Recent Comments




8-hydroxy efavirenz addiction ADR adverse drug reactions AIDS anal sex ARV Atripla Baylor benzodiazepine Bristol-Myers Squibb Celia Farber Christine Maggiore circuit party cocaine Cornell University corruption Daniel Kuritzkes MD Dissidents for Dummies efavirenz fraud gallo HAART HIV HIV Innocence Project House of Numbers immune Jeffrey “JT” DeShong John P. Moore John P. Moore, Phd marxism montagnier NIH Nobel orwell P450 enzymes pacifism pharmaceutical Robert Gallo Saul Alinsky Sustiva totalitarianism war withdrawal WWII

Spam Blocked

Recent Posts


August 2017
« Oct    


Site search

Recent Trackbacks

Recent Comments

  • fritzkohle: Dear Clark, somewhere I read that Simian AIDS was found in binge-drinking monkeys infected with SIV....
  • FloridaCalifornian: Just came across your blog courtesy of…We recently moved from S Florida to a...
  • California Conservative: People will always scoff. But they also fail to articulate fact-based rebuttals.
  • California Conservative: Stong language. Strong opinions. Would expect nothing less from Clark Baker.
  • Da Goddess: Simply and perfectly illustrated.

Site search


August 2017
« Oct    



Sticks and Stones

There’s a lot of truth to the saying, “Never wrestle with a pig — you get dirty and the pig likes it.”  So when Jeffrey “JT” DeShong (JTD) called Nancy Banks a bigot, he deserved no attention.  After all, why would anyone care what an unaccomplished sociopath blogs from his aging mother’s White Settlement rental? Read more »

Charged with HIV-related Crimes - YOU’RE INNOCENT!

OMSJ is a licensed investigation agency. Since October 2009, it has helped more than two dozen defense attorneys successfully defend more than two dozen HIV-related criminal cases.

If you have been charged with an HIV-related crime or civil action - or you represent someone in such action, CONTACT OMSJ IMMEDIATELY.

Here’s why:

  • In 2008, a Texas court sentenced Willie Campbell to 35 years in prison for spitting at a police officer.
  • A year later, Philippe Padieu faced five to 99 years for having sex with several women. He lucked out with a 25-year sentence.
  • In December 2009, an Arkansas Court sentenced Christopher Gray (18) to 15 years in prison.

These men were convicted NOT because they are infected with deadly infectious diseases but because their attorneys did not know how to defend their clients against HIV junk science.

According to HIV test manufacturers, FDA-approved HIV tests do not detect HIV and cannot be used to diagnose HIV. AIDS drugs cause cancer and kill. Many HIV medications contain drugs like Sustiva (Efavirenz), a benzoxazine (BZX) that compromises immune function after ONE DOSE and can produce life-long psychological and physical injuries.

(More information about HIV drugs and the diseases they cause is found here.)

Statutes differ from state to state. Most of these laws are written by well-meaning legislators who rely on pharmaceutical marketing information and corrupt government officials to write their bills.

OMSJ’s HIV Innocence Group provides expertise to attorneys whose clients face HIV-related charges. Because of the technical nature of these cases and the volume of pharmaceutical propaganda pushed by the CDC and NIH, there is little information for prosecutors, defense attorneys and courts that can be helpful to these cases. (More information regarding case strategies is found at Winning Criminal HIV Cases.)

In April 2011, OMSJ counsel deposed the Director of the Indiana State Department of Health in charge of HIV-related policy. He began to dismantle her credibility in less than one hour.

Although some Congress members and the Obama Administration have asked state officials to discontinue the prosecution HIV-related criminal defendants, men and women continue to be unnecessarily charged, convicted and sentenced based upon tests that do not detect HIV, evidence that is built upon scientific misconduct and doctors who sell their diplomas to drug companies. Some of these doctors are critical of OMSJ’s efforts, which may confuse potential clients. (Visit our Due Diligence page for more information and references.)

If you or your client have been charged with an HIV-related criminal or civil offenses, OMSJ urges you to contact us immediately. Do not admit being HIV positive and do not submit to a court-ordered HIV test before contacting OMSJ.

OMSJ provides services to attorneys and defendants throughout North America and Europe and can be the difference between a long prison sentence and freedom. OMSJ also handles MILITARY cases.

