diet and clean water. Nor has Montagnier ever made such a claim.

    Denialists such as yourself make up ridiculous claims, and characteristically attribute them to actual scientists. That is a double dishonesty.

  13. Jeremy:

    I have two words that will explain why trolls like Frank make noise:


    If you Google her name, you’ll see that she “is the Medical Director of the AHF Magic Johnson Oakland and San Francisco clinics and is board certified in Internal Medicine.”

    Pretty impressive, huh? Sure – until you watch her deposition from Sept 3, 2010. Starting at page 90, her own lawyer admits that she isn’t an expert.

    When that case is settled, OMSJ will post her videotaped deposition; which is outrageous enough to pave the way for a class action lawsuit against both clinics – and any clinic that hires her.

    (Google “negligent retention”).

    This is why AHF pays anonymous trolls like Frank to bully you on websites like this. Until he proves his expertise, we can safely assume that he knows less than the celebrated Dr. Wilson.

  14. jeremysteele11

    Stop playing games, Frank. I asked you to “please provide a link to this Montagnier claim that he is now saying he was taken out of context”.. HE should explain HOW he was allegedly taken out of context, not you. You’ve seen the video. There’s no cut ‘n pasting going on, nor any manipulative conversation. You’re the denialist, not I. There are so many things you deny about HIV/AIDS, but that’s self-evidently in your self-interest, sort of like proving to the industrial military complex that there were never any WMDs in Iraq.

    Btw, a friend who’s been reading this thread just sent me this message w/link:

    “Frank states that no one who is chronically infected with “AIDS” has ever been cured. Wrong again! Read this if you haven’t seen it:

    So it’s all in the immune system to knock out this little retro-virus (which can only be theorized and not actually found), and those who can’t be cured are obviously the ones who have compromised immune systems due to heavy drug use, etc., as well as the toxic effects associated with aids drugs, and no interest in improving health. Such results lead to the infection of hepatitis, sarcoma, and a whole list of the other diseases associated with aids.”

  15. Frank

    Jeremy, why must you and your denialist friends tell such obvious lies about what other people say? First Montagnier, and now me:

    “Frank states that no one who is chronically infected with “AIDS” has ever been cured. Wrong again!”

    No, Jeremy. I said “No one who has been chronically infected with HIV has ever cleared their infection through diet and clean water.”

    Timothy Ray Brown essentially had his entire immune system removed and replaced by a transplant from a donor who, luck would have it, was genetically resistant to HIV, as part of a radical treatment for an otherwise incurable leukemia.

    That’s not “diet and clean water”.

  16. jeremysteele11

    As I said Frank, please provide a link of Luc Montagnier’s assertion that he was taken out of context in the “House of Numbers” documentary as well as explaining HOW!

  17. Frank

    “As I said Frank, please provide a link of Luc Montagnier’s assertion…”

    Jeremy, you are not only dishonest, you are lazy. Here, Let Me Google that for you.

    Most of these web pages carrying the quote are AIDS denialist sites trying frantically to twist Montagnier’s assertion, which was made to a French conspiracy theory magazine.

    But no matter how you slice it, Montagnier himself said that he was “taken out of context”.

    So please stop your lies. It’s boring and stupid.

  18. jeremysteele11

    I may be lazy at times Frank, but I am not dishonest. You’re on the side that profits mightily from dishonesty. Remember the “scientific misconduct” proceedings for Mr. Gallo?

    Wow, that’s a neat little link gizmo you got there. Thanks.

    Is this all Montagnier has to say- that he was “taken out of context” HOW? This is an outrage no matter how you look at it, no matter what you believe about HIV/AIDS. What did he mean when he said this kind of information is something Anthony Fauci doesn’t want you to know? Did he ever clarify that statement, as well?

    This is like when the POONTALK asshole kept telling me “You can’t write that. It’s politically incorrect. It’s fine for me to endlessly trash you, but you can’t speak your honest opinions about anyone/thing else because it’s bad for business if you upset someone”, to paraphrase.

    Clark Baker addresses Luc’s backtracking:

    … which includes the Perth Group Response:

    According to the HIV theory of AIDS healthy people with competent immune systems (normal levels of T4 cells) get infected with HIV and this infection causes the acquired immune deficiency (AID=low T4 cell count) that leads to AIDS. However, Montagnier says that people with competent immune systems get rid of HIV within a few weeks. In other words only people with immune deficiency develop what he labels as “chronic” HIV infection. If the people who get infected with HIV are already immune suppressed then what is the role of HIV in AIDS?

    According to all the HIV experts, once infected with a retrovirus, always infected. This is because the retroviral RNA is reverse transcribed into DNA which is then incorporated into the host genome (DNA). Once in the host DNA it cannot be removed by any means. This is why HIV infection is incurable. As retrovirologist Harold Varmus said in 1998, “Trying to rid the body of a virus whose genome is incorporated into the host genome may be impossible”. So Montagnier has to explain how “general health measures”, which we assume equate to clean water, sanitation, a good diet and medical services, are able to excise approximately 9 thousand specific bases from the human genome while managing to leave all the rest intact.

    If general health measures can remove these particular 9 Kbases after “a few weeks” then why not also after a few months? Or twelve months? Or twelve years?

    If general health measures, which have no toxicities, can remove the HIV DNA, why are doctors using ARVs with all their toxicities? And why are millions of dollars being spent on vaccine research?

    The Perth Group
    26 January 2010

  19. jeremysteele11

    I see Clark Baker’s comment 523 is in regards to comment 516, which I just saw for the first time now… must’ve been in suspended animation.

    Yeah, it looks like Lisha Wilson is a part of the “Magic” trick.

  20. Pingback: Clark Baker Emphatic Regarding Cases « HIV Innocence Project Truth

  21. Pingback: Clark Baker Emphatic Regarding Cases « hivinnocencegrouptruth

  22. Pingback: Daniel Allen Case « HIV Innocence Project Truth

  23. Pingback: Daniel Allen Case « hivinnocencegrouptruth

  24. Pingback: Daniel Allen UPDATE: Attorney Galen Confirms Baker’s Lies « HIV Innocence Project Truth

  25. Pingback: Daniel Allen Case UPDATE: Attorney Galen Confirms Baker’s Lies « hivinnocencegrouptruth

  26. brothersun

    For people first hearing about the HIV-hoax in this interview, I think it’s important to first watch Dr Gary Null’s documentary “Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS” so that you can hear it from 12 MDs (2 of which are Noble prize recipients for their research in cancer and cell biology, respectively). That way you will see that this topic is not one that Clark came up with out of the blue, but is one supported by highly respected and capable medical scientists. What sets them apart is that they are true scientists and value the truth more than financial gain. Just listen to their analysis with an open mind, and I think you’ll hear that their words have the ring of truth.

  27. jeremysteele11

    And Whiteacre, who also advocates the documentary “House of Numbers” about the HIV/AIDS scam, has pointed out how Tim Tritch = Joe Know. The shit people do when the rug gets lifted and all the dirt underneath is shown…

  28. Pingback: Important Health Articles | Watching The World

  29. Pingback: The Pharmaceutical Approach To Human Health | What Is Health

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *