the Hell is Brian Deer?...
Opinion by Consumer Advocate
Friday, March 16th, 2012
To a lot of us in the North American
Health Freedom Movement, meeting with
the Autism Parents opened up a whole new
world of intrigue and manipulation
focused at the victims of Autism
Spectrum Disorder. That intrigue
and manipulation itself is familiar to
us in the Movement, for, as we found out
quickly after meeting the Autism
Parents, the same predators, operating in
the same way, used the same techniques -
but this time, simply trying to cover up
the fact that Vaccines are causing major
worldwide health problems, and not
"saving humanity" as the Vaccine
Of course vaccines cause Autism,
and inflict one in six children with
neurological disorders. Yes, Big
Pharma lies about that, and yes, of
course, the government agencies that "we
the people" put in place to stop this
sort of thing from happening have been
co-opted by the very industry that they
are supposed to regulate. So,
what's new about that? It is a
fact of life here in the United States.
Move on. Deal with it.
But, for us in the Movement, there is a
learning curve. We needed to get
up to speed on the existing situations
extant in the Autism issue. And,
as we soon found out, among other
things, there is this big fight going on
over a peer-reviewed paper written
way-back-when, and published in a
journal called Lancet in Great Britain.
That paper has had quite a bit of
British media surrounding it, and, in
short, caused significant controversy in
Great Britain. It's in this venue
that Brian Deer, from Britain, comes
Now let's put
all this into perspective so we can look
at this situation in the proper light...
Why is this situation important in the
Autism community - and why the is this
situation important to the Health
At first I was a bit baffled that
anything occurring in Britain would be
of any interest to us here in the US, so
I took a "so what?" approach.
After all "we the people" kind of told
Britain way back in 1776, that we don't
really give a big rat's ass about much
of anything that Britain thought or
wanted, and nicely, at gunpoint, told
them to stay the hell out of our
affairs. And, when they came back
in 1812 all huffy about being rebuffed,
in their Red Coats, we shot them when
and where we found them, buried them
shallow, and planted corn.
Consider, of course, that Britain, for
all its claimed majesty, is
geographically smaller than most
counties in California. And, since
the weather there is abysmal, most
people there hibernate - contrast that,
of course, to California where we are
one-with-the-sun. When the Brits
do come out to find a fish-and-chips
place they are each photographed, by the
security cameras surrounding them, more
times than Lindsey Lohan coming out of rehab. The
British government is the epitome of
paranoia. They trust their
citizenry, obviously, not-all-all.
I thought, when I first read about all
those security cameras, that all that
photo security was a bit overdone, and
of course, it is. But then I
started taking a look at this Brian Deer
character, and it began to dawn on me
that there just might be some
justification for keeping photographic
track of certain kinds of people.
Keep in mind that I have been
investigating, very carefully, the group
that calls itself "the skeptics."
There was a time, early in my
investigation, when I considered
attending, quietly, a local skeptic
meeting. But, I thought about what
I was uncovering about them, and decided
that there was a good chance, even here
in the US, that local law enforcement
might be photographing everyone that
goes in and out of one of their
Why would I be concerned about a local
skeptic meeting might be photographed by
the police? I'll give you a three
part sample overview:
acknowledged skeptic leader is James Randi
- the guy who calls himself "The Amazing
Randi." He, among other things,
heads the James Randi Educational
Foundation. And, just so we are on the
same page here about Randi, take the
time to listen, perhaps once again, to
the audio tape of James Randi soliciting
sex from a teenage boy. The boy
had gotten Randi's phone number on the
wall of a video game arcade. Click
James Randi is the skeptics' moral
(2) Take a look at a website,
here, of the person who hosts a
significant portion of the skeptics' web
offering. The website owner
"Steve Rider" says:
a known homosexual we seek to
promote the Homosexual Agenda
whenever possible. We do this by
creating websites that ridicule
Jeebus-based anti-gay propaganda,
offering merchandise for sale that
is of interest to homos, as well as
filtering YouTube videos to offer
innocent young children the ability
to easily find queer videos."
Listen to "Steve Rider," pictured
at the right with James Randi, in his video, tell
you about his position. Take what he
says literally. Want this guy as your
next-door-neighbor? The head of your
local Boy Scout Troop? Working for the
local Child Protective Services? Park
here to see the video and website.
I have reason to believe that "Steve" is
your typical, everyday, "skeptic"
- just the type of guy you'll find
attending "Skeptics in the Pub"
meetings throughout their network.
