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.

I dismissed stories about “big pharma” as fast as I heard them. The notion that scientists would deliberately poison patients for profit, or that the US Government would fund medical doctors like Robert Gallo after he violated his Hippocratic Oath was preposterous. As much as I like Ralph Fiennes, I refused to see a movie as unbelievable as The Constant Gardener.

So when the physicians and nurses at Semmelweis Society International (SSI) asked me to investigate allegations that UC Professor Peter Duesberg had killed millions in Africa, I expected to complete my task within days. With almost thirty years of investigative experience, I figured that a few Google searches would resolve the questions, one way or the other.

Little did I know that the allegations issued by James Murtagh MD, Kevin Kuritzky, and Richard Jefferys would consume thousands of hours of my time or expose me to the ugly underbelly of the pharmaceutical industry and its chicken-ranch relationship with America’s most prestigious universities.

While the evidence I discovered now suggests that millions may have been poisoned and murdered, I’ve found that Dr. Duesberg more closely resembles Moshe the Beadle than his pharmaceutically-funded accusers – who now appear to have far more in common with Phillip Morris than Louis Pasteur.

Since the release of my preliminary report (PDF) in July 2008, filmmaker Brent Leung completed his documentary and investigative reporter Celia Farber, who was also targeted, has filed suit against her accusers in the New York Supreme Court.

My report established the two sides of the dispute:

• One side, (commonly referred to as truthers, goons, and troofers) is comprised of the beneficiaries of millions of dollars in pharmaceutical funding. Truthers insist that HIV attacks cells and causes AIDS.
• The other side, (called rethinkers, denialists, and skeptics) question whether anyone has ever proved that HIV attacks cells and causes AIDS. These individuals rely mostly on private donations and represent a tiny fraction of what truthers receive from the pharmaceutical industry.

After examining both sides, the evidence now indicates that:

1. All HIV/AIDS research is based upon Dr. Gallo’s unproven assumption that HIV attacks cells and causes AIDS;
2. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) spends $206,906 per AIDS death (compared to $13,365 per Diabetes death, $12,000 per prostate disease, $9,000 for Parkinson’s disease and $9,000 for Alzheimer’s disease), even though AIDS has never been a leading cause of death in the United States or Africa;
3. Except for rare individuals like US Senator Charles Grassley and Rep. John Dingell, the US Congress, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) appear to share many of the same organizational flaws that the SEC, FBI, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Treasury exhibited before the 2008 financial.

New Evidence

Although the toxic effects of HIV treatments are well documented, I was still confused by HIV+ patients who reported that, after years of treatment, many became ill within two weeks of discontinuing their medication. If HIV didn’t kill cells or cause AIDS, why were patients getting sick when they interrupted their drug regimen?

Although patients like Karri Stokely attributed her four-month post-drug illness to “the shock of no longer being on toxic drugs,” I didn’t accept it. Toxins don’t ordinarily make someone sicker when stopped – addictive drugs do that. If someone takes regular doses of arsenic for six months, there is no evidence that their sudden abstinence would cause anything but a recovery. Conversely, addicts (and those who know them) understand the distress that comes with abstinence from coffee, tobacco, and harder drugs like alcohol, cannabis, opiates, meth or cocaine. The degree of withdrawal depends upon factors that include the addict’s health, dosage, resistance, the intoxicant, and how the drugs are metabolized.

But while post-HIV drug symptoms sounded suspiciously like addiction withdrawal, I found little more than a mild warning (404) of the “potential for additive central nervous system effects when SUSTIVA is used concomitantly with alcohol or psychoactive drugs.” Nothing alluded to intoxicating properties of the drug itself.

When I met Karri Stokely last week, she explained her medical history, her two-month recovery from a post-operative infection, and various tests that eventually led to her HIV+ diagnosis in June 1996 when she began her treatment. (more)

Karri reported that she was initially prescribed Combivir and Crixivan until 2001, when her doctor detected signs of liver damage and switched from Crixivan to Sustiva. After that, Karri took Combivir and Sustiva as prescribed until April 2007, when she discovered Dr. Duesberg’s questions about AIDS research. After studying the information on Rethinking AIDS and Virus Myth, she abruptly stopped her medication.

At first, Karri detected no adverse symptoms. During the second week, however, she noticed increasing symptoms of fatigue, exhaustion, depression, insomnia, body aches, and a significant loss of appetite. During the next month, she developed an extreme sensitivity to pain when touched, even when lying in bed or eating. Visits to the toilet and tub were difficult and, as the weeks passed, her weight dropped from her normal 135 to 114 (she’s 5-8). Karri also experienced night sweats and often noticed a thin green/yellow coating on her tongue. Most notably, her throat was sore and she possessed an almost continuous and unquenchable thirst.

“I felt as if my system was shutting down,” she said.

Karri’s decline continued from April through August 2007, when her symptoms began to subside. She returned to her clinic for another blood test in August and, when the lab results returned a week later, the nurse called Karri in a panic: “Your lab tests are way off! You didn’t stop taking your drugs, did you?”

The nurse became more alarmed when Karri admitted that she’d been off the drugs for four months.

Nurse Nancy asked, “Why would you do such a thing? Do you know what happened to your lab work?

“No.”

“Do you even want to know what your lab work says?”

“Yes.”

“Your T-Cell count dropped to 97 (from 200s) and viral load to 135,000! Are you coming in?”

A week later, Dr. Van Hook crossed his arms and scowled at Karri. “Why would you do this?”

Karri asked him, “Did you know there is another view of HIV, that it might not cause AIDS?”

“No,” said the doctor.

“Do you want to know?”

“No, Karri, I don’t want to know. You’ve done a very stupid thing and you will be dead very soon.”

Karri Stokely didn’t die and, during the next two years, her symptoms disappeared entirely.

After listening to Karri’s story and comparing notes with other reports, I noted similarities between Karri’s symptoms and known withdrawal syndromes, including those of antidepressants. I also found reports that HIV drugs were being crushed and smoked by addicts in Africa:

Smoking the pills has a hallucinogenic and relaxing effect.

“When I asked them why they like doing it, they said it helps them relax and forget
about their problems,” said Ms Nhlapo.

“When you look at them, just a few seconds after taking it, they are in another world,” she added.

The children do not know where they are and they stop making sense.

The young users that Ms Nhlapo spoke to get access to these drugs from HIV patients or healthcare workers.

They know when the individual patients go to collect the drugs and buy them, or if they do not have any money, they steal them.

“When I was doing the story, many HIV patients were complaining that they don’t get the drugs and that queues are long and it was taking a long time to access them,” said Ms Nhlapo.

ABC News reported the drug as Efavirenz, also known as Sustiva – one of the two drugs Karri had taken for six years. I knew how better known addictive drugs worked and quickly dismissed the idea that an anti-bacterial drug could be addictive – until I stumbled upon Iproniazid.

While being studied as a possible treatment for tuberculosis in 1952, this antibacterial agent was discovered to have psychoactive properties. “Terminally ill patients who were given this drug became cheerful, more optimistic, and more physically active.” Iproniazid and similar compounds slowed the breakdown of norepinephrine, serotonin, and dopamine “via inhibition of the mitochondrial enzyme monoamine oxidase.” These neurochemicals affect the same receptors as cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines, cannabis, and other more commonly known addictive drugs. These antibacterial agents have since become known as monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), which are now used as antidepressants (SSRIs) under the names of Prozac, Paxil, Lexapro, Zoloft, and Effexor. Iproniazid withdrawal symptoms were similar to those Karri described.

The research, production, and distribution of this class of drugs is not without controversy. Japanese researchers recently reported antidepressant (SSRI) users “who developed increased feelings of hostility or anxiety, and have even committed sudden acts of violence against others.” (Other SSRI stories indexed here.) Texas psychiatrist Karen Wagner MD was recently exposed for failing to disclose a $160,000 payment from GlaxoSmithKline while understating the dangers of Paxil for children.

Many of these known SSRI withdrawal reactions are consistent with Karri’s post-Sustiva experience.

As for Nurse Nancy’s report of Karri’s erratic T-Cell counts and viral loads, numerous clinical studies show a direct connection between the stress of withdrawal (cocaine and heroin) and decreases in immune function for up to two years. Those reports show a direct correlation between addiction, withdrawal, and the human immune system (white blood cells, T-cells, and viral loads) regardless of whether HIV is present or not. But because AIDS experts and testing rely on T-cells and viral loads to establish HIV infection, it’s hard to understand how the experts know the difference between HIV infections and physiological changes due to illicit drug use. This would also explain why active and former drug addicts are frequently identified as HIV carriers.

The revelation that Sustiva is not reported to be an extremely addictive psychotropic drug is disturbing. After speaking with patients like Karri who interrupted their prescriptions, it now appears that abstinence from so-called “ARVs” like Sustiva results not in an increased risk of AIDS but, instead, precipitates the onset of a painful and violent withdrawal syndrome not dissimilar to withdrawal from cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines, and alcohol. Unfortunately for patients like Karri, AIDS clinicians typically mischaracterize the withdrawal syndrome as a manifestation of AIDS that will soon kill them. Unless given further information, care, and nurturing, most patients are physically and emotionally unprepared to contradict their white-coated physicians. Once the drug is re-administered, however, the “AIDS symptoms” disappear in ways not unlike junkies who inject a long-awaited dose of heroin.

Conclusion

It is not known how many AIDS medications are addictive or why; nor have I established whether the pharmaceutical industry unintentionally or deliberately marketed addictive drugs for the purpose of misleading otherwise uninfected individuals. But if a retired cop can identify Sustiva’s addictive properties, it’s hard to understand how the GlaxoSmithKline’s PhDs could have missed so much evidence.

Intentional or not, by marketing this class of drugs (MAOIs and SSRIs) as “AIDS medications,” the pharmaceutical industry has built into its HIV cocktails a mechanism that punishes HIV patients when they interrupt their drug use.

Karri’s cocktail contained two drugs – a deadly poison (AZT) that kills and a highly addictive drug that makes patients feel cheerful, more optimistic, and more physically active.

At $419/mo, a patient (or taxpayers) would pay $5,028 a year for Sustiva alone. Multiplied by the alleged HIV+ US population of 1,185,000, receipts could total $6 billion/year. Multiplied by the estimated global HIV+ population, GlaxoSmithKline could generate $100 billion in sales and tax deductions annually.

Despite these facts, no one can seriously believe that a pharmaceutical company would deliberately poison and addict millions of homosexuals, drug users, and illiterate Africans for $100 billion dollars a year. No, that’s out of the question. Of course they wouldn’t.

But if the pharmaceutical industry knows that Sustiva and/or other HIV drugs are addictive, it would also explain the hysterical attacks by so-called AIDS researchers who, instead of delivering proof that HIV attacks cells and causes AIDS, attack individuals like Karri Stokely who have the temerity to ignore the results of HIV tests that prove nothing.

While the Harrison Act of 1914 prohibits the distribution of addictive drugs to perpetuate addiction, the evidence suggests that GlaxoSmithKline has circumvented the spirit of this law by delivering intoxicants, other than opiates and coca, to millions by classifying them as HIV treatments.