HIV Charges Dismissed:

  1. Eneydi Torres faced 30 years - walked with five days of unsupervised probation (Oct 2009)
  2. Magdalena Mays - all HIV-related charges dismissed (March 2010).
  3. Bartholomew London - all HIV-related charges dismissed (May 2010)
  4. unnamed - prosecutors could not prove a “significant risk of harm” (May 2010)
  5. Jose Alex Perez - all HIV-related charges dismissed (May 2010))
  6. Valerie Randle Simmons - prosecutors dropped all HIV-related charges (Aug 2010)
  7. Andrea Dawson - no HIV-related criminal charges filed (Aug 2010)
  8. Pamela Jane Stuckey - all HIV-related charges dismissed (Sep 2010)
  9. Michael Sartin - Admitted to spitting at cop - HIV charges dropped (Sep 2010)
  10. Quacy Francis - Prosecutors dismissed ALL charges (Sep 2010)
  11. Patricia Ann Curry - convicted of sexual battery - HIV charges dismissed (Oct 2010)
  12. Kevin Sellars - all HIV-related charges dismissed (Oct 2010)
  13. Mickel Jordan - all HIV related charges dismissed (Nov 2010)
  14. Jerry Wayne Thomason - all HIV-related charges dismissed (Dec 2010)
  15. Esther Mondesir - Community service - diversion (Dec 2010)
  16. Ruperto Velasquez-Bravo - all HIV-related charges dismissed (Dec 2010)
  17. Carl Jackson - all charges dropped (Dec 2010)
  18. Daniel Allen - Bio-terrorism/HIV charges dismissed - $110 fine for battery (Dec 2010)
  19. Martavious Mercery - all HIV-related criminal charges dismissed (Feb 2011)
  20. Pamela Jane Stuckey - charges refiled - probation and counseling only (Mar 2011)
  21. Cordlin Comer - OMSJ’s assistance instrumental in resolving case (May 2011)
  22. Edward Casto - all HIV charges dropped (May 2011)
  23. Adrian Sensabaugh - accepted probation to avoid 24-year sentence (June 2011)
  24. Daniel Hay Lewis - all HIV-related charges dropped (June 2011)
  25. Francis Woodke - all HIV-related charges dismissed (Aug 2011)
  26. Jerome Walker - Deft faced 34 years - accepted a two-year plea deal (Aug 2011)
  27. Lennie Love - ALL criminal charges dropped (Aug 2011)
  28. Shan Ortiz - ALL HIV-related criminal charges dropped (Aug 2011)

For more information, Contact OMSJ





















































House of Numbers Angers Corrupt Scientists

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Queen Gertrude
Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230

Over time, investigators learn how to identify common characteristics of criminal behavior. Whether the suspect is a lawyer, longshoreman or pharmaceutical company, the cues are often the same. Though some are as subtle as a heartbeat, one does not need a phlebotomist to hear them.

Despite the preventable deaths and injuries to thousands of trusting patients each year, billion-dollar drug companies routinely pay off prosecutors with profits bled from their victims. In 2009 alone, Eli Lilly and Pfizer paid billions to settle criminal charges and, despite the death and injuries, not a single executive went to jail.

Like common crack and heroin dealers, drug companies are friendlier to customers than to those who ask tough questions. If drugs like Sustiva and Nevirapine offered something more than a addiction and death, drug makers wouldn’t have to pay the activists at TAG, TAC and AIDSTruth to attack those who question their schemes with tactics taught by Marxist radicals.

Conceived in 1981 by shady scientists (who faced unemployment) and gay men (who refused to accept blame for their self-destructive behavior), AIDS was marketed as an existential threat to humanity. This 1983 report alleged that the number of AIDS victims was doubling every six months which, if accurate, would have claimed the lives of 100 billion people a decade ago.

Though my original investigation presents a synopsis of what has always been a political disease, no one has captured the high priests of HIV in flagrante as well as the documentary House of Numbers. In some ways, filmmaker Brent Leung has exposed them much the same way that Hamlet identified his father’s murderer.

Hamlet’s Play

As Shakespeare explained, Hamlet was suspicious. Weeks after the king’s sudden death, his mother (Queen Gertrude) married Claudius, Hamlet’s uncle. Hamlet suspects that Claudius murdered the king to marry his mother and ascend to the throne.

