am asked, referring to what is commonly called
the Quackbuster operation, "Who's paying
these people to do this stuff?
Well, now I
know the answer to that question, and shortly,
after some simple reading, so will you...
The shift to
always known pretty much how it all, the
quackbuster consiracy, worked. Pretty
much. It would have been nice, in
the past, to have found one special place that
wrote the checks, so to speak. For then it would have been an easy thing
to mount one destructive assault, wiping that
operation from the American scene. But it was
never that way, or that easy, exactly.
What used to
be isn't happening now. Certain parts of the
have always been self-funded, not meaning that
some person put up their own money, but that
certain people found "Expert Witness Fees"
testifying in Court cases. Others, it
became obvious, were being, and are being, paid
for their activities "under the table," so to
There is an
interesting common thread. For sure,
there has always been an unsavory element in the
quackbuster ranks. I suspect, and can show
examples, that the largest part
of the quackbuster leadership (the ones you can
see) is provided by
those that have failed in their choice of profession.
Their fractured view of
themselves leads them to attack their betters -
and frankly, their betters includes just about
everyone. This has always been a
consistent theme. It still is. Take
Stephen Barrett as an example.
These days, as
I have explained before,
the old National
Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) based quackbuster gang has evaporated
- except, of course, in the fact that they are
being sued as a Co-Defendant in the wonderful
Doctor's Data v Stephen Barrett Federal
Court case. The newer operation, for the
most part, is run by
the "Skeptics" (pseudo-skeptics), who, I have found
by an even more unsavory batch of human detritus
than the original NCAHF based operation.
thrust of the pseudo-skeptics is control of
health care information flow on the internet.
They have two areas of focus: (1)
The first page of Google and other search engine
ranking, and (2) control, by organized
anonymous manipulation, of Wikipedia health
pages. They want their version of life to
be the only thing read on the internet.
Below, take a look at who pseudo-skeptic "Tim
Farley" is, and what he does.
But, the Skeptics
(pseudo-skeptics) made some BIG mistakes...
And, it is
going to cost them...
The old adage
"Give then enough rope and they will hang
themselves" applies to the pseudo-skeptics.
Several times I am aware of, within the last
couple years, or so, the pseudo-skeptics, easily lured
into reaction, came out to play on the internet,
intentionally organizing and executing a "Googlebomb,"
clearly with full intent to engage, not only in
Intentional Malice, but in
Conspiracy to Commit Intentional Malice.
obvious, and expected, of the "Googlebomb"
attacks was, of course, against Doctor's Data.
You can read about that
here. Another attack was/is against
Stanislaw Burzynski MD. I'll tell you more
about that in another article, later on.
Then too, there is the attack against the
Why is this
going to cost them? Because what they did
is all traceable, and hence, legally actionable:
who organized each campaign, who participated,
etc. The conspiracy is right there
for all to see if you know where to look - and
we do know where to look.
reasons I will explain down near the bottom of
this article, they are all very much afraid
right now - and they should be.
(pseudo-skeptic) key players...
So that we
fully understand who and what we are dealing
with, in terms of the "pseudo-skeptics," let's take a
look at their key players. Understand that
this group gathers its membership from odd
places. It seems to be a conglomeration of
people who simply can't make it on the normal
social scene. Virtually every one of them
I come across has some normally unacceptable
oddity - the least of which is Atheism (a lack
of basic Judeo-Christian morality). We'll
divide the key players into two subcategories
(a) Key People, (b) and Key Groups.
(A) Key people:
James Randi - real name Randall James
Hamilton Zwinge, the head of the so-called
James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF), is,
it looks to me, a failed professional
magician who simply couldn't make it on the
magic circuit. So what does Zwinge do?
He turns on his fellow magic performers and his
"show" becomes debunking his competitors (what a
fun guy...). "Magic" has
always been like professional "Wrestling."
It is all about show, and everybody knows that.
So, as a career move, that didn't work well for
looks to me that all Zwinge did was to anger
So, what does
Zwinge do? He changes direction, and starts de-bunking, along
with Paul Kurtz of CSICOP, psychics and the
paranormal. Of course, as we all know,
they bumbled that operation, so it went nowhere, in fact, most likely, helped
to PROMOTE interest in the paranormal - after a while even GOVERNMENTS were researching
the subject. Commercial television jumped
on the paranormal subject, for a long while, in what were
some of the first reality shows.
It's hard, I
guess to put your best, and fullest, efforts
into something and have it come out exactly the
opposite of your intent. Zwinge and Kurtz seemed to
have experienced that feeling. Then, even
worse, Zwinge caught the wrath of famous psychic
Uri Geller who pursued Zwinge through
the courts suing, and suing, and suing -
inflicting the legal equivalent of a judicious,
repeated, beating with a Nine-Iron, on Zwinge.
So, off Zwinge
and Kurtz go, changing targets once again.
