7 FEB – Recently, I met with friends for dinner at a popular West Hollywood restaurant. As a respected general practitioner at one of the LA’s most prestigious hospitals, “Mike” was somewhat curious about my work with OMSJ – particularly the HIV Innocence Group.
Although my wife sometimes scolds me when my work becomes the central theme at social gatherings, we knew that Mike, Chris, and Judy (not their real names) had questions to ask.
Over wine and the unhurried delivery of grilled appetizers, I answered the first questions with an informal overview of the testing, treatment and diagnosis of HIV, along with OMSJ’s general strategy in its defense of clients accused of exposing others to HIV.
Admitting that he knew “almost nothing” about HIV, Mike said that the HIV-part of his practice was limited to patients who asked to be tested. Despite more than thirty years of practice and a patient list of prominent celebrities and studio bosses, Mike said that he had never diagnosed HIV in any of his patients.
Intrigued by my informal training and success, Mike asked, “What if you’re wrong?”
“What do you mean?” I asked.
“I mean,” he said respectfully, “how would you feel if the person you freed from prison infected others?”
I replied, “If prosecutors can’t find a doctor who can prove that someone is infected, how can we send an innocent man or woman to prison?”
Mike agreed that people shouldn’t be prosecuted for being sick.
“I agree,” said Judy. “But there’s a moral question here – I mean, even if the person isn’t infected with anything, the fact that he thought he was and had unprotected sex with others anyway is enough for me. Something should be done with people like that.”
Having heard these arguments before, I knew that I could never form a satisfactory response in the cool evening air above Sunset Boulevard. The conversation turned to the Golden Globes, actors and the latest movie releases. After more than two hours, we said goodbye and suggested several restaurants where we could meet next time.
I wondered how I could convince good people why sending innocent people to prison was wrong – especially when their incarceration was based upon clinicians who are paid to falsely claim that healthy people are sick.
BOMBS AND LIGHT SABERS
Last December, Sami Osmakac told an undercover FBI agent that he wanted guns and explosives for three car bombs. He also asked for an explosive suicide belt to kill police if they tried to stop him.
The undercover agent supplied him with everything he asked for, all of which had been rendered harmless before the planned attack began.
In an unrelated attack, Oregon police arrested a man who assaulted three people with a Star Wars light saber. A 911 caller reported that:
“… the man was inside the store… swinging the “Star Wars” weapon of choice at customers… Officers tried to arrest the man, but he kept swinging the light saber at them…”
The suspect was treated by medics and taken to an area hospital for a mental evaluation. He faced multiple counts of misdemeanor assault, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest – and theft of a light saber.
Although the intentions of both suspects may have been identical, the deadly properties of guns and bombs can be easily confirmed by even the most obnoxious skeptic. But when it comes to HIV and AIDS, the leading scientists freely admit that HIV is as deadly as Portland’s light saber attack:
“…the primary mechanisms of CD4+T cell depletion in vivo remain unclear; there is no direct evidence that HIV is cytopathic (within the human body), despite the fact that cytopathicity can be readily demonstrated in the artificial milieu of culture.”
The fact that one HIV co-discoverer was found guilty of scientific misconduct, while his Nobel-winning co-discoverer freely admits that HIV can be cured without drugs within a few weeks: While another admits that “heterosexual AIDS” was a marketing scam designed to coerce congressmen into writing checks, suggests that HIV has more in common with CO2 and light sabers than bombs and guns.
Based upon thirty years of hysteria, prosecutors theorize that HIV is a deadly weapon that infected persons must disclose before engaging in sexual relations. The failure to disclose a potentially deadly infection prevents victim from giving consent. Under most circumstances, non-consensual sex is considered rape.
To prosecutors, whether a victim acquires HIV is as unimportant as a drive-by shooter whose automatic fire misses its target. One does not need to kill or injure to commit a deadly assault or attempted murder. The “wanton disregard” or likelihood of great bodily injury is often enough.
But with HIV, no court can assume that an assault has taken place unless prosecutors can establish the potential deadliness of the weapon used. To establish the potential threat, competent clinicians must prove that the infection existed and posed a deadly threat to others when the alleged crime occurred. (In states like Ohio, prosecutors aren’t required to prove that an infection exists – only that an unknown and untested third party told someone he or she was infected.)
Before OMSJ became involved in these cases in 2009, prosecutors typically called clinicians who testified about things that defense attorneys were ill-prepared to question. But now that OMSJ is involved, many prosecution experts don’t even bother showing up.
In the United States, the accused are presumed to be innocent. Those of us who arrest are burdened to guarantee the civil rights of every American – not just those we think deserve them. When the government can compromise one person’s human rights, it can compromise the rights of everyone.
Which brings us back to the original question.
If I’m wrong, at least one of leading US HIV experts will be able to prove it in court.
But if I am right, it means that millions of US taxpayers have wasted billions of dollars in charitable contributions, fraudulent research, bogus testing, misdiagnosis and mistreatment that has led to the unnecessary injury and deaths of millions of Americans and people around the world in the name of HIV and AIDS.
To the issue of credibility, I honorably served as a US Marine and LAPD officer and licensed investigator since 1980. Despite thousands of criminal, civil and military investigations, I have never been accused of misconduct by any credible source. While I know little about microbiology, I know when government officials are lying or obfuscating the truth.
Unlike OMSJ, the pharmaceutical industry has paid $12 billion since 2004 to settle thousands of criminal complaints related to the illegal marketing of drugs that kill or injure more than a million Americans annually.
If I am wrong, my error is discoverable and easily remedied within a few days. But if I am right, how do US researchers, scientists and government officials hope to compensate the millions who have been injured and killed by this pharmaceutical war?