Karri Stokely is one of many former HIV patients who have kicked the habit and now live a happy, healthy and drug-free life. I look forward to the day when politicians jump start the agencies that are supposed to be looking out for the most vulnerable in the US, Europe, and Africa.

http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/pacifism/english/e_patw

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.

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.

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
http://www.cwbpi.com/
http://blog.cwbpi.com/

Some of my readers have asked where I’ve been. I appreciate those who’ve checked in despite my absence, and I apologize for not writing sooner. Except for a few conferences, diversionary projects, and family stuff, I have become involved in the most important criminal racketeering case of my investigative career.

Last June, I posted this report about US hospitals and how many rely on fraud, preventable injuries and infections to patients to compensate for losses due to our government’s insistence that private hospitals treat and care for uninsured and underinsured citizens, indigents, and illegal aliens.

I learned how hospitals destroy good physicians and how predatory hospital chains like Tenet, Kaiser Permanente, and Adventist pressure local physicians already in successful private practice to join their groups. Those who refuse are targeted for sham peer review by corporate administrators and MDs who accuse non-compliant physicians as dangerous, incompetent, or disruptive. While a few tenacious victims expend their life savings to preserve their clinical privileges, others aren’t so lucky. Faced with the malicious and devastating loss of their medical careers, many take their own lives; which is what the health care corporations prefer anyway. To them, it’s only business – nothing personal.

I was never impressed by concerns about “the evils of big pharma.” I assumed that drugs are expensive because of the R & D that goes into finding cures for disease. Until now, I never imagined that some of those same drug companies would support junk science to fund researchers who would then produce expensive drugs that cause illness and disease around the world; or support junk legislation that would force healthy mothers and their children to take drugs that kill (under the threatened loss of child custody), and then use their subsequent sickness and mortality as evidence that a non-existent disease actually exists.

Such a scheme would have made Machiavelli weep with joy.

A New Investigation

I was not concerned about “big pharma” until my visit to Washington DC last May. I was there to meet with members of Semmelweis Society International (SSI). This is an impressive group of medical professionals – physicians, nurses, surgeons, medical and law school professors, and former CEOs of health care corporations. Because of my own experience with retaliation and my ongoing interest in US healthcare and sham peer review, I was interested to hear their stories directly from them.

I accompanied Gil Mileikowsky, MD, the OB/GYN who first explained sham peer to me in 2006. I spent five days with the members – all dedicated men and women who care deeply about the political corruption of healthcare and who risked their own careers to report fraud or abuse within the healthcare system. I recorded and edited their testimony, and posted this video after members testified before the US Congress and Senate. I was also honored to testify regarding my experience as an LAPD whistleblower.

Two recipients of the Semmelweis “Clean Hands Award” were reporter Celia Farber and molecular biologist Peter Duesberg, PhD. I had not heard of them before and knew nothing of their relationship to a little known controversy about HIV and AIDS.

After 28 years as an investigator, I consider myself pretty skeptical about things until I see proof. Most of my work today is pro bono, so I can pick and choose who I assist. Witnesses are expected to lie, but if I discover that a client has misrepresented facts or lied to me, I will usually drop the case. I’m fortunate to have the time, energy, and resources to help good people get out of undeservedly bad predicaments. Not all lawyers are like Mike Nifong or David Sotelo, and not all private investigators work like Anthony Pellicano. Without unbiased credibility, investigators are nothing more than a liability to their clients.

As various members interacted with Farber and Duesberg, I learned that the HIV/AIDS issue had not been entirely resolved. Like Dr. Mileikowsky’s story about sham peer review, this sounded equally unbelievable.

When I returned to Los Angeles, several former members began to question the wisdom of presenting the awards to Farber and Duesberg. In response, SSI President (and neurosurgeon) Roland Chalifoux issued this press release to explain the rationale of the awards. But when two dissenters persisted, Dr. Chalifoux asked me to conduct an independent investigation of Ms. Farber and Prof. Duesberg, citing my investigative experience, independence, and almost complete lack of knowledge about HIV and AIDS.

I accepted the case.

Although I didn’t expect it at first, I was warned that I should expect attacks from the “other side.” I wasn’t sure what they meant but kept it in the back of my mind. It didn’t take me long to find out for myself.

When word got out that I had begun my investigation, several ex-SSI members told me that Duesberg and Farber were dangerous and “not worth my time” to investigate. Having met both in Washington, I found nothing dangerous about the reporter or microbiologist.

Two dissenters, James Murtagh, MD and Kevin Kuritzky, were friendly to me at first and “appealed to my better judgment.” Their friendly pressure intrigued me and I began my investigation by checking into their allegations.

Both essentially charged that Duesberg and Farber were liars and that both were responsible for millions of HIV deaths in Africa. I wasn’t as troubled by their allegations as I was by their insistence that I stop my investigation. It seemed incongruous that the individuals who alleged genocide would also pressure me to not investigate their own allegations.

As both Murtagh and Kuritzky increased their hostility, the more interesting the case became.

From: Kevin Kuritzky [mailto:kevink4@mac.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 9:50 PM
To: Celia Farber
Cc: SSI Membership
Subject: Re: Official Nominations

Celia - why don’t you take your parasitic, attention-whore behavior elsewhere, to a place where people actually care.

You have been exposed to most of Semmelweis, and South Africa doesn’t want your uneducated “faux-journalistic” crap opinions either. The entire world have basically discredited you countless times, and all the attachments I have sent verifies this. Go back to doing what you appear to know best, which is to [crude remark].

Your anecdotal stinking pile of bullshit is only trumped by the real science of people who are actually qualified to talk about this, not someone like you who [crude remark].

Your false, damaging, and absurd views on HIV are not welcome in the medical community. Now I suggest you exit before you are exposed even further into the pit that you continue to dig.

It was hard to imagine that Kuritzky had once been accepted to the Emory School of Medicine and even more bizarre that his collaborator, Dr. Murtagh, would permit such an attack. Fifteen minutes later, Murtagh replied to Kuritzky:

From: Jim Murtagh [mailto:jmurtag@mindspring.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 10:05 PM
To: celiafarber; kevink4@mac.com
Subject:Fwd: Official Nominations

Dear Kevin,

I asked you to be kind to Ms. Farber because she is obviously ill. Her has distorted her judgment. We are dealing with very sad pathology in the AIDS denialists. What I really want to know is who wrote the SSI press releases? Who put Gil up to this? Obviously, Gil and Roland did not cook this up themselves.

It is sad that Farber did not respond to a single one of your well-documented points. I believe the entire SSI (and ex-SSI members) should be proud of the factual manner in which Kevin has investigated this affair.

Ms. Farber again resorts to made up facts, and ignores the 5,000 scientists who demonstrated that Koch’s postulates have been fulfilled.

Kevin, you documented 12 double blind studies. Your research puts any doubt to rest. HIV causes AIDS. This is as certain as the earth is round, and that the moon is not made of green cheese.

At the time, I did not know that Murtagh and Kuritzky were being supported by pharmaceutically funded operatives from South Africa, Cornell University, and the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

It got worse.

On June 19th, I became a victim of their attacks just as I had been warned. Kuritzky initiated a “spam attack” against my name and professional email account and phones, generating thousands of unwanted spam messages and phone calls that offered everything from gay porn to paid vacations. Because I was prepared, I was able to positively identify the source of the attack by matching Kuritzky’s IP address used before and after the attacks as the same address used to generate the attack. I eventually filed a crime report with the LAPD and continue to prepare a criminal and civil case against both.

As of last week, I completed and delivered my report to SSI and will now post it in its entirety below. If you want to understand what I now accept as the most significant criminal conspiracy I have ever imagined, get your coffee and strap on your seatbelt.

The investigation I call Gallo’s Egg took me from America’s “War on Cancer” (1971-1981) to the early history of HIV and AIDS. It reaches from the cities of West Hollywood and San Francisco to the continents of Africa, Asia, and Australia. It led me to the steps of the National Institutes of Health, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and some of America’s most prestigious universities and research centers. It involves hundreds of billions of dollars of misdirected tax-supported funding and some of the most financially successful pharmaceutical companies in the world.

I have never written about anything more important. This story changed my life, and if you have the time and patience to understand what I have written, it may change yours as well.

If Americans, our courts, and our legislature permit the continued corruption of science and medicine by our pharmaceutical industry, I fear that the 232-year experiment we call “The United States of America” will have failed.

CB

On May 13, 2008, Semmelweis Society International (SSI) presented the Semmelweis “Clean Hands” Award to Professor Peter Duesberg and Investigative Journalist Celia Farber.

The awards were not presented as an endorsement of Prof. Duesberg’s scientific conclusions. Indeed, SSI members disagree about many topics related to science, medicine, and politics. They are not unified by one single ideology, but by their commitment to those who oppose the influence of politics that corrupt science, research, and medicine.

Professor Peter Duesberg, PhD

Prof. Duesberg began his award-winning career in cancer research in 1963. Funded by major grants from National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dr. Duesberg isolated the first cancer gene in 1970, and mapped the genetic structure of retroviruses – a class of viruses that does not kill cells, but were thought to possibly cause cancer. In 1986, Prof. Duesberg was voted into the most respected scientific body in the United States, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

One year later, Prof. Duesberg described the flaws in the HIV hypothesis of AIDS causation. Although formal screenings are not required by Academy members, the NAS published Prof. Duesberg’s paper after an unprecedented six separate peer reviews. After 20 years, Prof. Duesberg’s paper remains unanswered.

Prior to these publications, Dr. Robert Gallo, the cancer virologist who claimed HIV caused AIDS in 1984 described Duesberg as the scientist “who knew more about retroviruses than any man alive.”

At the time of his endorsement of Duesberg, Gallo headed the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Although Gallo’s cancer and leukemia research was fraught with controversy, he still enjoyed significant influence in the distribution of research funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Once Dr. Duesberg questioned Gallo’s hypothesis that HIV (alone) caused AIDS, all his proposals for research funding were suddenly rejected. Before raising questions about the role of HIV in AIDS causation, Duesberg’s grant applications were never denied.

When reporter Celia Farber reported on Duesberg and the controversy over HIV (1988), the NIH barred her from further contact with their scientists and labeled her a “threat to public health.” Despite being under constant attack from the HIV/AIDS industry since then, Farber continued to probe the subject in her writings over the years.

Retaliation against publications and journalists who report on scientific challenges to the HIV hypothesis is not new. The gay publications New York Native and Christopher Street were shuttered as a result of the ACT UP boycotts.

Celia Farber

When Farber published her 15-page exposé in Harper’s on the unethical practices and patient deaths involved in the experimental AIDS drug trials in 2006, the retaliation was immediate.

Instead of addressing the disturbing content, or the inconsistencies of Dr. Gallo’s AIDS research, pharmaceutical industry-sponsored AIDS activists and researchers accusing Farber of having made 56 errors, and urged the global media and AIDS communities to discredit her, the article, and Harper’s, which they did (NY Times, The Nation, CJR, Poynter, Gay City News, The Advocate, The Body, Act Up). The document was posted by the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) in South Africa, where they are not required to identify their top 14 international “core donors”. The non-profit group, Rethinking AIDS, later published a rebuttal to their attack on Farber, which proved there were no errors in the Harper’s article. Farber’s most prominent critics, including Gallo, refuse to respond.