Remember when you consider the "Steve
situation that the so-called skeptics
want to tell parents of Autistic
children what to do with those children.
They also conspire to control health
care information on the internet.
To understand the core of
the "skeptics" you have to
understand the role of Loren Pankratz
PhD in the "skeptic" scheme of things. Pankratz describes himself as a forensic
psychologist from Oregon Health Sciences
University. He is a fellow of the
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI)
division of the Center For Inquiry
(CFI), a board member of the National
Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF),
and a board member of the False Memory
Syndrome Foundation (FMSF). It's
that last group that makes him
Pankratz is joined on the FMSF board by
James Randi and a man named Ralph
Underwager (you'll see more about
Underwager just below).
Pankratz has made a career out of
testifying on behalf of accused child molesters,
claiming that he, as an expert
psychologist, knows that the children
are lying, or that they have "False
Memory Syndrome," whatever that is.
In a famous federal criminal court case
in South Dakota, Pankratz, along with
another FMSF goofball Ralph Underwager,
teamed up to try to get a new trial for
four extended family tribal males who
had been convicted of the sexual abuse
of five adopted female children, ages 20
months to seven years old.
Underwager, according to the
court documents, had "interviewed"
the children, by himself, getting them
to recant their testimony so as to get a
new trial. Pankratz had given the
small children a lie detector test,
which, supposedly showed that they had
lied in court the first time. But
the Federal Appeals Court didn't buy it
and disqualified both Underwager and
Pankratz as expert witnesses.
Appeal Decision is sickening
reading. It shows a depth of
depravity most people don't even want to
think could happen to children.
You can read the whole document by
clicking on the blue highlighted text
just above. But, if you are short
of time, just below, is ONE of the
examining MD's reports on the children.
I give you this so there is NO MISTAKE
here about what we are talking about:
trial testimony of Dr. Kaplan and Dr. Farrell
established that the children had been sexually
abused. The children described the abuse to Dr.
Kaplan shortly after they were removed from their
home. The government concisely summarized some of
the pertinent medical testimony in its Post-Hearing
Dr. Kaplan testified that on January 15, 1994, he
examined [J. R.], who was four-and-a-half years old
at the time. Trial Transcript (hereinafter referred
to as TT) 202. [J.R.] told Dr. Kaplan that Uncle
Jess hurt her “privates.” TT 203. While Dr. Kaplan
was completing the genital examination of [J.R.].,
she told him “Uncle Jess hurt me” and when asked
where, [J.R.] pointed to her left labia. TT 205. Dr.
Kaplan found redness and signs of recent trauma,
including a bruise or contusion. TT 205. As Dr.
Kaplan examined [J.R.’s] anal opening, [J.R.] said
that Uncle Jess has used his hand in her butt. TT
206. Dr. Kaplan found that his physical findings
were consistent with sexual abuse. TT 208.
Dr. Kaplan also examined [L.R.], who was six years
old at the time. [L.R.] told Dr. Kaplan to “check my
peach” because it hurt. TT 213. [L.R.] told Dr.
Kaplan that her uncles hurt her. TT 213. Dr. Kaplan
found a large bruise and redness on [L.R’s] labia
majora on the right side and found that [L.R’s]
hymen was somewhat disrupted. TT 213. He determined
that the injury was fairly acute and had occurred
within the last few weeks. TT 214. He testified that
his findings were consistent with child sexual
abuse. TT 214.
Dr. Kaplan also examined [R.R.], who was five years
old at the time. While examining [R.R’s] genitalia,
she volunteered spontaneously, “ I have a bruise
where my uncle put his private spot. TT 219. [R.R.]
volunteered that her uncle Garfield did this at her
Grandma’s house. TT 219. [R.R.] also stated that her
uncle put his private “in my butt.” TT 220. Dr.
Kaplan found a readily open hymen and a midline scar
on the anus at six o’clock. TT 221.
Dr. Kaplan also examined [T.R.], who was seven
years old at the time. He found obvious trauma and
contusion on her inner labia majora. [T.R.] told Dr.
Kaplan, “Uncle Jesse hurt me there.” TT 224. Dr.
Kaplan found [T.R’s] hymen to be disrupted and
determined that his findings were consistent with
sexual abuse. TT 225.
Dr. Farrell conducted further examinations of
[R.R, T.R, F.R, L.R, and J.R.] in February of 1994.
