Who in the Hell is Brian Deer?...

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen 

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 Construction" claims.

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 into play.

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 Freedom Movement?

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 meetings. 

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: 

(1)   The 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 here. 

James Randi is the skeptics' moral touchstone.

(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:

"Homosexual Agenda

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 Patrol?  Click 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 Rider" 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.

(3)  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 really interesting. 

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. 

The 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:

"The 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 Brief:

    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. 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.

    At 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 old.

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 here. 

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...

As 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 Liverpool.

Make the connection?  Good.  Let's begin.

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 articles.

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 here.

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 Tokyo Rose...

American newspapers are on their ass... as well they should be.

Trine "Two 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.

Yes, that's what I said "funded by outsiders for their work."

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 market.

Way behind the ball...

So 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 readers.

One of the tactics beginning to be employed is a thing called "paid 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 called "crowdsourcing"  where a so-called "Investigative Journalist" gets funded by someone.  See the quote from the Wikipedia article:

An article on "crowdsourcing" describes the practice thus:

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.

To Review...

You can read the whole original Texas filing by clicking 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 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 institutional and
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 detailed herein."
 

And, stay tuned. 

Tim Bolen - Consumer Advocate