Harper’s and Farber stood accused of “AIDS denialism” and drawing negative attention to a “life-saving drug” Nevirapine, which had just been financed for distribution to more than a dozen developing nations. Their protest was consistent with their demands for increased distribution of lower-priced AZT during the 1980s.

In the heat of the attacks, members of Harper’s staff also received threats. The authors of the attack manifesto demanded 1) an apology, 2) a condemnation of Farber, 3) Harper’s surrender of pages to an article extolling the benefits of the drug in the next issue, same length, and the editor’s resignations. They even demanded to bring their own fact checkers. Harper’s yielded to none of the threats, conceded no errors, and continues to stand by the article to this day.

One of the signatories of the attack document against Farber was Richard Jefferys of New York’s Treatment Action Group (TAG), one of many AIDS “activist” groups that are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

In May 2008, Jefferys led the campaign to antagonize members of both the Semmelweis Society (SSI) and the No Fear Coalition over the Farber/Duesberg awards. In seeking to get the awards rescinded, Jefferys disseminated falsehoods about Farber’s journalistic record (which this investigator examined) and failed to reveal that the maker of the drug Farber exposed was TAG’s third largest donor. As the coordinator of TAG’s central donor program, Jefferys’ job was to coordinate “global activist/scientist response” against Farber and her article in Harper’s: In short, Harpers paid Farber to investigate, and Boehringer Ingelheim paid Jeffreys to retaliate.

As a result of the false allegations, Farber did not receive another journalism assignment for more than two years. Only one source later reported that an independent panel of non-orthodox scientists found Farber’s article, after a four month review process, to be error free.

Although his recent cancer theory has earned him newfound respect in scientific circles and media (Scientific American 2004, 2007, Discover 2008),
Professor Duesberg remains cut off from all NIH funding, and commutes to Germany to conduct his scientific work. While Prof. Duesberg and other scientists still doubt that HIV kills cells, their questions are even more troubling when we consider the coordinated personal attacks used by Gallo and a core group of collaborators against those who ask legitimate questions about Dr. Gallo’s questionable scientific record:

In 1975, Gallo and Weiss stated that they had isolated a human leukemia virus, HL23 virus, but this was shown later to have resulted from laboratory contamination by three primate retroviruses. In 1980 Gallo claimed to have isolated a human T-cell leukemia virus (HTLV), but did not present positive evidence that this was a human virus. During 1983-4, Gallo and his associates published several papers asserting that the human leukemia virus, HTLV-1, was the agent involved in the development of AIDS. This was eventually disproven but meanwhile the attention of many scientists was misdirected, wasting time and resources that could have been put to far better use…

After years of questions about fraud and questionable research, Dr. Gallo left NCI to open Baltimore’s Institute of Human Virology. Professor Duesberg still teaches at the University of California, Berkeley.

A quick summary of the origin of the HIV controversy:

1. Dr. Duesberg identified and mapped retroviruses,
2. Experts determined that retroviruses do not kill cells,
3. Dr. Gallo calls Duesberg the world’s top retrovirus expert,
4. Dr. Gallo proclaims that the HIV (retrovirus) causes AIDS (by killing white blood cells),
5. Dr. Duesberg reminds Gallo that retroviruses don’t harm cells, and;
6. Dr. Gallo has never proven that HIV exists, attacks cells, or causes AIDS.

History of Scientific Retaliation

Because the father of the scientific method was born 1000 years ago in the Middle East, the political pressures of his religion prevented humanity from taking full advantage of the promise of science. Ibn al Haytham and Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis were both judged insane not because they were wrong, but because their ideas threatened contemporary political forces.

Prof. Duesberg and Ms. Farber aren’t alone. Economist Ben Stein reported others whose scientific inquiries are now threatened, interrupted, or corrupted by political influence. This influence results in the loss of research grants or, as in the case of Ms. Farber, industry insiders who blacklisted her in the media. In hospitals, these influences kill thousands of patients annually.

When the NAS published Prof. Duesberg’s 1988 paper, Gallo and company scattered like debutants from a stentorian fart. Anthony Fauci refused comment. Maxine Singer said she was still reading earlier issues. Saying that he hadn’t “heard a single scientist discuss it for a second,” Gallo admitted that a copy was on his desk, but hadn’t read it.

Although he vowed to respond, neither Gallo nor any of his defenders ever published a rebuttal of Duesberg’s paper (or the 196 peer citations that supported it) in any peer-reviewed publication.

Instead, Gallo’s defenders created the specter of AIDS-Denialists and Denialism, epithets designed to marginalize those who questioned Gallo’s opinions as somehow denying the existence of AIDS itself. Because Gallo skeptics never questioned the existence of AIDS, this allegation is false. The fact that malnutrition, septic water, disease, environmental conditions, irresponsible drug use and self-destructive behavior can degrade a body’s ability to protect itself from infection and cause death is undeniable. What is in question is Gallo’s scientifically unsupported assertions that retroviruses cause leukemia, cancer, and AIDS.

When used around casual observers, the denialist/denialism epithet dehumanizes Gallo skeptics as flat-earthers, ufologists, Klansmen, Eugenicists, racists, homophobes, and other socially unacceptable groups. Because most people fear the stigma that comes with those associations – and are socially, politically, and professionally unprepared to defend themselves against this slur, they politely scatter and change the subject like Gallo’s debutants.

The Storm

Months after Ms. Farber published her 2006 Harper’s exposé, AIDS industry activists held this conference where those who offended the official HIV/AIDS “Party Line” were methodically and unrelentingly attacked as denialists.

Co-moderated by TAG operative Daniel Kuritzkes, MD, the 2006 HIV Science and Responsible Journalism Conference asked invited journalists “if balance was always appropriate when the evidence backs one side.” These academic “hit men” openly and unapologetically detailed how and why these attacks shall be executed.

A paid consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies, Dr. Kuritzkes warned journalists that denialists like Peter Duesberg still work in universities and urged that they be denied access to students and reported to authorities whenever possible.

Kuritzkes told his audience:

“If this happens in your neighborhood ask the university authorities why they allow this and then write about it.”

WSJ reporter Marilyn Chase warned reporters not to unintentionally “exalt the position of denialists by making them seem like just some sort of independent intellectual contrarian whose views really should be heeded.”

Sitting in the audience, research scientist Ella DeCann complained that “science is full of laboratory politics,” and asked the panel:

“Do you understand that AIDS research is actually tied to technology, rather than to science?”

Panelist John P. Moore, PhD quickly rejected her assertion. Although he regularly identifies himself as a professor of microbiology and immunology at Cornell University, Moore rarely mentions the $400 million annual funding that Cornell receives for research from taxpayers and HIV drug makers that include Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Trimeris, or GlaxoSmithKline. Bristol Myers Squibb alone acknowledges more than $100 million in research funding. With billions of dollars in research grants at stake, it’s understandable why Dr. Moore and America’s most prestigious universities are reluctant to offend the pharmaceutical companies that keep their prestigious research laboratories open. Rather than present Gallo’s promised proof that HIV exists, kills cells, and causes AIDS, Dr. Moore attacks with rhetoric. A few examples:

• H.I.V. causes AIDS. This is not a controversial claim but an established fact, based on more than 20 years of solid science. It is as certain as the descent of humans from apes and the falling of dropped objects to the ground.
• To deny that HIV causes AIDS is farcical in the face of the scientific evidence.
• Although science is not an ivory tower that should never be questioned, the fundamentals of whether HIV causes AIDS are so certain that challenging them to create trouble really does harm people.
• AIDS denialism kills.
• We will not engage in any public or private debate with AIDS denialists or respond to requests from journalists who overtly support AIDS denialist causes.
• The debate has been settled. It is not our role to enlighten denialists as to their inability to understand the available information.

A few months later, Dr. Moore wrote this email to another Gallo skeptic:

From: John P. Moore, PhD <jpm2003@med.cornell.edu>
To: Michael Geiger
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: Shame on you JP!

Thanks Geiger! What you sent contains useful information we can use against you people! And we will!

“Dan” has it exactly right when he says:

If they are able to “justify” their actions, it’s most likely because they simply see this as WAR. War against the “denialists”. Nothing more.

When you’re in a war, there are no rules.

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). John (emphasis added)

Although Moore boldly threatens to “crush” those who question the role of HIV in AIDS, he avoids all invitations to engage in public debate on the HIV hypothesis of AIDS.

Because AIDS is mostly confined to its initial risk groups in America (gay men and drug users), most Americans have been too busy to concern themselves with the issue or the storm of politics and retaliation that continues to mute this largely unnoticed international debate. Most Americans feel unaffected, but our general complacency permitted fundamental changes in the direction and progress of higher-priority medical research. The redistribution of hundreds of billions of research dollars based upon Dr. Gallo’s still unproven claims continues to the detriment of millions of Americans and people around the world.

After the Semmelweis Society International (SSI) presented awards to Duesberg and Farber last May, the retaliatory forces that curtailed all funding for
Prof. Duesberg’s award-winning cancer research and attacked Ms. Farber’s reporting were suddenly brought to bear against SSI and its members (including this investigator). If not for the courage of the SSI membership and the support of hundreds of award-winning scientists and researchers, SSI and the awards would have evaporated. For their membership, science and medicine must repudiate all forms of political influence, regardless of the political risks involved.

In the spirit of freedom and science, SSI commissioned this report to respond to questions and arguments regarding Professor Duesberg’s unanswered questions of Dr. Gallo’s 1984 HIV hypothesis. As an independent investigator who could not be influenced by the threats or attacks made against vulnerable SSI members and others; and as someone who had never heard of Duesberg, Gallo, Farber, or AIDS Denialism before May 2008, SSI believed that this investigator had the unbiased and proven investigative experience necessary to examine both sides of the controversy. For his efforts, this investigator was not compensated.

One of the more printable attack letters to SSI was from former Emory medical student Kevin D. Kuritzky, who wrote:

It is my understanding that Semmelweis presented Dr. Duesberg with an award, seemingly on behalf of the group. It is not disputed that Dr. Duesberg is a controversial figure. However, I have had personal experiences with his material and his theories. I have read his works, studied them, and frankly, I am sickened.

I am sickened because… I was born in a nation, South Africa that is ravaged by HIV/AIDS. Dr. Duesberg was used as a pawn of the government to impede providing antiretroviral medicines to the needy. Dr. Duesberg has provided no science behind his theories, and he, as a virologist, allowed himself to be complicit to murder by the tens of thousands, in essence to sell his notoriety.

Investigator’s Response:

South Africa is not “ravaged by HIV/AIDS.” In 2001, the South African Government reported 9,479 deaths due to “HIV Disease” out of a population of 44.8 million. This represented only 3.16% of all deaths in the country and only two-one hundredths of one percent (0.02 %) of South Africa’s total population.

(More African mortality info here)

Kuritzky’s reference to “antiretroviral medicines” also implies an Orwellian use of language. The primary “medicine” is AZT, which was designed as a highly toxic cancer chemotherapy in the 1960s. It’s hard to imagine why anyone in America or South Africa would want to deliver toxic chemotherapies to expectant mothers and villagers who already suffer from poverty, malnutrition, and septic water.