While suspecting is one thing, proving it is quite another. To expose the crime, Hamlet commissions a play to reenact the king’s death in hopes of pressuring Claudius to admit his crime. If Claudius and Gertrude are innocent, the play will have no effect. But if they are guilty, their responses will corroborate it.

As expected, Claudius is furious and plots numerous schemes that, in the end, expose the crime and leads to the demise of Claudius and his morally-confused queen.

Like Hamlet’s invention, House of Numbers exposes HIV causation and policy as something akin to Queen Gertrude’s illicit marriage.

Like Claudius, lab rats like Robert Gallo and John Moore are “shrewd and conniving in contrast to the other characters”:

Whereas most of the other important men… are preoccupied with ideas of justice, revenge, and moral balance, Claudius is bent upon maintaining his own power… Claudius is a corrupt politician whose main weapon is his ability to manipulate others through his skillful use of language. Claudius’s speech is compared to poison being poured in the ear—the method he used to murder
Hamlet’s father

Like Queen Gertrude, gay activists like Richard Jefferys, Walt Senterfitt, RN, MPH, PhD, and Jeanne Bergman PhD are:

… defined by (their) desire for station and affection, as well as by (their) tendency to use men to fulfill (their) instinct for self-preservation — which, of course, makes (them) extremely dependent upon the men in (their) life…

After initial refusals, the soft-spoken film student convinced one of the lab rats to agree to an interview, which resulted in a procession of lab rats who couldn’t resist the opportunity of having their egos stroked on the big screen with other scientific frauds. Unfortunately for them, no one memorized their alibis and the interviews of the planet’s most incandescent AIDS scientists and researchers quickly devolved into a food fight of he-said-she-said conflicts that culminated in Jay Levy’s impassioned five minute argument with himself. If not for the part they continue to play in the preventable deaths of thousands of people like Joyce Hafford, the ensuing hijinks would have been comical.

Like Claudius, the lab rats were so enraged that they drafted and signed this letter weeks before the film was released. Their queens joined them and issued thousands of libelous emails and letters to pressure film festival managers to censor the film.

Despite the pressure, House of Numbers has won ten awards at festivals around the world despite a few predictably ghostwritten attacks in the lame-stream media. After rave reviews at London’s Raindance Film Festival, The Spectator (UK) published Neville Hodgkinson’s expose, while political editor Fraser Nelson asked about the legitimacy of questions related to the link between HIV and AIDS. The ensuing comments (171 now) not only captured the rational comments of skeptics, but also the rage of apoplectic lab rats and the queens who defend them.

In this comment, Cornell’s John Moore argues:

I’m one of the scientists (the legitimate ones) that Leung deceived into appearing in this shoddy film. He used Sasha Baron Cohen-style tactics to sit in our offices and disguise his true agenda…

Whether questions were asked by Cohen or Leung, what possible impact would their questions have on the truthfulness of Moore’s responses? Although Leung did not pose as Kazak or a hooker, he elicited Moore’s honest answers the same way that Hannah Giles exposed ACORN. While Moore might’ve been friendlier to a man in heels, he fails to explain how Leung’s straightforward questions deceived him. Moore continues:

- an “honest investigation”? Yeah, right….. Leung is an AIDS denialist, pure and unadulterated.

Using Rule 13 of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, Moore 1) Picks his target and attempts to 2) Freeze It, 3) Personalize It and 4) Polarize It.” Like Galileo, Leung is a heretic – a non-believer of Moore’s deadly theology. Moore continues:

And his multi-million dollar and its promotional budget was paid for by a few wealthy AIDS denialist backers that Leung consistently refuses to identify…

This from the militant bagman whose servile complicity with the makers of HIV drugs and tests has resulted in illness, death and millions of dollars in pharmaceutical grants to his employer. Moore wants them identified so that fellow lab rats like Daniel Kuritzkes MD, who coaches journalists in the fine art of character assassination, can apply Rule 13 to them as well. In one speech, Kuritzkes complained that denialists like Peter Duesberg “still work in universities” and urged that they be “denied access to students and reported to authorities whenever possible.” Said Kuritzkes, “If this happens in your neighborhood ask the university authorities why they allow this and then write about it.”

Moore continues:

The film itself is deliberately edited to make AIDS scientists look bad, and to create controversy where none lies.

