Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy

Seeking Stories of AIDS Denialism

Have you or someone you know been harmed by AIDS Denialism? If you, or someone you care about, have been advised to stop taking HIV meds, ignore HIV test results, purchase a 'natural' cure etc., please email me.

All information will be kept confidential.

Sunday, May 1, 2011

AIDS Denialism in Action: Clark Baker and the HIV Innocence Project

AIDS Denialist Clark Baker with the late Karri Stokely
WICHITA, Kansas, – Effort is being made to get a new trial for a McConnell airman convicted of hiding his HIV status from sex partners in Wichita. KSN has learned the Innocence Project has its sights set on Wichita. It plans to help Tech Sgt. David Gutierrez get a new trial after he was convicted in a military courtroom in January.

It was a case that aired Wichita’s dirty laundry from Coast to Coast: an airman sentenced to eight years behind bars for hiding his HIV positive states at swinger parties.

Robert was one of the victims.

“As many people as he tried to infect, and I'm sorry, kill, in my book, I think he should get the death sentence,” he said.

But not everyone agrees. The HIV Innocence Project has joined Gutierrez in a push for a new trial. The non-profit group helps defendants accused of HIV-related crimes. It took on 20 criminal cases last year, saying in almost every case the charges were dropped. The group’s leader, Clark Baker, calls the Gutierrez case disturbing.

“The Air Force had a lot of pressure to act strongly in pressuring the defense,” said Baker.

In the filing for a new trial, attorney say Gutierrez received a gross and incompetent defense and that his attorneys never looked at his medical records, never called any expert witnesses and refused the free help offered by the HIV Innocence Project.

“I've been working with attorneys since 1980 and I've never had an attorney resist anyone who was willing to deliver exculpatory evidence that would clear their client,” Baker said.

The lawyers also say they plan to go after Doctor Donna Sweet, the HIV expert whose testimony was used by the prosecution against Gutierrez. The defense claims – among other things – that she violated HIPPA laws by testifying against her own patient. And while pointing out she was subpoenaed to testify, Dr. Sweet actually agrees with the broad mission of the Innocence Project when it comes to criminalizing people with the virus.

“There's a big difference between if you actually infect somebody when you didn't tell them versus you put somebody at risk, and in this case Sgt. Gutierrez did not infect anyone that we know of,” she said.

But to his victims, Gutierrez is right where he belongs.

“The only thing unfair about his trial was his sentencing,” said Robert.

KSN did receive a written response from Air Force officials who have no comment on the appeal. They have 30 days to respond to the court filing. In the meantime, Gutierrez remains at Leavenworth Prison serving his sentence. 


  1. Clark Baker is a fraud. He claims his HIV Innocence Project gets charges dropped by challenging the validity of HIV tests. However, most of the cases he claims to have been involved in prove exactly the opposite.

    The Jose Alex Perez case is a perfect example:

    "According to Lucas, investigators obtained a search warrant for a blood sample from Perez. A test for HIV, which causes the chronic, life-threatening condition AIDS, came back negative."
    Here is the source:

    But I say let Baker continue on his fraudulent pilgrimage. All he is doing is getting more publicity to the fact that HIV Criminalization should be stopped. In hist zest for attention, he is inadvertently helping the cause of the "orthodox"! What a fucking tool!

  2. If you look at the original Smoking Gun report on the case it's clear that Gutierrez had discovered denialism before this all happened.

    "In a June 2007 posting on, Gutierrez conducted a poll on whether respondents were willing to “play” with partners infected with herpes simplex virus (HSV) or HIV. In a follow-up post, he asked, “Why are people scared of the HIV virus, don’t you wear condoms to protect yourself from HSV?” He added, “The research I have done raises several questions on weather or not HIV is even related to AIDs.”"

    To my knowledge, the specific contents of the "two manila envelopes containing a total of 146 pages of HIV related research articles" were not revealed during the trial. But perhaps they will be now? It would be important for people to know if denialism was what motivated Gutierrez to not disclose his HIV status to partners.

  3. Notice how Clarkie will not:
    (1) comment on the death of Kim Bannon
    (2) post his petition for a new trial?

    I'd love to see which denialist lawyer he got to sign off on the papers...

    I love how he always says something like, "I've been an investigator for 20 years" or "I've been working with lawyers since 1980" or some other bullshit like that.