In this 2008 study, 320 Tanzanian patients were placed on “antiretroviral therapy” (ART) between October 2003 and November 2006. Most (223) were women, some as young as 15. The majority were between 25 and 34 years of age. Most were severely malnourished, had thrombocytopenia and varying degrees of anemia.

Moreover, the main published study on the side effects of “antiretroviral medicines” is alarming.

Ronald B Reisler M.D., M.P.H. did a five-year review (1996-2001) of about 3000 HIV/AIDS patients who took the anti-retroviral cocktails. He found that:

• 332 patients suffered an “AIDS” event, meaning some purported manifestation of the underlying disease, however;
• 675 patients suffered a “Grade 4″ event, meaning a life-threatening illness was attributed to the drugs, not the virus. The most common of these side-effects were:

1. Liver damage
2. Neutropenia (white blood cell loss)
3. Anemia (red blood cell loss)
4. Cardiovascular, including heart attacks
5. Pancreatitis
6. Psychiatric disorders
7. Kidney problems
8. Thrombocytopenia
9. Hemorrhage

In sum, twice as many AIDS patients fell ill from the drugs than from AIDS – which is exactly what Dr. Duesberg predicted would happen in the late 1980s.

Kevin Kuritzky:

Dr. Duesberg lacks any courage to back up his claims.

Investigator’s Response:

Dr. Duesberg has published numerous papers in the peer-reviewed literature to back up his claims, much to the detriment of his career. A Google-Scholar search reveals over 200 of his peer-reviewed papers. On the other hand, Mr. Kuritzky’s claims have been posted on dozens of pharmaceutically-funded activist websites, including AIDS Truth, which was created in direct response to the perceived threat of the consequences of Farber’s 2006 Harper’s article. Although technically a “non-profit,” AIDS Truth is operated by “team members” who are funded directly or indirectly by the pharmaceutical industry.

Kevin Kuritzky:

When I was in college, Dr. Duesberg gave a lecture. He was unprofessional and was offered the opportunity to prove his “theory.” He lacked the fortitude to demonstrate his true commitment to the pseudo-science he preaches, and backed away like a coward. If he truly believes what he espouses, he should have the guts to inject himself with HIV to prove his point about “poppers” etc being the real culprits of AIDS.

But unlike Dr. Jaworski who stood up for what he believed in with regards to peptic ulcer disease, Dr. Duesberg was a coward. When I was involved in HIV research as an undergraduate, I told Dr. Duesberg personally that this lack of desire to “prove” his point calls into question his very belief in the pseudotheory, and makes one wonder whether his whole career is based on a notoriety desire.

Investigator’s Response:

As the tone of the “former medical student” grew increasingly hostile, this investigator noted consistencies between Kuritzky’s attacks, and those routinely repeated by TAG surrogates John P. Moore PhD, Daniel Kuritzkes MD, and Richard Jefferys.

After a brief examination, this investigator discovered that Kuritzky was expelled from Emory Medical School after numerous allegations of dishonesty, unprofessional, and unethical conduct. Regardless of his past (and consistent with garden-variety TAG attacks), Kuritzky offers no proof; and since Emory Medical School is located three time zones east of UC Berkeley, his anecdote is doubtful.

Regarding the allegation of cowardice: Prof. Duesberg has offered several times (example) to inject himself with HIV if 1) only the exact terms for success or failure could be offered by his detractors, and 2) the experiment could be scientifically conclusive.

In 1984, the theorized HIV/AIDS “HIV latency period” (from infection to illness) was said to be from six months to a year. Today, it is accepted that there are varying categories of “long term non-progressors” (LTNP) or “elite controllers”, who take decades to progress to AIDS, if at all. In some studies the latency period has been stretched as high as 30 years or more (2007), although the drug industry and its activists attribute this to new antiviral drugs. This means that if Prof. Duesberg was injected with the “HIV retrovirus” in a controlled study today, he could die sometime after reaching his 104th birthday.

After twenty years, Dr. Gallo and supporters like Dr. Moore continue to refuse to provide Dr. Gallo’s promised rebuttal to Prof. Duesberg’s PNAS paper. Instead, they have declared:

We will not (e)ngage in any public or private debate with AIDS denialists or respond to requests from journalists who overtly support AIDS denialist causes.

In this investigator’s experience, no other science is defended with epithets and refusals to disclose. After publishing millions of pages of research based upon Dr. Gallo’s hypothesis, why would Dr. Moore refuse to present Dr. Gallo’s original proof unless it does not exist?

Kevin Kuritzky:

Dr. Duesberg has indirectly killed many human beings through his complicity in South Africa’s limits on antiretroviral medications given to pregnant women. The science is proven that vertical transmission is greatly reduced here. I am not sure if Semmelweis is aware that Dr. Duesberg was essentially finally run out of the country (South Africa) as a murderer, and I personally don’t disagree with this claim as I am intimately familiar with Dr. Duesberg’s behavior in South Africa.

Investigator’s Response:

This is one of the most common and manipulative anti-scientific libels used to prevent Duesberg from pursuing his counter-theory in a scientific manner. Like
Dr. Moore, Kuritzky offers no evidence, references, or proof of any of these allegations, nor does an aggressive search reveal any clues to substantiate his claims.

Prof. Duesberg was not “finally run out of the country (South Africa) as a murderer”: He visited South Africa when President Thabo Mbeki summoned him for round table discussions between AIDS scientists of opposing viewpoints in 2000.

Of the antagonistic, hostile, and threatening attacks made by Gallo defenders, former South African President Thabo Mbeki appealed to then-President Bill Clinton and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan (April 3, 2000), and:

… passionately defended Duesberg and the other dissidents, and suggested that factors other than HIV could be the cause of AIDS in Africa. He called for a uniquely ‘African solution’ to the problem, as AIDS seemed to affect Africans differently to those who live in the developed world. He also defended his right to consult dissident scientists, and accused unnamed foreign critics of waging a ‘campaign of intellectual intimidation and terrorism’ akin to ‘the racist apartheid tyranny we opposed’.

In an earlier period in human history, Mbeki wrote, Duesberg and his followers ‘would be the heretics that would be burnt at the stake. The day may not be far off when we will, once again, see books burnt and their authors immolated by fire by those who believe that they have a duty to conduct a holy crusade against the infidels.’ The letter, copies of which were delivered by hand to Clinton and Annan, concluded: ‘It would constitute a criminal betrayal of our responsibility to our own people to mimic foreign approaches to treating HIV/AIDS.’

As stated earlier, prescribing toxic cancer chemotherapy to pregnant women is dangerous for both mother and child:

“In reviewing the frequency of birth defects in this population [of HIV+ women taking AZT during pregnancy] we noted eight birth defects (10%) out of 80 live births [and 8 spontaneous fetal losses, for a total of 17% abnormal pregnancies]”

More Questions

The HIV/AIDS issue consists of two components:

1. Dr. Gallo’s original opinion, and;
2. Millions of pages of research that are based upon, and used to support, Dr. Gallo’s original opinion.

While no ordinary investigator can competently argue millions of pages of HIV/AIDS research, it is equally disingenuous for any scientist to argue any research that is based upon Dr. Gallo’s theory without proof that HIV a) actually exists, b) kills white blood cells, and c) causes AIDS. Consensus, based upon unproven hearsay, is not proof.

At the same time, there are a number of easily understandable peer-reviewed reports that conflict with Gallo’s theory.

For example, chimpanzees share about 99% of the DNA in humans. Since it is unethical to test humans with potentially dangerous pathogens, they serve as the “gold standard” for scientific experiments. In the mid-1980’s, AIDS researchers infected numerous chimps with HIV to induce AIDS. No chimpanzee has ever developed AIDS.

“It is true that HIV does not cause AIDS in chimpanzees.”

It is said that HIV is spread through sex. Yet, the largest epidemiological study of heterosexual transmission of HIV was conducted in San Francisco from 1987-1997. The researchers observed 175 sexually-active discordant heterosexual couples (1 partner HIV+, 1 partner HIV-) for over six years. No person in the study contracted HIV.

“We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study.”

HIV Testing

The problem with HIV tests is that there is no viral gold standard. HIV test accuracy is not measured against any isolated (purified) HIV, but against indirect measures or patients with clinical symptoms of AIDS. These tests generally detect, and are hypersensitive to, antibodies of many different viruses and cellular debris. This $50,000 award, offered in exchange for scientific validation of any HIV test, remains unclaimed.

Using a “cops and robbers” analogy, Dr. Gallo’s HIV test relies on the presence of cops (antibodies) to indicate the presence of robbers (HIV). While it’s true that cops appear at bank robberies, they also appear at doughnut shops, police stations, fundraisers, sporting events, and training academies. The presence of cops does not necessarily prove the presence of robbers.

The autoimmunity phenomenon is characterized by an immune response against its own cells and tissues. So while the presence of HIV-antibodies (cops) may indicate that, at some point, someone may have been in contact with an HIV-virus or related particle (robbers), there is no way to ascertain the significance of such an event.

Antibody production does not mean that the antigen is necessarily noxious.

For example, the most common form of hypothyroidism is caused by anti-thyroid antibodies. This does not mean that the thyroid tissue is a harmful pathogen. The antibodies against virtually all endocrine organs, including ovaries, have been identified and (so far) no one has demanded the mass performance of thyroidectomies or ovarectomies. This becomes more complicated since many patients with anti-thyroid or anti-ovarian antibodies do not suffer from significant target organ damage. In this “cops and robbers” analogy, the cops (antivirus) are sometimes summoned by those who have mistaken the noise of a stray cat for a home invasion robbery.

Consider the “metal detector” analogy: To prevent terrorists from boarding planes (or HIV in our blood supply), HIV test sensitivities are set so that Jimmy’s orthodontics and Grandma’s titanium hips activate the alarms. Once those alarms sound, the tests brand them as suspected terrorists.

Kevin Kuritzky:

The fact that any westernized physician, particularly an Ob-Gyn (SSI member) can defend Peter Duesberg is beyond my comprehension. I think any Ob-Gyn that fails to administer anti-retrovirals to a pregnant woman should not only be peer-reviewed, but should be put in jail. Yet, Dr. Duesberg has espoused this sickening ideology.

Investigator’s Response:

Remember that SSI chose to answer Kuritzky’s letter because he offered the most common and coherent attack against Prof. Duesberg. In light of the aforementioned evidence of his criminal behavior, it was extremely difficult for this investigator to take any of Kuritzky’s TAG-generated myths seriously.

Kuritzky also illustrates that the hysteria that incarcerated history’s first scientist and Dr. Semmelweis still exists today. When science becomes a hysterical political argument and criminal attacks, science and human progress cease to exist. Nevertheless, the record appears to reflect that these are Mr. Kuritzky’s (and TAG’s) strongest arguments. Indeed, these also appear to be the same political arguments used to coerce scientists and physicians into politicizing real science.

Panic & Politics

In the late spring of 1981, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) were coming under increasing Congressional pressure to clean up the waste and corruption that characterized their ten-year War on Cancer.