Although Moore’s lab rats issued the same allegations weeks before the film debuted, none have offered a single example – terrified of the filmmaker’s repeated offer to post uncut interviews so that viewers can decide for themselves. Like their political complaints of Prof. Duesberg’s scientific report, the lab rats can only blog their contempt. After 20 years, Duesberg’s paper remains unanswered.

Moore’s whining continues:

And of course Leung’s friends are made to look wise and thoughtful, honest questioners of the truth, when the reality is very, very different.

Wiser and more thoughtful than Moore?

Like I say, it’s Sasha Baron Cohen in action…… But of course this film is no comedy intended to entertain; its effect will be to cause yet more people to become infected with HIV and die of AIDS.

Moore’s arguments fail. Despite the unsupported numbers produced by profiteers, HIV is hardly noticed in the US or Africa (chart). Compared to a century ago, infectious disease is statistically nonexistent. But if we consider that AIDS consumes three-quarters of all US medical research funding despite its statistical non-existence, we can understand why the lab rats and queens believe that the political disease that funds America’s gay movement is more important than fighting real diseases like diabetes and heart disease. (chart). Moore concludes:

There’s much material on the AIDS denialists, who they are and what they do, posted on the AIDS Truth website. Read it and weep that such crazy and evil people can still influence others to make poor choices with their lives. And pay particular attention to the pages on “The denialists who died of AIDS”.

If we consider why HIV is so important to corrupt African regimes we will understand why HIV is so important to the Marxist South African propagandists at AIDSTruth.

As a career criminal investigator with nearly 30 years of experience, House of Numbers may be the most important documentary of the 21st century. Although I’m not a virologist, criminal behavior is less mysterious.

While Claudius, assorted lab rats and queens like Moore assume that ordinary people are too stupid to figure it out, the documentary and a review of the The Spectator comments will allow readers to decide for themselves.

George Orwell on Pacifism, 1942

I originally found this letter on this site, where it was available for many years. After Christopher Hitchens and others quoted from it, the site became unavailable. One can only speculate why… Clark Baker (2 May 2009)

Orwell writing about Pacifism during WWII, 1942:

Pacifism is objectively pro−Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, “he that is not with me is against me”. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security.
Mr Savage remarks that according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be objectively pro−British. But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious freedom station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.

HIV/AIDS: Is the Media Catching On?

When I reported the Nobel Committee’s snubbing of Robert Gallo’s contribution to AIDS this month, I didn’t expect the story to go further than a few conservative blogs. But after reporting what appears to be the greatest scientific fraud in history, more mainstream media sources are finally picking up the story – or at least tepidly reporting on a few of the story’s actors.

BarnesWorld now reports that NPR, the Baltimore Sun, Herald Sun, Scientific American, The Times UK , Newsweek , Forbes, Washington Post, and Time have all raised the same question: Why did only one of two alleged co-discoverers of HIV/AIDS receive one-quarter of one 2008 Nobel Prize for Medicine? If their discovery legitimately merited Nobel recognition, why didn’t they receive the entire prize, and why didn’t the two co-discoverers share it?

The Nobel Committee’s action only raises more questions about the legitimacy of HIV/AIDS funding, an endless windfall that is fast approaching a $1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion) taxpayer-funded industry that is entirely based upon Dr. Gallo’s unproven assumption that HIV attacks cells and causes AIDS. Even after the National Academy of Sciences published one leading scientist’s questions, the best Gallo’s pharmaceutically-funded defenders could do was blog their rebuttal.

Taxpayers can only hope that the media’s awakening will lead to more questions about the legitimacy of HIV/AIDS science.

Robert Gallo Snubbed by Nobel Committee

Dear Dr. Gallo:

I was thrilled to learn today that Luc Montagnier won the Nobel Prize for his important discovery of HIV (formerly called HTLV-3) several years back from that patient who had lymphadenopathy. It’s hard to imagine how Montagnier isolated it within one patient and not among others. He is either the luckiest scientist on the planet or the most brilliant.

At the same time, I am shocked that you could not share in his one-quarter (one-eighth) of the esteemed honor. After all, you were “co-discovers” of this terrible scourge that has killed millions of people (but no chimpanzees). Then again, Max Essex should also share in the honor for his tireless efforts to cure Leukemia in cats (one-twelfths?).