Dr. Farrell found evidence of tearing and scarring
of the anal mucosa on [F.R.] TT 387. In examining
[R.R.], Dr. Farrell found obvious damage to the
hymenal ring and a scar at six o’clock. TT 390.
[R.R.] also had a tearing at the seven o’clock
position in the anal area. TT 389 [should be TT
393]. Dr. Farrell found a fusion at the six o’clock
position on [L.R.] TT 396. He also found evidence of
anal trauma at the twelve o’clock position on [L.R.]
TT 398. Dr. Farrell further noted a tag or scar on
the hymen at the six o’clock position when he
examined [J.R.]. TT 399. Dr. Farrell also found that
the anterior portion of he hymenal ring was
essentially gone on seven-year-old [T.R.] TT 400.
trial, even the defendants’ medical expert, Dr. Fay,
found that the injuries to [L.R., R.R., and J.R.]
were very suspicious and may have been acquired
through sexual trauma. TT 1023. Dr. Fay also found
that the labial injuries to [T.R, L.R, and J.R.]
were only seven to ten days old. TT 1016.
Pankratz, it was shown, had no idea how
to conduct a polygraph examination.
Underwager, Pankratz and Randi's FMSF
buddy, went on to be disqualified in a
stream of cases, shown
here, throughout America. At
the time this happened these little
girls were respectively, 20 months old,
four-and-a-half, six, and seven years
I could go on almost endlessly with the
connections between the so-called
skeptics and inappropriate sexual
behavior. Leaf through my older
articles and you'll find a trail of
uncomfortable information. A good
summary place is
So, where do the skeptics meet to plot
their nefarious machinations?
Well, a few times a year they gather at
various "skeptic meetings." But,
for the most part, they meet in
"Skeptics in the Pub."
So, now let's
introduce Brian Deer...
you have probably figured out where this
is heading... the photo at the right
shows Brian Deer at the Westminster
"Skeptics in the Pub" meeting in
Make the connection? Good.
Brian Deer is the guy who wrote a series
of articles in the London Times deriding
Andrew Wakefield's scientific work.
Then, last year he wrote for the British
Medical Journal (BMJ), a similar crop of
Andrew Wakefield is suing Brian Deer and
the BMJ in Austin, Texas, his new home,
after Deer put Wakefield's life at risk
in Britain. The skeptics brag
about what they did to Wakefield.
I wrote about that before. You can
find my comments
Deer claims to be an award winning
Investigative Journalist, blah, blah,
blah. And the skeptics shriek that
term everywhere. But the truth is
quite different. Deer hasn't
actually been employed by a media outlet
in over ten years. He was NOT
employed by the London Times when he
wrote those articles. He was a
free lance journalist. And, he
wrote for the BMJ on contract.
"So," we should ask, "who
financed Brain Deer to write those
London Times articles?" He
researched, he claims, for years, and he
wrote articles about Wakefield from 2004
through 2009 in the Times. Even if
he was paid, handsomely, by the word, he
couldn't have even bought food, much
less paid the rent, on what he made from
the London Times.
There is this thing called "crowdsourcing."
Below, so I don't have to repeat myself,
is what I wrote about it before in an
article I called
Trine "Two Shoes" Tsouderos - Barrett's
American newspapers are on
their ass... as well they should be.
Shoes" Tsouderos is a writer for the failing,
failing, failing, failing, failing, failing,
failing, failing, failing Chicago Tribune. These
days she virulently attacks the Autism bio-medical
treatments and parents. Not long ago little Trine (with
only one shoe) was writing suburban restaurant
reviews. Then, I suspect, probably on the edge of
being laid-off, she was recruited to become part of
the new breed of so-called "Investigative
Reporters," the ones that get funded by outsiders
for their work.
that's what I said "funded by outsiders for their
American newspapers are nearly dead - for they held
on to old ideas about news distribution way too
long. Now they are playing catch-up - as fast as
they can, and they are WAY behind the ball in this
behind the ball...
what are the newspapers doing? They are scrambling
to find anything, virtually any kind of crappy
tactic, to get readers - for it is numbers of
readers that generate advertising dollars. News
vehicles that formerly relied on printed pages are
suddenly thrust into the internet competition for
of the tactics beginning to be employed is a thing
content," and it is controversial. It comes in
two parts: The first, where a reader pays to log on
to a news source, and the second, something
where a so-called "Investigative Journalist" gets
funded by someone. See the quote from the
"The increased accessibility and interactivity of
online journalism has also created new opportunity
in the guise of crowdsourcing, enabling people to
get investigative journalists working on stories
that they themselves have suggested and funded."