    It strays the audience away from the fact that he is a fired traffic cop who has no college education.

    I hope someone provides the local affiliate with a more complete background of the loony Clarkie!

  4. Kralc,

    (1) Kim Bannon has not died
    (2) Clark has posted his affidavit in this case on his website.

    The lawyer concerned is Kevin Barry McDermott, although it is not clear whether he has accepted the case or what use he intends to make of Baker's "assistance".

    I wouldn't take Clarkie's claims at face value.

  5. Someone needs to change Karri's Facebook status to "dead" cuz I hear she won't be making it to the "Rethinking AIDS" conference in December. It seems to get smaller and smaller each year as their spokespeople die of AIDS. Maybe Clarkie will be next? Someone should call him and ask his comment on Karri's death: 323-650-6667

  6. It's not surprising that part of Baker's number contains "666" since he is the devil incarnate.

  7. ClarkieUpToOldTricksMay 2, 2011 at 5:51 PM

    Is it just my computer, or are the comments gone from under this story?

  8. I think Clarkie made some sort of stink that they be taken down. He is really upset that people are figuring him out when people reveal things like:

  9. "KSN has learned the Innocence Project has its sights set on Wichita. It plans to help Tech Sgt. David Gutierrez get a new trial after he was convicted in a military courtroom in January.

    Given that Clark Baker's absurd little vanity outfit has nothing at all to do with the Innocence Project, the latter may well have their sights set on a certain Wichita television station for misrepresentation.

    I wonder if anyone in the Innocence Project knows a good lawyer?

  10. Sounds a lot like R v Parenzee from 2007 in South Australia. Most dedicated readers will know about this, but here goes anyway.

    Andre Parenzee was convicted of three counts of endangering human life (infecting one of his partners) and tried to appeal on the grounds that HIV hadn't been proven to exist. Valendar Turned and world-renowned crazy Papadopulos-Eleopulos of the Perth Group testified at his appeal which was, predictably, thrown out.

    If anyone's interested, the court transcripts make for a pretty decent read, especially when Papadopulos starts going in circles and contradicting herself. Reading the Justice shoot her argument down is pretty hilarious. It's no longer on the SASC site but you can read it here:

  11. SLK- thanks for the info. I actually meant Karri Stokley, not Kim Bannon. Clarkie refuses to comment on her death. I read the affidavit. It is funny- Clarkie always uses the same font when he types up his fake legal documents- I have seen the same unusual font on other documents he submitted pro se to defend himself in civil actions.
    Writing such garbage helps him feel better about himself and makes him feel important when in reality he is such a stupid man.

  12. It does raise an interesting question. If this person really holds the mistaken view that HIV does not exist, and thus didn't practice safe sex, is he more culpable than someone who never got tested?

    The second person could never be convicted of reckless endangerment, because you can never really prove that the suspect could have been aware of their status at the time they infected someone. This is compounded by the fact that if the suspect never was tested, you can't tell exactly when the suspect was infected, or if a test would have been able to show the cause of the infection.

    But the first guy would probably be charged with a crime. But was he really reckless? He did get tested, and then he ignored the test because an "expert" told him to.

    Now I know that HIV exists and that Clark Baker is insane, because I am a chemist, and we can isolate proteins that specifically are present in HIV, model the interactions of these proteins with drugs and with Human cells. I also know that I have been a chemist for a very short time, and do not yet have a grad degree, so if I don't understand all the evidence, it doesn't mean there isn't any.

    But what about the suspect? He doesn't have that expertise, and if if the court proves that Baker and the Perth group are crazy, it doesn't mean the suspect knew that. From his point of view, he felt fine, a doctor told him he had a deadly illness, and then another doctor told him not to worry about it. And he didn't. And someone got infected, and now he is charged with a crime.

  13. BakerIsHisOwnToolMay 6, 2011 at 7:05 PM

    Clark Baker is now defending a PEDOPHILE & CHILD PORNOGRAPHER, TONY PERKINS!!! Baker and his bullshit OMSJ is involved in a case in Indiana in which Tony Perkins, who not only tested HIV+ and confirmed by WB slept with over 100 women but is also a pedophile with child pornography on his computer according to this report:

    So, an Ex-Cop, (although disgraced by committing police brutality) who prides himself on JUSTICE, is DEFENDING a pedophile/child pornographer!! Classy, Baker, real classy!