This is so embarrassingly awkward – and so totally unfair that you have been slighted in this breathtakingly conspicuous manner and denied your rightful place among the pantheon of great scientists who have saved millions of lives from these awful microbes. Clearly, the water they are drinking in Stockholm must be spiked with something because these Swedes have lost their marbles. Then again, one never knows what those Lutherans are thinking.

Perhaps you will receive your long-overdue Nobel Prize for discovering HTLV-1 or HTLV-2, which caused millions of cases of Leukemia among innocent victims all over the atolls of Japan and the Caribbean.

If brilliant meteorologists can share their prize with Al Gore, and Jimmy Carter can share his prize with Yassar Arafat, Dr. Montagnier can certainly share his prize with you.

Your biggest admirer,

Clark Baker


Since writing Gallo’s Egg, I’ve unexpectedly discovered how vitriolic the arguments related to HIV/AIDS has been.

Other than the allegations made by pharmaceutical operatives (AIDS truthers, HIV doctors, HIV+ and gay magazine publishers, and researchers) who rely on pharmaceutical and government funding, I have not received one letter, email, or phone call from anyone who blamed Duesberg/Farber for harming or killing a personal friend or family member because of their irresponsible research or journalism; nor have I received one note from someone who believes black box HIV drugs saved their lives. Reasonable people would expect that if millions were sick and dying because of Duesberg or Farber, I would have received at least one note from someone saying so.

The only people who object to Duesberg and Farber have been directly or indictedly funded by pharmaceutical advocates and physicians who administer these drugs – and their objections have usually been accompanied by threats, libel, and criminal behavior.

I have decided to post emails like these on my website.

If any reader knows of ANYONE who thinks HIV drugs have saved their lives, (other than pharmaceutical advertisements in gay magazines) or families who believe Farber’s articles misled them in a way that resulted in the HIV/AIDS death of a loved one, please forward their info to me so I may follow up on it.

In the meantime, I will post some of their emails below:

From: Carl
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 3:50 PM
To: Celia Farber
Subject: Wonderful!

Dear Celia,

I have been out of the loop during a rather involved move (of my business up the street). I just came across a Semmelweis press release where I read:

“We at Semmelweis are proud of our decision to present Dr. Peter Duesberg and Celia Farber with our highest honour…”

Whereupon I burst into tears.

My heart is so full of gratitude that this esteemed organization has bestowed this award upon you and Peter. Just when one almost collapses from hopelessness that anything will ever change, along comes this blinding torch of hope that something will, somehow, finally shift. Somewhere. Someday.

I can think of no one more deserving, and I hope it provided some shard of hope, some vindication, and a reminder that you are walking a path of extraordinary, almost unbelievable dedication to truth and fairness.

I am alive today because I read your Spin magazine articles, Celia. I am alive today because Peter chose to assert something different. How can one express the kind of gratitude and admiration I feel for you both?

Well, a Semmelweis Award is certainly a start. And so, I carry on weeping for joy…




From: David
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 8:16 PM
To: Clark Baker
Subject: Thanks very much!

Dear Clark,

Thanks very much for writing your timely article entitled “Gallo’s Egg” on the HIV/AIDS scandal and the ongoing cover up associated with it. As a dissident and survivor of the lies, restrictions and “false diagnosis” imposed on me for over 20 years now, I can relate directly to all the details and events you cover.

The fraudulent antibody test was imposed on me by my doctors in conjunction with my ongoing Hemophila care and assessment at the Hospital. My diagnosis came at a vulnerable time in my life while still a minor. You could in a sense compare me as contemporary of “Ryan White”, except that I refused the toxic regimens from day one. Fortunately my life was saved because of this fact. But I never was able to resume normal relationships, get married or continue my future career and life, etc. as I had envisioned. With the diagnosis I have directly experienced high levels of social isolation, discrimination and stigmatization in spite of the fact I’ve been 100% healthy all these years.

I have personally witnessed and know of many hemophiliacs who died from AZT poisoning in the initial years of regular high dose AZT monotherapy. Many were asymptomatic like me and would have lived had they not been given put on these poisons on a prophylactic basis. It disgusts and saddens me that the true nature of these deaths has been part of an on going cover up to this day. Still others are living on slightly less toxic cocktails and ultimately die prematurely of liver and/or kidney failure which are caused entirely by the drugs and not by any hypothetical virus.