At the same time, CDC epidemiologist Dr. Wayne Shandera reported that five homosexual men in their 20s and 30s were stricken by a pneumonia that ordinarily struck cancer and transplant patients. Said Shandera, “The best we can say is that somehow the pneumonia appears to be related to gay life style.”

The report stated that five patients also suffered from infections due to a virus “that causes mononucleosis-type symptoms” and is “shown to be capable of suppressing the body’s immune defense system in a manner similar to anti-cancer drugs.”

Investigators speculated that the virus (CMV) was “suppressing the immune defense system of certain individuals sufficiently to make them vulnerable to the
P. carenii already present in most persons’ lungs.”

“They are carrying out an intensive study to learn what the common factor may be in the lifestyle of gay males. One speculation is that the inhalants commonly used in the gay community to heighten sexual feeling may somehow be involved.”

When the story came out, some insensitive clergy and ideologues suggested in the media that AIDS was “punishment for homosexuals who violated God’s Law.” Homosexuals and their advocates were understandably hurt by these remarks. Unfortunately for science, this immediately polarized and politicized the debate. While the extreme right sought to stigmatize AIDS as a “gay disease” that was unworthy of attention, the left exaggerated the risk that AIDS posed to the general population and demanded endless funding.

Policymakers were understandably reluctant to shift billions of dollars in research funding from deadlier diseases like heart disease (#1) and cancer (#2) to a lesser understood pathology that appeared to only affect a small population segment.

When the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) protested the skeptical “homophobic and AIDS-phobic coverage” of the New York Post, the US media killed all stories that suggested the propriety of a careful government response. Without the media’s support, politicians, government officials, and drug manufacturers grew unwilling to risk the homophobe label. This appears to coincide with the period when American science was corrupted by the political debate.

The result was devastating to those most vulnerable. Poisonous toxins suddenly became available as the FDA rushed their approval of new AIDS medications in as little as six weeks. During the AZT trials, Burroughs-Wellcome used their own researchers to test and distribute AZT with little more than hat tip from the FDA:

“By the middle of 1985 there were over 10,000 AIDS patients anxiously awaiting a drug. The extreme patient need for a drug sped up the process from test tube to patient tremendously. After filing six patents on the preparation and use of AZT, and racing through necessary animal tests in partnership with the NCI, Burroughs-Wellcome submitted an application to the FDA for an Investigational New Drug (IND). In a miracle of bureaucracy, the FDA approved of the first AZT trial in only seven days.”

When word spread that AZT trials at Burroughs-Wellcome required placebos for half of their 282 HIV/AIDS patients, the media fueled several more controversies:

“Some critics believed that AZT was too toxic for weak AIDS patients, and others accused Burroughs Wellcome and the FDA with hindering the drug’s ability. Many critics felt that the placebo arm of the arm was unethical, and called for all patients to have access to the drug. Burroughs Wellcome’s spokespersons vigorously defended the trial, but the company recognized the high stakes of the trial and, in collaboration with the NCI and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), they established the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) consisting of various AIDS experts that were removed from the trial.

“In September of 1986, only 7 months after the trial started, the board concluded that there was a significantly lower mortality rate in patients randomly assigned to receive AZT than the placebo. Only one of the 145 patients receiving AZT had died, compared with 16 patient deaths from the 137-patient group. The trial was halted, and the patients who received placebos were given an opportunity to take AZT… by March of 1987, 4500 AIDS patients, or one-third of all Americans living with AIDS, had received free Retrovir (AZT) handouts from the company…

“In less than three years, AZT had progressed from the obscure shelves of Burroughs Wellcome to pharmacies all across the country, providing patients a measure of hope at a time when there was none…”

Former NCI director Dr. Samuel Broder characterized the three-year-process as moving “at the speed of light.” AZT retailed for $188 per bottle, or approximately $7,000 to $10,000 per patient, per year. Compared with today’s FDA standards, three years is a glacial pace.

Hundreds of billions of dollars were subsequently transferred from cancer and cardiovascular disease research and, as the uncontrolled waste and abuse spread, scientists, physicians, and universities truncated reports, shortcut peer review studies, and attacked those who challenged their questionable methodologies. Millions of research pages and articles were subsequently generated that cited, complimented, and supported other research papers that all assumed that Dr. Gallo’s HIV theory was an “established scientific conclusion.”

Gay men and drug addicts who were terrorized by the fear and propaganda campaign about HIV, and stigmatized by unreliable HIV tests, stampeded to AIDS clinics for fast prescriptions of lethal doses of AZT. The greatest period of mortality (1987-1995) attributed to HIV occurred during the exact years of AZT mono-therapy. Coincidentally, as AZT was replaced by less toxic drugs, mortality also dropped to current levels. Liver failure remains the leading cause of death among HIV+ patients who use the current generation of black-box anti-HIV medications. Liver failure is caused by drug toxicity and is not considered an AIDS-defining illness.

When 13-year-old Ryan White was diagnosed as HIV+ in 1984, his illness further fueled the hysteria. In 1987, Oprah Winfrey quoted “scientific predictions” that 20 percent of all heterosexual men would die from AIDS by 1990:

“By 1996, three to five million Americans will be HIV positive and one million will be dead from AIDS.”

“By 1991, HIV will have spread to between 5 and 10 million Americans.”

“By 1991, 1 in 10 babies may be AIDS victims.”

“Without massive federal AIDS intervention, there may be no one left.”

Once the massive government fire hose was turned on to fight the “War on AIDS,” competing, fact-based, scientific views, were drowned out or otherwise suppressed.

Because so few middle-class, white heterosexuals ever got AIDS or knew someone who did, many Americans passively disconnected themselves from the campaign.

Motives

Within the scientific community, the HIV/AIDS question may have been one symptom of an even larger disease.

During the 1980s, the general public began to under-value and under-appreciate the work of independent academic scientists like Prof. Duesberg. NIH grants became scarce, endowments dried up, and tuitions barely covered teaching activities. As a result, the salaries and social status of academic faculty members began to decline and many talented individuals fled the universities.

Due to this negative selection, the majority who stayed in academia became very different from classic scientific giants like Robert Koch. While this did not mean that all academicians became unethical, it was easier to become disillusioned and cynical in such environment. Some faculty members grew desperate in their search for some form of a steady income that would compensate for many years of education and training. The pharmaceutical industry was more than happy to help – for a price.

This situation is described in the book, The Truth About the Drug Companies, by former New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) editor Marcia Angell. When, in an earlier NEJM editorial, Dr. Angell asked, “Is Academic Medicine for Sale?” a reader replied, “No, the current owner (Pharmaceutical Industry) is very happy with it!”

Anti-retroviral drugs are all in categories of known or unknown danger to fetal development. In the post-thalidomide age, the FDA strongly recommends against administering these drugs during gestation. None are “safe” to mother or fetus. (one example)

Celia Farber also documented the horrific death from organ failure in pregnant mother Joyce Ann Hafford, who was being treated with AIDS drugs (nevirapine and combivir, made with AZT) while pregnant with her second child.

In March 1996, the FDA authorized the sale and distribution of crixivan six weeks after Merck applied for FDA approval. Compared to the years taken to complete 110 clinical tests before approving Splenda and AZT’s “light speed” three-year testing, it’s hard to imagine how the FDA could safely approve anything in 42 days.

Noted for being “well tolerated” and causing substantial improvements in “CD4 cell counts and viral load,” the crixivan report noted that “the relevance of changes in viral load had not been established”; nor did it show any effect on the development of infection, survival, or as a cure for AIDS.

In light of the profit margins related to drugs like crixivan and the catastrophic deaths related to toxins like nevirapine, it’s hard to ignore the potential profits generated by panicked people who learn they’ve tested HIV+.

AIDS prescriptions are costly. About.com reports that pharmacies charge $570/mo for crixivan capsules:

When multiplied by the estimated US population of one million HIV+ patients, potential income for crixivan alone can be considerable:

The drugs aptivus ($1117/mo) and fuzeon ($2315/mo) cost much more. As of this writing, Merck shares sold at $35/share. (more info here)

The export and consumption of these untested known toxins by mostly rural and poor villagers of foreign countries is also disturbing.

HIV/AIDS science appears to target minorities. HIV test drives are sharply focused on the African American community, which was Joyce Ann Hafford’s misfortune.

Abbott Laboratories recently donated $60 million in their five-year program to urge black Americans to be tested for HIV. According to Abbott, their ”I Stand with Magic” campaign “intends to halve the rate of new infections among US blacks.”

Despite Dr. Gallo’s unproven HIV/AIDS hypothesis, basketball legend Earvin “Magic” Johnson uses “his fame to raise public awareness of the virus that causes AIDS.” Moviemaker Spike Lee, who directed the public service ads, said, “We African Americans can be homophobic. There’s a whole lot of re-education that needs to get started.”

According to the same LA Times article:

… the heads of the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People… took HIV tests in public and made testing available at their annual convention. That same year, 16 mainstream black organizations, including 100 Black Men of America, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and the National Council of Negro Women, pledged to fight the epidemic.

“The black community is where the gay white community probably was in the late 1980s or early 1990s,” said Dr. Wilbert C. Jordan, medical director of the OASIS Clinic at the Martin Luther King Jr. Multi-Service Ambulatory Care Center. “But we’re not where we need to be still.”The numbers provide ample reason for alarm. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, blacks make up almost half the estimated 1.2 million Americans living with HIV today, though they are just 13% of the U.S. population overall.

The same article cited the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) assertion that “women accounted for more than a third of AIDS cases diagnosed among African Americans in 2006.” KFF is the same organization that hosted the aforementioned 2006 journalism conference where drug industry-funded panelists told journalists how to marginalize alleged denialists.

Professor Henry Bauer has shown that, for all available US demographics, people of African descent are on average 8-10 times more likely to test HIV positive than Caucasians. Since this has been the case for two decades now, this may also be an indication that the tests are racially biased.

The AIDS industry has accused Africa of being responsible for the original spread of HIV, that Africans enjoy “dry sex”, are more promiscuous than people on other continents, and hold voodoo beliefs about health, medicine, and healing. Ironically, Benin is one African country where voodoo still keeps HIV/AIDS mortality below two percent.

Although the World Health Organization (WHO) recently reported that the threat of a “heterosexual pandemic” of AIDS was over, AIDS activists still insist that millions are infected and dying from the “AIDS epidemic.” Despite the WHO report, the Congress intends to authorize another $50 Billion in new AIDS funding to Africa this year.

Of the aid package, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman declared, “We have a moral imperative to act and to act decisively.”

While critics lament the absence of research funding (it was ONLY $12.6 Billion FY 2006), it’s hard to know where that funding goes when drug companies don’t conduct tests or trials. The reluctance of funded researchers to accept, for example, the Perth Group’s modest request also becomes more understandable; and it could also explain their 21-year hostility toward Prof. Duesberg, Ms. Farber, and hundreds of other scientists, physicians, and journalists who try to report it to US Government officials (NIH, HHS, NIAID) who still refuse to listen.

In time, and if no one asks these critical questions, the drug companies may slowly wean their more sensible customers from toxins to life-saving placebos without losing funding. Eventually, ground celery seed capsules under the label of thiswontkillyouflex and sold for $500 a bottle could keep HIV+ patients and drug companies alive for more than a normal lifespan. If and when this occurs, the drug companies, scientists, and politicians could finally congratulate themselves for winning Dr. Gallo’s “War on AIDS.”