This time focusing on Chiropractic, not
noticing, apparently, that the American Medical
Association (AMA) had just almost lost their
professional lives, just barely survived
the Wilk V AMA lawsuit from the Chiropractors.
pseudo-skeptics branched out, attacking one after
another of cutting-edge health care ideas.
Kurtz seems to have personally dropped out
somewhere along the way, leaving Zwinge and
CSICOP's successor Center For Inquiry (CFI) in
here to listen to an audio tape of Zwinge (Randi)
pursuing his primary interest. Yes, that was
a young boy, Zwinge (Randi) was soliciting sex
from. I have seven of those tapes in my
funding? $195,000 annual salary,
plus expenses, from the James Randi Educational
Gorski MD - allegedly a breast cancer surgeon,
he bills himself, on the internet, as "Orac."
I call him
"Orac the Nipple Ripper." What I said
of him before bears repeating:
"Every day Gorski gets out of bed and heads
to work where he claims, on his website, that he
oncologist specializing in breast
cancer and an Associate Professor of Surgery at
the Wayne State University School of Medicine
based at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer
Sounds impressive? It isn't. There is
absolutely no recognized medical specialty known
as "surgical oncologist." It is a made up
term. One to soften, I think, the reality that
there is a whole male dominated mini-industry
promoting the horror of hacking off women's
breasts as a health measure.
Gorski's writing about subjects, once you get by
the insipid whining you can discern his basic
anger at the world - you find the inner Gorski -
and it isn't a happy day.
Jake Crosby over at Age of Autism (AOA)
carefully researched Gorski and found what
supports the insipid rager. Gorski heads
up what's called a "research project" funded by
the world's largest vaccine maker Sanofi-Aventis
- a 39 million dollar, five year plan to
"study," it looks to me, pretend science. You can read Jake's
excellent article about Gorski by clicking
here. Frankly, it is obvious what
Gorski's real function is.
Steven Novella MD, so-called Neurologist, and
head man at the New England Skeptics
organization. Although Novella claims to be on
Staff at Yale University it appears he is really
no more than an employee of a medical center
that rents the "Yale" name by the month, and
part of the deal is that their doctors get some
kind of fakey title, making it appear they are
actually on staff at Yale. I could never
find Novella's name on any class schedule for
Novella made a
very stupid mistake taking on
Dr. Oz publicly
claiming, as skeptics usually do, all sorts of
things about Oz. Oz brought Novella on his
show and made a fool out of him. I wrote
an article about this you can read by clicking
here. You'll get a good laugh.
funding is under investigation.
Farley - is someone most of you have never heard
of, but you will. He is a pseudo-skeptic
with special talents. He runs a
pseudo-skeptic website called
www.skeptools.com , where he instructs
pseudo-skeptics on how to work together to
control search engine positioning and health
related articles on Wikipedia.
Farley lectures, and conducts classes at
pseudo-skeptic conferences on how to do this.
In short, Farley is the conspiracy facilitator.
His LinkedIn page says:
"Experienced software engineer, technical
writer and researcher with over 20 years
experience in the software industry. Extensive
knowledge of computer networking technologies
and protocols including computer security
issues. Excellent researcher and developer of
new ideas and technologies, including key
patentable techniques. Superb presentation and
writing skills, allowing this research to be
communicated internally and externally."
teaches people how to hack into other's
"Taught classes in reverse engineering of
binary software, application security, ethical
hacking and other computer security concepts all
over the United States for corporate and
This guy needs to be subjected to
Deposition in the
Doctor's Data v Stephen Barrett Federal
Peter Bowditch (Ratbags) - isn't really
important in and of himself. On a personal
level he isn't much. His activities are
those of a minor kiss-up. Professionally,
like most pseudo-skeptic leadership, Bowditch is
a loser, and doesn't seem to have an income
outside of "skepticism." I have the
distinct impression that Bowditch is in love
with, and will do anything to impress the
character who calls himself James Randi (Zwinge).
recently shut down an organization he created
years ago called "The Australian Council Against
Health Fraud," an affiliation with Stephen
Barrett and bobbie baratz, to spend his time
working directly with Zwinge, managing the "The
himself, is not important. He is just one
of the, what I call, the Offshore Defamation
Locations (ODL). What Bowditch is typical
of is the pseudo-skeptic's use of offshore
websites to defame individuals in the US,
knowing it is almost impossible to sue someone
that far away, and in an entirely different
court system. The pseudo-skeptics in the US then
quote someone like Bowditch, or link to his
site, hiding behind (they think) the shield of
internet protections against Defamation (Barrett
quite a few of these Offshore Defamation
Locations (ODL). However, it is easy to
tie them into the pseudo-skeptic conspiracy,
centering them in a US Court jurisdiction.
Various Players - There are others who get
involved in special projects, but for now we'll
leave them right where they are - ready to be
(B) The Groups are
the organizational and funding agents:
The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF)
- although not the largest, or best funded
group, this one gets the most attention due to
the flamboyant homosexual activities of its
leader described above, making attention in the
media over the
'The Amazing' Randi, renowned supernatural
investigator, immersed in mystery about
partner's alleged ID theft."
