Winning Criminal HIV Cases

October 15, 2010

Shortly after I completed my first pharmaceutical corruption investigation in 2008, I learned of the Parenzee Case, which some activists called a landmark HIV case.  Upon closer review, I discovered that it represented something closer to a bad case of ineffective counsel.

This is not a slur against the attorney involved – indeed, until OMSJ became  involved in HIV-related criminal and civil cases, most attorneys didn’t have much more than pharmaceutical marketing propaganda to rely on for information.

OMSJ has changed that.


In 2006, an Australian court found Andre Parenzee guilty of exposing three women to the alleged HIV virus.  Despite the celebratory noise produced by a small group of pharmaceutical reps in this South African blog, it became clear that Parenzee was convicted not because he was HIV+ but because his attorney didn’t understand how to wage a competent HIV defense.  I found similar problems with Nushawn “Notorious HIV” Williams (1997), Willie Campbell (2008) and Philippe Padieu (2009).   In each case, defense lawyers quietly accepted the word of junk scientists.

HIV research is comprised largely of incoherent gibberish that can only be explained by other virologists who, upon careful review, have more in common with the astrologers who defended Rome’s geocentric universe than real scientists.  Once I understood who they were, I began to look at HIV as something akin to a typical drunk driving case.  When pharmaceutical activists attacked me for my blasphemy, I created the HIV Innocence Group.  In every case where defense attorneys worked with OMSJ since 2009, all HIV charges have been dismissed or aggressively plea-bargained by prosecutors.

Winning HIV cases does not require a PhD or even a medical degree.  Except for voir dire and the cross examination of expert witnesses, most criminal HIV defendants can be well-served by an experienced DUI attorney who understands the fundamentals of gas chromatography (GCI): When the equipment requires calibration, how calibration samples and standards are produced and how to question the lab techs and manufacturers who invented and service the devices.  Furthermore, courts can no longer force defendants to stipulate that tests were competently conducted.

HIV Theology

When the journal Science published Robert Gallo’s HIV theories in 1984, researchers soon discovered that they could demand millions of dollars if they didn’t question his dubious reports.  As a result, thousands – perhaps millions – of pages of HIV gibberish were published – all peer-reviewed by cohorts who also receive millions of dollars in research funding.  Although Gallo never explained how he proved that HIV attacks cells or causes AIDS, subsequent researchers who accepted his opinions on faith received research funding, while those who questioned it were defunded and ridiculed.  In this way, the profiteers of HIV (researchers, drug companies and the politicians they support) have turned HIV into a de facto religion.

Because all HIV research is based upon Robert Gallo’s unproven assumptions, all research based upon those assumptions is also unsupported.  As a result, HIV has divided two factions – the well-funded researchers and pharmaceutical activists who enforce the religion, and the heretics who question the orthodoxy.

If all of this sounds bizarre, ask the NIH, CDC or HHS this question directly:

“WHEN, WHERE, HOW and WHO proved that HIV 1) attacks cells and 2) causes AIDS?”

When I posed the question last year, a behavioral consultant responded with something akin to the Nicene Creed.  Simply stated, those who study HIV are comprised of a well-funded group of clerics and enforcers and disciples who believe that HIV=AIDS=DEATH and 2) a larger number of unfunded skeptics who do not.

Criminal HIV Cases

When someone is charged with being HIV+, the first question is whether they are actually infected with HIV.  It’s not enough for someone to admit they’re HIV+ – no one – not even the so-called experts – have the training or expertise to competently diagnose an HIV infection.  To do so requires HIV tests that are designed to do nothing more than market HIV as a disease.

In two of OMSJ’s more recent cases, top HIV experts from the Balboa Naval Hospital and Walter Reed Army Medical Center failed to explain how the defendants were competently diagnosed with HIV.

Even when a defendant admits to being “HIV-positive”, his admission means nothing more than some unknown, untested and unqualified third-party might have used a  test that cannot detect the HIV virus to diagnose a disease that was never proven to cause AIDS.  Until the medical record is carefully examined and those unknown third parties are identified and cross-examined, the admission amounts to nothing more than unqualified hearsay.


Defense attorneys who accept HIV cases should demand all medical and scientific evidence that prosecutors plan to use against the defendant.  Generally speaking, prosecutors either provide a few pages of HIV test results or may produce boxes of documents in what is called a document dump.  OMSJ sifts through the gibberish and distills the contents and produces an informal opinion or a formal affidavit – depending upon the needs of the defense.  Based upon the results of that document, defense attorneys can quickly assess the merits of the case.

Conflicts of Interest

Generally speaking, most self-described “AIDS experts” have serious conflicts of interest that prevent them from assisting HIV defendants.  Medical doctors who might question current HIV theology face serious consequences in the form of peer review, suspension and the loss of their careers.  Hospitals and universities that receive NIH funding risk the loss of funding unless they take action against heretical doctor.

(For more information about how and why academics and the drug and healthcare industries enforce corruption today, read Crime & Corruption in Organizations [Burke, 2011].)

This isn’t generally a problem for prosecutors, whose cases are based upon 30 years of HIV junk science.  When Professor Michael Metzker testified for prosecutors in the Phillippe Padeau case (2009), he never revealed the $4.8 million he received from the NIH since 2003 or the $millions Baylor has received since 2002 from the NIH.  When the trial ended, Baylor researchers published this report about the use of phylogenetics in HIV cases, a technology that was later questioned by other researchers and a scandal at Duke University.  Disclosing problems with the testing, diagnosis and treatment of HIV would not have been good for Baylor or Professor Metzker – a fact that was never raised during Padieu’s high profile trial. 

Unfortunately for Mr. Padieu, OMSJ did not yet exist.  Prosecutors have not attempted to use the technology in any of OMSJ’s cases. 

Why would the NIH pay Baylor and Metzker millions?

It may have something to do with the fact that infectious disease became statistically irrelevant in the US by 1955 (and that HIV has never been statistically relevant in Europe, Australia or South Africa [2007]) despite the marketing of AIDS. 

At the same time, drug industry has paid more than $12 billion since 2004 to settle thousands of criminal and civil complaints related to the illegal marketing of drugs that kill or injure 2-4 million Americans annually from adverse drug reactions (ADRs).

To the drug industry, criminal HIV cases have nothing to do with crime or infectious diseases.  Cases like Padeau generate what is called the Magic Effect, which generates hysteria that translates into unnecessary tests, diagnoses and revenue-generating treatment for HIV. 

Medical Experts

Medical experts and PhDs found on websites like this are generally comprised of physicians who face retaliation if they deviate from the theology.

But when OMSJ is involved, defense attorneys are supported by experts who are immune from retaliation.  This is why prosecutors who initially threaten defendants like Eneydi Torres with decades in prison offer face-saving plea-deals of  five days of unsupervised probation for “disturbing the peace.”


HIV cases are challenged by competing objectives:

  • Academics do not want their funding interrupted;
  • Prosecutors don’t want to suffer the loss of a high profile case;
  • Defense attorneys want the best deal for their clients;
  • Defendants want their freedom.

OMSJ’s subordinate objective is simply to identify one high profile trial that includes, 1) an intellectually curious attorney, 2) a defendant with a lot to lose  and shares a significant stake in society and 3) a community that pressures a prosecutor to not offer a plea bargain.  When the US Government pushed charges against Marine Corps Cpl. RL and Army Sergeant TD, they lost.

Clark Baker served 20 years with the LAPD and 15 years as a licensed private investigator.  He is the current Director and Founder of OMSJ.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

You must be logged in to comment

Log in