Analysis

In many ways, today’s HIV/AIDS industry resembles a mature termite colony.

In the years since HIV produced Dr. Gallo’s first egg, workers (administrators and researchers) have built a labyrinthine fortress of carton walls (research and facilities) to support the colony. While its soldiers defend the colony and king, Dr. Gallo and HIV are managed, groomed, and fed by the attending workers that surround, care for, and defend them.

At first glance, the fortress appears impenetrable and the dark interconnected passages too confusing to navigate. After more than twenty years and millions of pages of research and studies that are built upon Gallo’s original egg, no sane person could attempt to comprehend the infinite trivia without going mad. To argue against the mountains of interdependent self-supported HIV/AIDS minutiae requires terabytes of computational power and the tenacity of the world’s most obnoxious sports fans.

The key to the conundrum lies not with the carton walls, workers, soldiers, or the myriad unnavigable passages, but with Dr. Gallo’s original HIV declaration itself.

The principle of Occam’s razor states that the best explanation tends to be one that requires the fewest additional assumptions. Such an explanation invokes the fewest intermediate factors (i.e., 25 years of HIV/AIDS research) while maintaining its “predictive power”; that is, its ability to explain current data to predict future data. If we apply Occam’s razor and the Scientific Method, it is clear that the relationship of HIV/AIDS was never formally proven, and to assert that it is true until disproven is fallacious.

When asked which argument most strongly convinced him that HIV was not the cause of AIDS, Nobel laureate Kary Mullis replied, “The fact that there’s no evidence for it.”

One does not need to be a pharmaceutically-funded AIDS researcher to understand these questions. Occam’s razor and the Scientific Method are both taught in grade schools around the world. When the scientific world reacquaints itself with these principles and reestablishes the discipline to apply them, the queen will die and Gallo’s colony will collapse.

Of scientific consensus, Michael Crichton said:

“(T)he work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus… There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

Conclusions

With millions of diagnosed and undiagnosed HIV+ men and women leading healthy and productive lives around the world without AIDS medication, this investigator is left with Prof. Duesberg’s lingering questions and Dr. Gallo’s hysterical defenders, who, this investigator has personally discovered, appear predisposed to use libelous and criminal tactics to silence those who ask questions. (see Epilogue)

These questions are not insignificant. No other science appears to be defended more aggressively than Dr. Gallo’s theory. If an investigator questions the curvature of the Earth, or the internal combustion engine, it’s hard to imagine NASA or Honda paying SPACETruth or HONDATruth advocates to defend either discipline. Indeed, both topics are clearly presented on public websites and libraries around the world without fear, intimidation, or the threat of lost grant funding. The idea that advocates would use criminal means to dissuade someone from investigating the internal combustion engine would seem preposterous; and yet, hundreds if not thousands of journalists, teachers, scientists, and ordinary individuals are routinely targeted by Dr. Gallo’s well-funded defenders.

Only one of two conclusions is possible:

1. This investigator has deliberately, unintentionally, or recklessly overlooked the answer to these fundamental questions to present an unsupportable conspiracy theory, complete with imaginary threats, emails, and phone calls memorialized in his 66-page police report and pending federal lawsuit, or;
2. The pharmaceutical companies are:

• Using inaccurate, unverified testing protocols to claim people are infected with a retrovirus that has not been shown to cause harm but, they claim, could kill;
• Inventing, manufacturing, and distributing toxins designed to disrupt normal cellular and enzymatic functions necessary to sustain life to fight the presence of a harmless passenger retrovirus;
• Using those toxins to deliberately, unintentionally, or recklessly compromise what may otherwise be healthy immune systems, and;
• Manipulating drug-caused illness and mortality statistics to maintain HIV/AIDS funding
• Enlisting and paying uninformed but well-meaning celebrities to promote HIV testing and treatment to specific targets (gay community, low-income minorities, and third world populations) that are most vulnerable to seductive and high-pressure marketing strategies.

If the first conclusion is true, this investigator will continue to enjoy a long healthy life with his family and friends in Southern California.

If the second conclusion is true, America could eventually recover from the scandal: but it’s hard to calculate the impact of the needless suffering, death, lost confidence in American science and good will, class action lawsuits, lost shareholder value, product liability, the wasted energy and resources expended within our academic institutions, its effect in the international community and the US and global economies.

If the survivors of “Dr. Gallo’s Egg” sense that government agencies and drug companies took shortcuts that unnecessarily killed otherwise healthy people, like 13-year-old Ryan White, agencies, politicians, and the media will soon start pointing fingers to blame someone for igniting a human disaster that could make Enron and 9/11 look like garden-variety purse snatches and auto accidents. Families of those who suffered and died from the toxicity of drugs like AZT will want to attack politicians. Politicians will blame agencies for misleading them, and those agencies will blame previous administrations.

A backlash against media, and within, the gay community, could also result. The gay and lesbian media, community centers, and HIV/AIDS advocacy groups that employ thousands and profit from generous pharmaceutical sponsors and CDC grants for advertising, lavish event planning, hosting, and fundraising will end. Threatened by the loss of such funding, these organizations will be reluctant to close their doors to seek other employment.

Scientists will hide behind their research, doctors behind their hospitals, gays behind their physicians and clinics, politicians behind their constituents, and journalists behind their editors. The most obvious targets will be the drug companies that produced, distributed, and profited by selling known toxins throughout what may be nothing more than a 25-year sabbatical from the science.

The medical and academic members of Semmelweis Society International cannot be sure because those who insist that HIV is harmful still refuse to prove HIV’s connection to AIDS. What is not disputed are the poisonous properties listed on the labels of ALL FDA approved HIV/AIDS medications.

No one is competently required to prove the non-existence of Dr. Gallo HIV/AIDS theory. Prof. Duesberg raised questions about Gallo’s theory twenty years ago that Gallo and his defenders still refuse to answer. When Dr. Gallo and his defenders decide to prove that HIV exists, attacks white blood cells, and causes AIDS, their investment of ten months and $100,000 will finally put these questions to rest – as they should have been 24 years ago.

Based upon the evidence contained in this report, this investigator must agree with hundreds of reputable scientists and doctors who remain unconvinced that
Dr. Gallo’s retrovirus is real or has anything to do with the disease called AIDS.

It is this history, this evidence, and these questions that Professor Duesberg, Ms. Farber and countless others have risked their careers to present. The members of Semmelweis Society International may or may not agree with all aspects of this report, but they unwaveringly support the courageous men and women of medicine and science who continue to ask questions about the world around us.

Without honest and intellectually curious scientists like Peter Duesberg, humanity loses the promise of innovation and progress. Without aggressive and impartial journalists like Celia Farber, industry and government cannot be held accountable. Without both, the 232-year experiment we call the United States of America will have failed.

Clark Baker
Los Angeles

INVESTIGATOR’S NOTE: Under ordinary circumstances, I would list and thank those who assisted me in this investigation and subsequent report. Because of current conditions within the scientific community and pharmaceutical industry, exposing these witnesses as potential targets would serve no legitimate purpose. When the day comes, the world will know the difference between those who served Humanity, and those who served themselves at Humanity’s expense.

Epilogue

One of the most difficult aspects of this investigation has been to document and articulate the kind of attacks made by the AIDS industry’s core cadre of operatives. As explained by operatives Kuritzkes and Moore, their role is to silence minor inquiries and destroy serious threats. In my years of investigation, I have only been attacked by individuals who hoped to dissuade me from investigating their own criminal enterprises. In this case, email permits me to more easily identify the tactics used by these operatives.

Even before this report was completed, several individuals continued their personal attacks against me. My PI license was threatened, my computer security attacked, and I have been libeled by numerous “professionals” from various private and government agencies. The following emails will describe how insidious these attacks can be. As you read through them, consider how threatening these emails could be to a young physician, scientist, student, or teacher who dares to question these professional operatives.

Dr. James Murtagh used government servers at the Veterans Administration to pressure me to discontinue my investigation. When his efforts failed, he notified Brian Foley, PhD of the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL).

While being paid by US taxpayers, Dr. Foley used his influence from within the government facility to attack me through uninvolved third parties. He is supervised at LANL by fellow AIDSTruth operative Bette Korber, PhD.

Here is my email to the LANL Ombudsman:

To: Camilla S. Lopez, PhD – Los Alamos National Laboratory, Ombudsman

My name is Clark Baker. I am a private investigator, licensed in California. I have been an investigator for 28 years both privately and with the Los Angeles Police Department (1980-2000). I have conducted more than 5000 criminal and civil investigations and have investigated, arrested, processed, and helped convict more than 2,700 career felons. I have also received more than 80 citizen and official commendations for my service as a US marine sergeant and police officer.

I was in Washington DC last May where I testified before Congress on pending whistleblower legislation. While there, I became aware, for the first time, of the HIV/AIDS dispute between those who believe Dr. Peter Duesberg HIV hypothesis, and those who believe Dr. Robert Gallo’s HIV hypothesis.

Before they were scheduled to testify, Dr. Duesberg and investigative reporter Celia Farber had been libeled by the Treatment Action Group as AIDS denialists - an epithet that suggests neither believe that AIDS exists. Because these Gallo-skeptics have been vilified as something on par with racists, homophobes, and worse, those who controlled the “No Fear Tribunals” suddenly became too afraid to allow their testimony to be heard. More than anyone else who testified that week, Duesberg and Farber deserved the time to testify about what they endured because of the organizational and individual behavior of TAG, AIDSTruth, and members of esteemed universities throughout the United States.

I testified about my own experiences as a whistleblower and left Washington hopeful that new legislation could protect individuals who asked relevant questions about publicly-funded expenditures.

I am deeply concerned that the Los Alamos National Laboratory would hire such individuals and I intend to proceed in a way that illuminates the conduct of both TAG and AIDSTruth membership. And if LANL refuses to investigate or otherwise whitewashes this complaint, I will make it my fulltime occupation to ensure that US taxpayers learn how their money is spent at LANL.

In law enforcement, when an officer commits perjury or lies during an investigation, he/she is correctly barred from being a police officer anywhere in the country, for such individuals have no credibility as investigators. Had Dr. Foley been caught doing this as a police officer, he would be flipping burgers tomorrow – if McDonalds could trust him.

As a disciplined investigator, Dr. Foley fell far below any standard as a scientist, as an investigator, and as a human being.

This is why I have included Dr. Lopez in my response to Dr. Foley. If and when you require further information from me, please feel free to contact me at any time.

Sincerely,

Clark Baker
http://www.cwbpi.com/

My response to Dr. Foley:

Dr. Foley:

Since you’ve decided to clear the air, I thought I’d help you a little.

As someone who protected and defended my country in uniform for 28 years, I’m ashamed that US taxpayers are funding your efforts as an AIDSTruth operative to unnecessarily libel me and others before uninvolved and disinterested third parties during the course of my official investigation.