    Also, isn't it funny that Baker claims to have been directly involved in "over 20 cases" and "gotten HIV charges dropped" but has NEVER produced one bit of evidence supporting such statements? All he has done is to produce one affidavit, UNSOLICITED, I might add, in a very recent case of a military man who is in jail and not likely to get a new trial. Just sayin'!! Talk is cheap, but where's the proof?

  14. If Baker is able to show that the tests are flawed by showing how much they are open to interpretation, where the same man could be deemed both positive and negative, then more power to him. If thats true, that information should be out there.

    To the chemist... you say you can isolate proteins that are specific to HIV, but you didn't say 'only' to HIV. So... by what criteria do you think these proteins are exclusive to a specific virus?

  15. BakerIsHisOwnToolMay 7, 2011 at 5:42 PM

    What? It is obvious from that statement that you are not a chemist, a biologist, or any type of scientist. Those statements are ignorant. They make no sense. HIV tests are not "open to interpretation."

    But why not address the fact that Baker is attempting to defend a pedophile and a child pornographer? Tony Perkins should be on death row not gettng a second chance, especially by way of a person who claims to pride himself on being a law man. Besides, Baker is an arrogant idiot. I would love to be the District Attorneys who have to deal with his stupid ass. You know they laugh at him! Just read Baker's affidavit and you'll get a real laugh too!

  16. BakerIsHisOwnTool said... you're right. i'm not a chemist... Hence, my question. Incidentally, even the most orthodox HIV sites such as the The Body admit that the tests ARE open to interpretation. That is why they ask questions relating to risk factors and soforth.... The Body admits there are cross-reacting antibodies, and hence sexual history questions are used to frame the results of the test.

    I ignored the claim about Baker defending a 'pedophile' (your words) because it really it has nothing to do with this case. For you to point it out, shows how desperate you are to appeal to emotion rather than fact. The man deserves a fair trial.... are you saying he doesn't? The news clip noted he had images on his computer... That could mean absolutely anything. They tried the same thing with PeeWee Herman and eventually had to drop the charges.

    You essentially "Godwinned' yourself by bringing up pedophia. Stick to the facts of this particular case.

    A true law man defends someone's rights. The case in question is about a man who was said to have had unprotected sex while being hiv, and now it turns out he's probably not hiv+. Deal with that issue or stop wasting our time.

  17. "Tony" - the problem is that Clarkie Baker denies HIV can be tested for at ALL! He has no training - he never even went to college. He lies and just tries to promote his recent fake organization as a way to make money for himself.

    He does this at the expense of peoples' lives. Again, he doesn't have the balls to even acknowledge the death of Karri Stokely - his supposed "friend" that he conned into not taking her meds.

    Someone should tell the truth about him to the local affiliate:

  18. "Tony" (interesting choice of fake monikers),

    Tony Perkins got a fair trial and for you to claim he did not means it is you who is ignoring the facts. If you believe anything Clark Baker says shows your blind allegiance and ability to close your eyes to the truth. Clark Baker is a liar on the highest magnitudes.

    As far as HIV tests and cross reactivity, ALL tests have the ability for false results. That is because nothing is perfect and we do not live in Utopia. HIV tests are among the best tests in the world. Don't forget that for a person to be diagnosed HIV+, they have to test positive on TWO different protocols. The fact that AIDS Denialists lie about the rates of false positive results and the POTENTIAL causes of those false positives is further proof of their desperation! The fact is that HIV tests are incredibly accurate and Tony Perkins is HIV+.

    If you bothered to read Baker's hilarious affidavit, you will see that it is also absolutely riddled with desperation. Baker's affidavit rests solely on his perception of technicalities NOT facts about HIV testing. Baker claims that the person who drew Perkins' blood was not documented correctly, the lab itself "may not" have been approved and Baker even calls into question the Director of the Lab as well, and asks to see the certification of the person who performed the HIV testing and claims they were not certified either! Come on, really?

    Lastly, many pages of Baker's affidavit are not even relevant. Baker harangues on for several pages about the "toxicities" of ARVs and that Sustiva is "addicitive" (it is not!) But ask yourself, what relevance do the supposed toxicity of the ARVs have? Baker's affidavit does not even addres which ARVs Perkins is on IF ANY!