(…I got your phone call at this

I’m going to continue seeking more spiritual communication with God on these matters. I pray that you will be protected from all harm and that you will have success in spreading the message. Indeed I’m a survivor with an enlightening and life affirming message to share that can save many others too from also being given a “Dentence Sentence”. I will do my all to end the tyranny and oppression imposed by the HIV/AIDS dogma and defend all those harmed by it.

Sincere thanks and much gratitude,



To: Peter Duesberg
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:31:44 +0000

I’m sure you get unsolicited emails all the time and I’m sorry to add to the pile. I’ll keep it brief. I have been diagnosed two months ago as having HIV which came as a huge shock, everyone says that I know. It has been a huge mystery to me because I do not fit into the classic risk groups, I have never taken drugs, I am definitely not a bum bandit and I’ve never suffered from Anaemia. To make matters worse I am hardly the worlds most promiscuous man, I have had very few sexual encounters for a man of my age, 29 and I have since learned it is nigh on impossible to catch as an heterosexual man.

I started questioning the diagnosis from the start, the staff at the hospital in the UK did not fill me with confidence, there seemed to be a general lack of consensus on the subject and my questions were often met with varying answers depending on whichever Doctor I spoke to. What I detested most of all was their patronising manner, I felt very vulnerable and had the impression that they were rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of having another victim, another innocent casualty to keep the AIDS myth alive.

All this lead me to research the subject a bit further and I came across names such as Karry Mullis and of course you. It has given me the hope I needed and I have been astounded at what I have learnt. It frightens me that the drug companies can wield so much power and that the world at large buys into this myth, it almost as if a mass hypnosis is taking place before our eyes. I had never been privy to a witch hunt until this sad chapter of my life.

Anyway enough of the emotional crap, I am convinced that my result was a false positive and I am determined in proving this. I have suffered in the past from some quite strange ailments, these include Viral Labryintitus and have had psoriasis for about three years. I know that you are not a Doctor so I’m not going to ask you a load of questions. I know, however, that the tests are not specific to HIV antibodies as the virus has never been isolated so is it possible that I may have produced proteins or antigens from the aforementioned ailments which may have cross reacted with the test kits?

Finally, do you think the “dissident movement” will stay as an underground largely internet/blog phenomenon or will it eventually rise up and tear down the walls of the pro aids camp. How can the world move from the current accepted wisdom into challenging this virus concept. It just seems that the whole aids body is perched up in an ivory tower that cannot be brought down. Well I am hoping this will change because my life depends on it. Many thanks and sorry to bother you.



From: Carl
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 8:18 AM
To: CW Baker
Subject: Semmelweis

Dear Mr Baker,

I read with interest your report to the Semmelweis organization and found it searingly accurate.

Thank you for the work you put into it. History will remember all this and this kind of documentation will help clear the rubble of this confused and tangled subject.

It came to my attention that you had expressed interest in hearing from those who had benefited from HAART treatments for ‘HIV infection’. This is indeed a difficult subject. However, I would like to share my perspective.

I have seen these drug treatments administered to friends whose health quickly deteriorated thereafter until they died from toxicities. I have seen friends near death who then recover some semblance of health for a while after administration of HAART. And I have seen people carry blithely on with no treatment whatsoever. And everything in-between.

In observing all this madness, my feeling is that the earlier dosages (1980’s) were much more toxic and the new classes of drugs less so, both is dosage and inherent toxicity. There is some evidence that these drugs are highly antifungal, antiviral and anti bacterial, hence their prescription for everything from toenail fungus to Hep B.

In my view, far from rebalancing the immune systems of people whose antibody titre for certain antibodies is high enough to trigger a positive ‘HIV’ result, they seem to act in some broadly antimicrobial way, which can be helpful in the short term. However, the cumulative toxicities seem to eventually overwhelm the patient and kill them. This is what HIV-based research has brought us. Not a very good result for all the hundreds of billions spent.

You will likely find people who attribute their continuing health to these drugs. Sadly, my experience has been that most everyone who would claim they are being kept alive by them, also experiences varying losses in quality of life, if the drugs don’t kill them outright. This loss can be mild or severe.