Last Friday, you used LANL government servers to identify :

[Querying whois.arin.net]
[whois.arin.net]
OrgName: Los Alamos National Laboratory
OrgID: LANL-2
Address: P.O. Box 1663
City: Los Alamos
StateProv: NM
PostalCode: 87545
Country: US
NetRange: 128.165.0.0 - 128.165.255.255
CIDR: 128.165.0.0/16
NetName: LANL-INET
NetHandle: NET-128-165-0-0-1
Parent: NET-128-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
NameServer: NSX.LANL.GOV
NameServer: NSX2.LANL.GOV
NameServer: NS1.ES.NET
Comment:RegDate: 1986-09-29
Updated: 2008-04-03
OrgAbuseHandle: REPOR-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Report Abuse
OrgAbusePhone: +1-505-667-3310
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@lanl.gov
OrgTechHandle: PGR1-ARINOrg
TechName: Raichur, P. Giridhar
OrgTechPhone: +1-505-665-3671
OrgTechEmail: graichur@lanl.gov

ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2008-07-13 19:10

You, Dr. Foley, then contacted using your AKA “John Smith” (sculdermully2001@yahoo.com). If your intentions were honorable, why would you use aliases and not disclose your real identity?

—– Original Message —–
From: John Smith
To: [REDACTED]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 4:39 PM
Subject: Your friend Clark Baker says HIV does not exist.

This is the same Clark Baker who nicknamed you:

—-- Original Message —–
From: John Smith
To: [REDACTED]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 4:48 PM
Subject: Maybe you can help?

He claims to have never heard of Duesberg before starting his investigation. But his report is totally biased. He seems to have never even checked on the science of this at all. Is there any chance you can talk to him?My friend had not heard of me for nearly ten years and was understandably surprised. He had never heard of “John Smith” or Brian Foley:

—– Original Message —–
From:[REDACTED]
To: sculdermully2001@yahoo.com
Date: Friday, July 11, 2008, 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: Maybe you can help?

Hello John!

Wow, this definitely got my attention! First off, who is this? I’m sorry if there is a lapse in my memory! Please let me know so I can make the connection. Then I will most definitely consider speaking with Clark upon further review. Thank you for sending this! Please get back to me as soon as possible!

Foley replied:

—– Original Message —–
From: John Smith
To: [REDACTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 4:57 AM
Subject: Re: Maybe you can help?

Well, Clark Baker is listed about 4/5 of the way down you friend’s page:

He is an ex LAPD cop. His connection to the Semmelweis society seems to have a few different roots, one being that he was supposedly released form the LAPD over a Rodney King type of excessive force incident. I guess he claims to have been a “whistleblower” reporting that the cops all had orders from high up that they were supposed to beat up drunks or something like that.

Foley libeled me by suggesting that I was an abusive police officer.
Because Foley raised this issue, I will briefly explain:

In 1991, I wrote an op-ed in the Los Angeles Daily News that suggested that the LA mayor and his police commission had created the policies that resulted in the violent arrest of Rodney King. Within weeks, I was falsely accused of my first excessive force complaint and was criminally charged, even though the suspect had no injuries and the LAPD cleared me in 1992. Despite that, I was criminally charged, convicted, sentenced, and fired from the LAPD. I returned to the LAPD in 1994 after the judge and prosecutors were found guilty of misconduct. I retired honorably in 2000 after twenty years of service. (More info here)

Dr. James Murtagh, who gave Foley this information about me and has a copy of my appeal and knows better than to libel me. A PhD at LANL should have the ethical standard to check out the story before spreading false allegations by email to disinterested third parties. Based upon Foley’s conduct at this point, he has used US government servers and his position at LANL to deliberately libel me with the apparent intent to discredit me and interfere with my investigation. I expect a full inquiry at LANL by the Ombudsman of both Foley and his supervisor, AIDSTruth operative Dr. Bette Korber. Both are listed as “AIDSTruth team members” on the AIDSTruth website.

Foley’s July 12th email continues:

On your page, it says:”A note from my friend and mentor, retired Los Angeles Police Officer Clark Baker, who nicknamed me . I can’t tell you what an incredible impact Mr. Baker has left on my heart, life and mission. I am forever grateful to him and no, not just for the ‘nickname’:”…Clark also writes a blog called Ex Liberal in Hollywood. That is where he said something like “Although I am not gay, I have many friends who have died of AIDS, including this one” and the “this one” is a link to The Semmelweis Society International was a society to protect medical “whistleblowers” who were aledgedly blackballed by peer review after reporting on unsafe medical conditions. Of course not every doctor who was ever peer reviewed and found to be lacking in skills is falsely accused. Some are truly bad doctors. So it seems that at least one or two truly bad doctors got into the Semmelweis Society. And they are not all MDs there are a few chiropractors and others who just don’t believe in infectious disease at all. Anyway, two members of Semmelweis awarded Peter Duesberg and Celia Farber the “clean hands award” for being whistleblowers, claiming that these two have uncovered massive fraud in HIV/AIDS research etc. when in fact both Duesberg and Farber are proven liars.

I have advised Ms. Farber’s attorneys of these libels.

Clark was then apparently hired (although he claims to have done it for free) or he volunteered to do a private investigation to find out if HIV is harmless or not. But he seems to have not done much investigating, he just asked Celia what she thought, or something like that. His report is 100% copied form the standard virusmyth crap.

(This) report includes more than 100 citations from publications like PNAS and JAMA. The fact that websites like Virusmyth posts peer reviewed information is not in dispute. But to attack websites that collect and post peer-reviewed studies is disingenuous, at best. Dr. Foley’s suggestion that my 400+ hours of work consisted of plagiarizing or copying Ms. Farber is a libel and a direct attack on my professional reputation.

Anyway, given that your site claims you were once good friends, and his site claims you died of AIDS, I thought perhaps you might have some more insight into what is going on with Clark.

Since Foley admitted to me (July 15 phone call) that he received his information from (disgruntled former Semmelweis member) Dr. Murtagh, he could have contacted me by phone or email – just as Murtagh did during his criminal attacks of May and June. Dr. Foley deliberately avoided contacting me directly, faked his name and, instead, libeled me.

Dr. Foley continues:

—– Original Message —–
From: John Smith
To: [REDACTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: Maybe you can help?

Clark is highly anti-Obama, and his blog makes him seem sort of racist. He does mention the Reverend Jeremiah Wright (who claims to believe Leonard Horowitz’s bullshhit). But I don’t think he is doing this mainly for political purposes.I think he just has no clue about biology, epidemiology, etc (and many people don’t, they are not well taught in our schools) so as he was friends with Gil Mileikowsky and other hard-core AIDS denialists, he became convinced that HIV is a myth.I seriously doubt this is going anywhere, but the folks who built the Semmelweis Society are pretty upset to see it torn down over this. Duesberg of course is basking in the glory of his award, and does not care how many people die for his fame.

Murtagh, his criminal partner, and their lawyer (now known among SSI members as Larry, Mo, and Curly) are former Semmelweis members. The executive board is intact, and SSI’s membership remains committed to good science and medicine. All are pleased by the trio’s clumsy (but noisy) departure. Had Dr. Foley (is he REALLY a scientist?) any real intention to seek the truth about this matter, he could have contacted me or any real member of Semmelweis directly. He chose not to.

On July 15, Foley wrote to who had recently interviewed for an HIV publication: (No header info available)

Web site ~ XXX.net XXX) 123-4567
WEBSITE

Is an article by about : HIV survivor. Clark Baker of the Semmelweis society says that is one of his friends who died of AIDS:

WEBSITE

and Clark Baker is claiming that HIV is harmless or does not exist. He recently finished a report for the Semmelweis Society about Peter Duesberg.

Can you please have write to me about this?

Brian Foley, PhD
HIV Databases
http://www.hiv.lanl.gov/
btf@lanl.gov
505 665-1970

Except in the context of libel and disinformation, it’s hard to understand why Dr. Foley would target additional disinterested third parties to discredit me and to harm reputation by using his title and official standing as a member of LANL. It light of AIDSTruth/TAG’s attack of Ms. Farber, it is unwise to share any info with these operatives.

[REPORTER] replied:

—– Original Message —–
From: [REPORTER]
To: btf@lanl.gov
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 11:43 AM
Subject: Clark Baker

Brian,

I received your message about Clark Baker.On the Web page that reproduces text said to be from Mr. Baker, it says: “Although I am not gay, I have watched many friends die ( is one of them) from what I once believed was an AIDS-related death.”I cannot say why he links to web site as an example of a friend who has died. The I interviewed is alive and well.I am cc’ing and on this email. I imagine will want to contact Clark Baker — assuming it’s the same Clark Baker that gave his moniker — ask him where the text that is quoted came from and why he links to page. and , the link is: WEBSITEThe full text of Brian’s email to me about this is below.I hope that helps.Thanks,

Dr. Foley replied to and her publisher:

—– Original Message —–
From: Brian Foley PhD
To: [REPORTER]
Cc: [PUBLISHER] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: Clark Baker

Hi , Thanks for writing back. I am glad to hear that is indeed alive and well. It turns out that Clark Baker has more going on than just his blogs. He was part of a fiasco where the Semmelweis Society International awarded some “clean hands awards” to Peter Duesberg and Celia Farber. The two members of Semmeleis who did this, kept it a secret from the other members until it was too late. This deception seems to have resulted in the complete break-up of the Semmelweis Society. Clark Baker’s name appears on a “report” on HIV and AIDS written for the Semmelweis Soceity, but it seems very highly unlikely that Clark himself wrote the report. It is much more likely that Celia Farber and/or others ghost wrote the report for him, and just put his name on it (with his approval).

All of these allegations are, and should have been suspected as false. If anyone wishes to have further background on these issues, please contact me directly or contact any SSI board member. (Dr. Foley identified Dr. Murtagh as the source of this information.)

I have spent hundreds of hours on my investigation and report since June 11th. Before last May, I had never heard of Duesberg, Farber, or denialism. Like many Americans, I figured that HIV/AIDS was a “gay disease” and, except for the friends I’ve known (I’m also a former member of the Gay Men’s Chorus of Los Angeles), AIDS was not something that occupied my time or energy. So when I entered this investigation, I was as uninformed as anyone.

As I looked at the evidence against Duesberg and Farber, I found evidence of prevarication, subterfuge, libel, and criminal behavior on the Gallo side against that PNAS-published science of Duesberg’s side. I’m not sure, but the last time science was defended by unethical and criminal behavior was when the Pope enforced the wide “scientific consensus” that the Earth was the center of the universe. In that case, an uninformed Bohemian risked his life to suggest that the Earth orbited the sun, somewhere on the edge of the Milky Way.

Foley continued:

It is a bit of an interesting story to people who study HIV and AIDS denialism, but not newsworthy for other people. I just wanted to check and make sure that had not died and left his web sites running. Thanks for writing back. Glad to hear that is still thriving!

Brian Foley
HIV Databases

Dr. Foley’s tactic was described by WSJ reporter Marilyn Chase who warned reporters not to unintentionally “exalt the position of denialists by making them seem like just some sort of independent intellectual contrarian whose views really should be heeded.”

At the same conference, TAG operative Dan Kuritzkes MD warned journalists that denialists like Peter Duesberg still work in universities and urged that they be denied access to students and reported to authorities whenever possible. Kuritzkes told his audience:

“If this happens in your neighborhood ask the university authorities why they allow this and then write about it.”