An article on "crowdsourcing"
describes the practice thus:
"Basically it works
by members of the public providing suggestions and
tips for stories. When a journalist accepts a
suggestion, he creates a pitch, which is then funded
by those who are interested, in a piecemeal fashion.
Once written, the story is published or sold to a
mainstream media outlet."
In short, what I'm saying here is that
it was simply not possible for Brian
Deer to have been a neutral
"Investigative Journalist" for a ten
year period of unemployment. He
was then, and is now, a kept man.
So, let's ask that question again:
"So," we should ask, "who
financed Brain Deer to write those
London Times articles?"
Bringing it all
up to date...
On March 9th, 2012 Brian Deer, etc.
filed a Motion To Dismiss - Anti-SLAPP
which was patently ludicrous. It
looked like it was written, by
consensus, on a table at a "Skeptics in
the Pub" meeting somewhere - Appletini
and wine spritzer stains included.
The document was clearly not written in
legal language whatsoever. It was
written for the Press. But the
beauty is that except for a small
nothing article in the Austin, Texas
American Statesman newspaper, Brian Deer
and Fiona Godlee fumbled badly - The
media didn't cover their story.
The only people that covered the Deer
response were the skeptics.
So, what's THAT all about? When
Andy Wakefield filed suit against Deer,
Godlee, and the BMJ, in Austin, Texas
the worldwide media picked it up.
You can read the whole original Texas filing by
here. Before you do that let
me give you a few highlights. For
a short read, click
here to read the "Demand Letter"
sent to the British Medical Journal,
Brian Deer, and Fiona Godlee on November
10th, 2011. The letter lays out
the basis of the claim against the
Defendants and demands retraction of the
original articles and protection of the
information relied on. Of course,
the Defendants failed to respond.
Hence the lawsuit.
"This defamation lawsuit
arises, in part, out of the publication
on or about January 5, 2011 and
thereafter, in the British Medical
Journal, of an article authored for the
BMJ by Brian Deer, titled Secrets of the
MMR Scare (Exhibit A) and accompanying
editorials by the BMJ’s editor, Fiona
Godlee (Exhibit B 1-2). Defendants’
article and editorials, distributed to
subscribers in Texas and which form the
basis of Plaintiff’s claims, contained
unfair, incorrect, inaccurate and unjust
criticisms of findings previously
reported by Dr. Wakefield and 12 other
co-authors. More significantly,
Defendants accused Dr. Wakefield of
fraud and of fraudulently and
intentionally manipulating and
falsifying data and diagnoses in
connection with a clinical paper he
co-authored called Ileal-lymphoid-nodular
hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and
pervasive developmental disorder in
children, originally published in
the medical journal The Lancet in 1998
(the “Lancet Paper”). Defendants’ false
and defamatory allegations have been
widely disseminated by Defendants
through the BMJ and other sources since
their original publication."
"This Court has personal jurisdiction
over the Defendants pursuant to the
Texas Long-Arm Statute and consistent
with the requirements of Due Process
because the Defendants purposefully
availed themselves of the privileges,
benefits, advantages, and profits of
conducting their affairs in the State of
Texas by directing a significant and
regular flow of publications, including
periodicals, journals, articles,
subscriptions, and electronic media to
individual residents of this State.
Defendants further committed a tort,
which is the subject of this suit, in
whole or in part, in this State, to wit,
authoring, editing, and approving
articles and making statements with
knowledge or intent that said articles
be published and statements be made and
directed to residents of this State,
including, but not limited to Plaintiff
at his residence in Austin, Texas. Said
articles, publications and statements
contained false and defamatory
allegations about Plaintiff Dr.
Wakefield and his affairs, business and
reputation in the State of Texas as
You can read the Plaintiff's Exhibits by
one more thing...
The photo to
the right is of none other than BMJ's Fiona
Godlee addressing a skeptic meeting.
is the one who hired Brian Deer to write the
articles she published in the British Medical
Journal - the ones Andrew Wakefield is suing
Just so we
know the whole story, ask yourself the question
"Where does the money come from that keeps the
British Medical Journal operating?" Do you
think it might be the vaccine/pharmaceutical
coming along nicely...
I'd like to be
there when Brian Deer has to walk into the
Travis County courthouse under the steely eyes
of those Texas Rangers. Smile here...
And, stay tuned.
Tim Bolen - Consumer