    Baker is full of hot air (i.e. shit) and he is a complete fool. Why else would the attorneys have REFUSED his help as even Baker admits? It's because they have read his "legal" writings and see that Baker is a nut job and a liablity himself!

    Seriously, "Tony", get a clue.

  19. Baker's genius strategy is to throw his unsolicited, unwanted idiocy at various cases he has nothing to do with and claim that OMSJ "he" is "involved." he likes the attention since he never got enough as a child. That is why he went on "Judge Judy" years ago as well. Clarkie Baker is an uneducated moron of the lowest denominator.

  20. Have the denialist retards like
    Farber/Baker et al arranged for a fake Karri Stokely autopsy yet? Did Clarkie attend the funeral of his "friend" whom he encouraged not to take her medicine? Has Clarkie commented on her death from AIDS yet? Has Clarkie changed his mind now and will he himself consider taking the antiretrovirals his doctor wants him to?
    Enquiring minds want to know.....

  21. Just to keep in the vein of much of the above (pompous deluded self-righteous ignorant tossers, including Chemistry 101 dude) - it seems that name calling is always a convincing start to a cogent argument on here - there is no definitive proof that either HIV exists or that it causes AIDS. That doesn't entirely rule out the possibility that a virus does exist, or that it could be a contributing factor. The trouble is the need for proof - not an unreasonable requirement if you are going to start accusing and prosecuting people for reckless endangerment etc. Proof, not just a good guess at what it might be.

    For truth to actually win out, you have to work a bit harder to be actually informed. Spewing emotionally laden diatribe with a hint of sarcasm masquerading as irony does not add substance to an argument.

    Seriously, you pin-headed dogma-quoting morons...

  22. Nice post about AIDS denialism and let me tell you, the comments by people are very interesting!

  23. "Spewing emotionally laden diatribe with a hint of sarcasm masquerading as irony does not add substance to an argument.

    Seriously, you pin-headed dogma-quoting morons..."

    I must say I noticed. The irony is rich indeed.

    Anyway, you want the evidence of AIDS? There are about a million research papers worth of it on Google Scholar. I'd start with this one.

  24. Another thing that Clarkie will never comment on (in addition to Karri Stokely's death):

  25. Oh really Kralc, quoting the HIV prevention network research, have you actually seen who funds them? you're too naive for words. A study that discontinued 3 years earlier than planned is not a study my friend it is a pharma advertisement and you show your real colors quoting that rubbish. go back to your day job at Glaxo information services or whichever pharma company you were dredged up out of.

  26. Hey anonymous
    It is okay to come outside now. No one will hurt and those people really are not staring at you.
    You should look at the stock price of Gilead Sciences over the past week. Over the week it jumped from 41.38 to 41.92, back down to 41.20 at close... that is a loss of 22% over the week.
    Oh yes, lots of people getting rich on the stop of that clinical trial.
    Do you AIDS Deniers not know anything?

  27. I guess if Karri was treated with medicine she would be alive today for her children.

    The deniers clearly never read the study. I also hope they don't take antibiotics for infections, anticholesterol medicines, Tylenol, cancer medicines, you know- drugs. Because the pharmaceutical companies make them. It is FAR better to listen to people who never studied science and have no medical knowledge and say nonsensical things that are contradictory. FAR better to ignore data, research, physicians, scientists, and public health and get advice from fired uneducated traffic cops like Clarkie and online retard-fests like "QuestioningAids" and the like.

  28. NNI am a 43 male living with HIV. What blows my mind with jackasses like this Clrk Baker guy is the fact I committed the act in the military too. I was tried and covicted of assualt/battery with the intent to cause harm to humanlife. Back then there was hardly any tratments, let alone mental therapy for people dealing with HIV/AIDS. (25yrs ago). Charged for disobeying a directorder to inform partners!

  29. I'll tell you what, I was tested for HIV not long ago here in Canada, they didn't ask me shit about my sexual history or anything, so there you go, HIV tests are good and accurate, oh and btw I had also just had a flu shot, you morons that think HIV isn't real or the tests are garbage are screwed up in the head, oh BTW I just called that number for that guy, it is the right number! lol