Show notes
Curiouser and curiouser . . . “HIV Innocence Group Truth” blogger J. Todd DeShong says he supports Bobby Russell’s lawsuit against his University of Kentucky doctors for the careless practices that led to his false-positive “HIV” diagnosis, but he is not so sure about Clark Baker and the Office of Medical and Scientific Justice (OMSJ), the investigative agency that made that lawsuit possible. It’s not an attack; it’s a “deconstruction.” And we’re not talking about those tests and how misleading they are, even though DeShong is a lab professional who runs diagnostic tests for hospitals and says he is working toward a master’s degree in molecular diagnostics. The tests are “off topic,” he says.
Listen as the distinctions here get finer and finer, more than “How Positive Are You” co-host Elizabeth Ely can comprehend. Isn’t this how sociopaths work?
Outside this rabbit-hole Wonderland of DeShong’s own mind, the facts don’t bend. And they’re not so subtle.
DeShong has been running a straight-ahead attack on Baker, OMSJ and the work of its HIV Innocence Group (see Episode 62 for one grateful criminal defendant), and Baker has alleged in court filings that DeShong is not acting alone. Not just a lone blogger, but the whole AIDS-industrial complex, is seriously threatened by OMSJ’s habit of entering the validity of the “HIV tests” themselves into the evidence in criminal and civil proceedings. “Yes, I’ve been on an e-mail chain with a bunch of those people,” DeShong says of the highly placed government- and pharmaceutically-employed critics of OMSJ. What of it?
Here’s what: If someone isn’t talking directly about the issues, they’re hiding their real agenda. It’s OMSJ they’re attacking, and OMSJ they want to stop, because OMSJ is challenging the shaky “HIV testing” on which the whole well-funded edifice stands. The organization is suing DeShong, and yes, the case was still alive as of this taping in February 2015. (UPDATE: OMSJ has, by this posting in March 2015, lost that lawsuit.)
“I don’t want to talk about Clark Baker without him [here] to defend himself,” says this guy who has dedicated an entire Web site to, no kidding, “deconstructing” Baker and the work of OMSJ.
Baker did defend himself, writing to Beth: “His website is a rat’s nest of propaganda – a shell game of junk science that supports itself.” Isn’t that what the AIDS paradigm itself is? It’s a house of mirrors all reflecting “truth” back to one another while ignoring the basic fact that
there
is
no
reliable
test
for
“HIV.”
Baker’s own legal declaration states, bluntly and without nuance, that he is suing DeShong over:
“. . . the continuous, unrelenting, uninterrupted, and ongoing campaign by DeShong and his accomplices since 2008 to interfere with my business and my ability to attract clients, financial donors, and the media, which dissuades, inhibits, and interferes with my ability to locate clients and conduct investigations.”
One of these cases is Gutierrez. Baker alleges that, because of DeShong’s defamatory blog postings, the defendant’s lawyers refused to respond to OMSJ’s offer of assistance and he was convicted of charges related to having sex while “HIV positive.” As of the taping of this interview, David Gutierrez was awaiting an appeal in the nation’s highest military court. (See our Episode 97 on the defendant’s appellate victory.) DeShong admits that discrediting OMSJ and deterring prospective clients is his goal but claims his activities are protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment right to “free speech.” Tragically, his disinformation sent the military veteran to Fort Leavenworth prison for four years.
Before granting DeShong this interview, Beth asked what useful information it could offer her listeners, besides barely-entertaining theater. She’s guessing it’s the lengths to which the AIDS “establishment” will go to avoid the essential issues of life and death. Notice how carelessly such people dismiss the need to question the medical tests we all depend on. Listen to their strange idea of what love is, as demonstrated in sociopathic attempts like this to find “common ground” with people they attack elsewhere.
Baker responds to allegations of “death threats”:
“I left my name and phone number after contacting DeShong to interview him as part of my investigation. DeShong called me back and I never called him back – although DeShong called me numerous times over the years. DeShong and his mother never notified law enforcement, nor did anyone at my licensing agency ever convey a complaint.”
View DeShong’s blog comment on the death of Christine Maggioreby doing a text search for “DeShong” here.
DeShong’s open letter to Beth requesting an interview is here. The conversation leading to this request is on our Episode 71 and Episode 92 pages. DeShong linked from his Episode 71 comment to this article asserting that “there is not a case here” and characterized later as no “attack” on OMSJ at all. (In keeping with his high ideals, he makes no remarks about Baker without his being present to defend himself. . . .)
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
Stay Connected