Remember that Foley spoke to days earlier. After I spoke to Foley by phone this evening, he recanted – somewhat (below).

(As I wrote to the LANL Ombudsman) Ms. Farber’s attorney… and I want to hear what LANL plans to do about Dr. Foley’s behavior and misappropriation of government resources and funding. I also want to know why the US government would hire AIDSTruth operatives to control their HIV databases and why scientists like Foley think its okay to libel others without checking the facts first. If his behavior is consistent with other Gallo defenders, taxpayers should wonder how their HIV/AIDS funding is spent, and who the liars are within my investigative report.

I invite any of you to contact me directly if you have any further questions.

Best wishes,

Clark Baker
http://www.cwbpi.com/

Dr. Foley’s July 15th recant:

—-Original Message—–
From: Brian T. Foley [mailto:btf@lanl.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 5:44 PM
To: [REPORTER]; cwb@xxx.com
Cc: btf@lanl.gov;
Subject: Re: Clark Baker

Dear [REPORTER]

Clark Baker called me and discussed the Semmelweis report. He assured me that he himself did write the full report. So I was wrong in suspecting he had not written it himself. He also assures me he very carefully does his fact checking, not trusting either side in a situation such as this one.

sincerely,
Brian Foley
HIV Databases

—–Original Message—–
From: Brian T. Foley [mailto:btf@lanl.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 5:54 PM
To: cwb@XXX.net
Subject: I did not attack or ask him to attack you publicly.

Dear Clark,

You wrote:
WEBSITE

One clarification - When I last saw around 1999, he appeared very sick from HIV/AIDS and he did not expect to live much longer. I lost track of him after that and assumed that he had passed away. When I linked to his site in the above email to (FIAR) I assumed that the site was a memorial without determining that he was actually alive. is still HIV+ and still takes anti-retroviral drugs. Brian Foley of AIDSTruth, and a member of the Los Alamos Nat’l Laboratory has been harassing and pressuring to attack me publicly. If I’m the crackpot that Murt and the other pharma-terroists claim I am, why are they working so hard to attack me and my long lost friends? “The lady doth protest too much!”

I did not even ask to contact you at all, or attack you publicly. I only asked if he was still alive.

No, Dr. Foley, check your SENT BOX:

—– Original Message —–
From: John Smith
To: [REDACTED]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 4:48 PM
Subject: Maybe you can help?

He claims to have never heard of Duesberg before starting his investigation. But his report is totally biased. He seems to have never even checked on the science of this at all.

Is there any chance you can talk to him?

(Foley continues with his July 15 recant)

One of the points you made on the phone was why would PhDs or MDs care enough about this issue to deal with it in “blogs” etc and not just simply stick to the peer reviewed literature. It is because lives are at stake, it is not just a theoretical discussion such as is the Earth flat or round.

I’m certain that expectant mothers like Joyce Ann Hafford and children like Ryan White would agree with you, if they were still alive. Both were quite healthy until told to ingest black box HIV drugs.

My question was, specifically, why you and your AIDSTruth/TAG team members would answer Prof. Duesberg’s National Academy of Sciences Paper, supported by 196 peer-reviewed studies, with pharmaceutically-funded blogs like AIDSTruth and TAG, which vows not to engage in any public or private debate with AIDS denialists or respond to requests from journalists who overtly support AIDS denialist causes.

Why would any real scientist refuse to engage in a dialogue with taxpayers and other scientists within a democracy? Why attack those, like you attacked me, who ask questions?

What are you hiding?

What are you so afraid of?

While I’m certain that Dr. Mengele would have agreed with your lifesaving sentiments, I’m appalled, embarrassed, and sickened by the behavior of someone who is, ostensibly, a man of science. You are no real investigator.

Clark Baker
http://www.cwbpi.com/
(800) 649-2164 x2500

When Dr. Foley received an emailed copy of my July 15 complaint to LANL, Dr. Foley emailed this message to Dr. Murtagh and John P. Moore, PhD – the Cornell microbiologist who annually secures millions of dollars in pharmaceutical funding:

—– Original Message —–
From: “Brian T. Foley” <btf@lanl.gov>
To: “Jim Murtagh” <jmurtag@mindspring.com> [OTHER SSI MEMBERS REDACTED]
Cc: <bhmfacs@hotmail.com> <jpm2003@med.cornell.edu>Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: Clark’s report against Kevin

Dear Friends,

I am shocked. Clark has completed his “investigation,” and is issuing a report in the name of SSI that I believe very few SSI members (if any) would agree with. I don’t think Clark wrote this. He doesn’t have enough command of the English language, so someone ghost wrote it.

Clark assures me that he wrote it himself. He called me at home to discuss it, and then wrote to the ombudsperson of Los Alamos National Laboratory anc copied me…
NOTE: During the completion of this report, this investigator also identified Kuritzky as the suspect involved in a computer attack against this author (LAPD # 08-0619018). The author also connected a second suspect (also a physician) to this activist organization, which is funded by these pharmaceutical companies…

]]> http://blog.cwbpi.com/?feed=rss2&p=534 http://blog.cwbpi.com/?p=353 http://blog.cwbpi.com/?p=353#comments Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:57:00 +0000 Clark https://www.clarkbaker.kicks-ass.net:7722/?p=353 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…

Congratulations!

Carl.

————————-

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 point..lol)

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,

David

—————–

From: XXXX@hotmail.co.uk
To: Peter Duesberg
Subject:
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.

Anonymous

———–

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,

Carl

]]> http://blog.cwbpi.com/?feed=rss2&p=353 http://blog.cwbpi.com/?p=352 http://blog.cwbpi.com/?p=352#comments Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:56:00 +0000 Clark https://www.clarkbaker.kicks-ass.net:7722/?p=352 On July 31, 2008, Fayetteville Police Detective Dave Williams called me to report that James Murtagh MD had made an official police report regarding threats made against Murtagh. I wrote this email to him after our conversation:

From: Clark Baker
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:56 AM
To: ‘Det. Dave Williams’
Subject: Clark Baker, James Murtagh, and Gallo’s Egg

Fayetteville Police Detective Dave Williams:

It was good to speak with you today.

As I said, feel free to contact me anytime if Murtagh alleges that someone from “the dissident side” has threatened him. I have posted a comment (#112) asking readers to limit their attacks to comments on websites and peaceful protest:

Gallo’s Egg (PDF)

I have advised Michael Geiger to not have any further contact with Murtagh and to not encourage other individuals to do so:

—–Original Message—–
From: Clark Baker
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 4:06 PM
To: ‘Michael Geiger’Subject: RE: Cease and Desist

This was EXACTLY how he started with me. He’s asking questions to get you to talk. He and Moore both know you.

He is best ignored.

cb

—–Original Message—–
From: Michael Geiger
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:53 PM
To: Clark Baker
Subject: Fw: Cease and Desist

Check out his last response. Any suggestions on working him?
Thanks much,

Michael

—– Original Message —–
From: “Jim Murtagh”
To: “Michael Geiger”
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: Cease and Desist

I will answer your questions if you answer mine.

How far are you willing to go? When do you plan to visit? Are you violent?

As you can see, Murtagh did not express distress and, instead, appeared to invite threats to use against Geiger and/or me.

During the next few weeks, I anticipate that my email address will be spoofed to distribute spam and viruses to millions of email account holders around the world. Those attacks have already begun. I also expect my phone numbers to be spoofed as the source of threatening phone calls and other criminal behavior. The source of those spoofed calls will be untraceable. Murtagh’s operatives have BILLIONS of dollars in pharmaceutical assets to target me and I will do all I can to facilitate ANY police investigation that arises from these attacks.

I respectfully request that you advise Murtagh to call off his co-conspirators, including Ralph Bard, Kevin Kuritzky, John P. Moore PhD, Robert Gallo MD, Brian Foley PhD; operatives of AIDSTruth.org, the Treatment Action Group (TAG), and foreign operatives affiliated with pharmaceutically-funded groups like Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) and RedPeg, of South Africa. Further information about these individuals and groups are included in Gallo’s Egg.

None of these groups or individuals should contact or attack any individual who questions Robert Gallo’s unproven theories, including (but not limited to) investigative reporter Celia Farber, Peter Duesberg PhD, or members of Semmelweis Society International (SSI).

Murtagh’s conduct demonstrates that his statements are unreliable and false. I have too many emails to send, but he sent this unsolicited email to SSI members last Monday:

—– Forwarded message —–
From: Jim Murtagh
Date: Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 12:27 AM
Subject: Good News! Clark is gone
To: (SSI Members)

Friends, Good news! Semmelweis has formally distanced itself from Clark Baker and repudiates AIDS denialism as well as the juvenile “report” of Clark Baker. Clark Baker is no longer a member, nor does he speak on behalf of Semmelweis or for Semmelweis. Not a single member was willing to stand up for Clark. Even Roland and Gil did not bother to put in a good word for Clark. Clark refused to rebut dozens of studies. Clark made incredible demonstrably false statements.

Fortunately, it appears Clark resigned. Clearly, it was a mistake to allow private detectives into Semmelweis. Now that this is behind us, I believe it is time to elect new officers who will abide by the bylaws, and stand behind the Semmelweis mission statement. Semmelweis exists to protect doctors and scientists, and not to threaten their jobs, as Clark has done. Glad this is behind us.

A few hours later, the SSI Board appointed me as SSI Secretary.

Murtagh is a former SSI member and only a small part of an insular group that supports my ouster and the quashing of my report. Many individuals of that group are also vulnerable to the tactics used to retaliate against physicians and university professors at universities and hospitals.

Chicago University Professor Andrew Maniotis, PhD is one of the latest. He is the program director in the Cell and Developmental Biology of Cancer Departments of Pathology and Bioengineering at the University of Illinois, Chicago. He will lose his position in August because of retaliatory attacks by Murtagh’s affiliates (Moore and Gallo). I have copies of letters used to destroy him if you wish to see them. Rebecca Culshaw is one of many victimsThreats and coercion are routinely used to destroy careers of those who question Gallo’s unproven allegations.

My investigation has just begun. As you can see, my report is online and Murtagh’s behavior and name are clearly cited in my report, just as I have presented my name and conduct. Murtagh had no expectation to believe that his behavior would not be publicly reported, and I have no statutory or constitutional responsibility to conceal his identity or behavior.

That said, I will cooperate with you and the Fayetteville PD to minimize any impact that my report may have on the residents of your city and on Murtagh’s personal friends and family.

Sincerely,

Clark Baker

]]> http://blog.cwbpi.com/?feed=rss2&p=352 http://blog.cwbpi.com/?p=351 http://blog.cwbpi.com/?p=351#comments Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:02:00 +0000 Clark https://www.clarkbaker.kicks-ass.net:7722/?p=351 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.

]]> http://blog.cwbpi.com/?feed=rss2&p=351 http://blog.cwbpi.com/?p=350 http://blog.cwbpi.com/?p=350#comments Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:20:00 +0000 Clark https://www.clarkbaker.kicks-ass.net:7722/?p=350 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

]]> http://blog.cwbpi.com/?feed=rss2&p=350