For what it’s worth, I do feel that something is going on in some patients who are HIV positive. Peter Duesberg is likely correct that an HIV test is like a ’something’s wrong’ test - a red flag at best. I think if science focused on the significance of high antibody titres to an immune system (inflammatory?) we’d be much farther ahead. I don’t see evidence for a single cause of AIDS, and my observation has been that it is much more of an disease of accumulation. Accumulation of things that each tax the system: Malnutrition, and endemic infection if some groups; Anal exposure to too many different semens, drug use and stds in other groups; Undiagnosed or improperly treated Syphilis infections are another avenue of research that may yield answers; and of course, the immune destroying effects of the very drugs used to ‘treat’ HIV.

Indeed, the presence of antibodies used to diagnose HIV may have some other vague predictive value. Unfortunately, as other possible interpretations of the presence of these antibodies has been all but ignored by the establishment, we simply don’t really know what else they may mean. Or if they really mean anything at all in every patient.

But who am I really?…this is all just personal supposition based on my reading and observations… I am not a scientist. But I have so far survived for 11 years without illness or HAART (although I not public about my diagnosis)

I share this because there will be those who claim HAART saved them. Perhaps it can help sometimes, especially those who are nearing the end. Perhaps some tolerate it better than others over time and so experience more benefit from its’ antimicrobial (or other?) effects with less toxicity. I can’t be sure.

The truth is that many within the system see those patients who rebound after treatment and assume that everybody will likewise benefit regardless of the state of their health. This is where some of the anger directed at Celia and Peter comes from. While I believe that there are definitely bad apples promoting Big Pharma at all cost, there are those who too-willingly over-simplify the dissenting opinions and convince themselves that the Farbers and Duesbergs of the world are saying immune deficiency in people with these antibodies doesn’t exist. That AIDS doesn’t exist. That HAART is the only problem. Don’t bother with condoms.

Well it’s just nonsense. And perhaps laziness. And maybe fear.

Having read much of what Duesberg and Farber have written on the subject, I have never had the impression that any of that is true. From their writings I take these simple messages: AIDS may be more complicated than we thought; Prevention may be more complicated than we thought; Treatment may be more complicated than we thought; Let’s be careful and look into it. Period.

Sadly, most AIDS activists simply don’t want to accept that things are complicated or complex…”One Virus = One Disease” is so much easier to understand.

I hope you will forgive this unsolicited email, but I felt inclined to share my perspective. I hope it’s not all completely redundant.

You have my admiration and gratitude for your work on all this.

With all good wishes,


Pharma Funds AIDS Conference in Mexico

Despite the overwhelming evidence that HIV does not kill or cause AIDS, the AIDS industry is sponsoring the 2008 AIDS Conference in Mexico City.

According to the Jamaica Observer, the $25 million conference is funded by the Gates Foundation, Merck, Abbott Labs, Tibotec, the Pan American Health Organization, and Panos Caribbean.

The report states that, next to Sub-Saharan African, the Caribbean has the “second highest HIV/AIDS prevalence rate in the world.” Since South Africa’s HIV mortality represents about two-one hundredths of one percent of the South African population and that countries like Benin successfully control HIV with voodoo, one wonders why pharmaceutical companies are spending $25 million to cure AIDS – especially now that the AIDS pandemic is over.

Evan Sayet Rocks

Evan Sayet rocks on Tuesday, Aug 19th at 8 PM at the Laugh Factory. I look forward to seeing you all there.

If Evan has a good show, he might even admit that he knows me! cb

More Questions for Obama

This couragous woman has summed up my questions about Barak Obama:

“First of all, what country does Obama think he is running for president in? Why didn’t the media share the fact that immediately prior to the Obama arrival, they put on several free music concerts in order to get people to show up? Why go overseas and bash this country, apologize for this country? Why go work out at the Ritz instead of see wounded soldiers in a military hospital in Germany? Why cancel your visit and then blame it on the Pentagon when the fact of the matter is that the State Dept told Obama that he could visit but could not take cameras and the media for photo ops? Why go to Iraq and see that we are winning and the surge is working yet refuse to admit it to Catie Couric and say that even though we have succeeded, saving millions of lives both American, Allied, and Iraqi, that you would and do not support the surge? Why go on a fact finding trip and then after it all say that it didn’t change ANY of your views? Why, Obama, would you try to claim credit for Bush’s strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq? And why in the hell Obama would you be trapsing around the world pretending to be the president and insulting our military, giving the enemy credit for the success saying they “stood down”, and pandering to every group you see, when we, Americans, are suffering paying $4.00 + a gallon for gas?”

more here