So I don't have to repeat myself - read what I
said about this so-called group below:
"Randi, in his megalomania, has actually,
magically I guess, created himself as an arbiter
of all things, even publicly offering the
occasional "Million Dollar Challenge," setting
up (laugh here) parameters in his challenge
which allow him, and him alone, to change those
parameters as he goes along, eliminating, of
course, the possibility of anyone being able to
collect on the so-called million. Don't be
surprised - this gambit is a cornerstone of this
form of skepticism.
More, Randi, astoundingly, actually found
someone to fund, and help him set up (get ready
to choke with laughter) the
"James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF)".
Before you laugh too loudly I want you to take a
look at an attached document called an Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) Form 990. JREF reported,
in 2010, a total income of $999,971.00 and a
Total Asset claim of $1,736,101. Click
here to see the available JREF Form 990.
Under the JREF Form 990 Summary Section - Box
One, asking for the organization's mission, JREF
answers "To promote critical thinking and
investigate claims of the paranormal."
All of the Form 990 for JREF is not available
to the public. One section called the Form
Schedule B, a list of, with addresses and
amounts, of contributors who individually
contribute over $5,000 is not there. So,
recently, I sent an email to James Randi asking:
busy, or I would have contacted you before.
But, now that I have you - could you send me
a copy of your JREF IRS Form 990 Schedule B
for calendar years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008,
2009, 2010? That info would be helpful for
my series on you. We've discussed the issue
of your funding sources before, as I recall
(something to do with Stephen Barrett
Randi was rude in his response to my polite
inquiry. He said:
""Timmie": It's difficult to believe that you
- whoever you are - can be so deluded... But
I've dealt with woo-woos before, so I shouldn't
be surprised. Be sure to scan the index of my
next book. You won't be there..."
Why would I want to see his
Form 990 Schedule Bs for five years? Well
(raise your eyebrows here), JREF took in
$368,445 in ANONYMOUS contributions in 2010.
Huh? Multiply that by the six years I was
asking for and we get a total of $2,216,670,
allegedly, "To promote critical thinking and
investigate claims of the paranormal?"
Who in the world would give a basically
uneducated mini-twerp like James Randi
$2,216,670 to promote critical thinking or
investigate the paranormal? Or for any reason?
More, Randi takes a $195,000, per year, salary
out of this organization.
Now you see why I want to see those Schedule
Bs. What's REALLY going on here?
The Center For
Inquiry, Inc (CFI), based in Amherst, New York
- the larger and better funded group.
"The Center For Inquiry, Inc (CFI), based in
Amherst, New York shows on their Form 990 that
they took in $5,242,304 in Total 2009 Income,
and they had, that year, Total Assets of
$3,017,144. Their Schedule B ANONYMOUS
contributions totaled $2,318,652.
More, CFI claimed that they received, in
2009, in addition to their anonymous
contributions, a so-called "Management Fee
Income" of $2,458,156. What do you suppose they
managed? And who paid them to manage it? Maybe
they manage Wikipedia health care articles? How
about Search Engine Optimization (SEO) bringing
Stephen Barrett's, articles to the first
page of Google?
All of this income, they claim on their form
990 Mission line is for the purpose of "Held
world congress and training session, conducted
seminars, and secured grant for library
Note that they never said what the "world
congress" was for, what the "training sessions"
trained people to do, what the "conducted
seminars" were for, nor mentioned what "the
library" was for.
More - and you are going to love this part -
I found more than one CFI non-profit corporation
based at the same New York address. I found, in
addition to CFI, the "Center
For Inquiry Development Fund," and the "Center
For Inquiry Holding Corporation." You can
look at sample of their Form 990's by clicking
on their blue-highlighted name. In short, the
Amherst operation apparently brings in about
seven million dollars a year.
Pretty good take in for "skepticism" don't
you think? Or is there something else going on
The Long and the Short
There is an
easily traceable pseudo-skeptic conspiracy going
on. It originates in the US, and,
consequently, each and every component, each and
every participant, no matter where they are, is
subject to US law, and hence, US Courts.
Its sole purpose, now, is to control through
Search Engine Optimization (SEO) techniques and
anonymous manipulation of Wikipedia, information
flow about health care on the internet.
question I see is simple. "Are the legal
requirements for a Civil RICO Act lawsuit
Why do I ask
this? Because a successful lawsuit under a
Civil RICO complaint carries severe penalties
for the Defendants. Jeffrey E. Grell, Esq,
on his website
www.ricoact.com, writes a superb examination
of how Civil RICO works. In one part Jeff
describes the most commonly used section of the
RICO Statute - section 1962(c) claims
Section 1962(c) prohibits any defendant
person from operating or managing an
enterprise through a pattern of racketeering
activity. So long as a civil RICO plaintiff
is injured by reason of the defendant’s
operation or management of the enterprise
through a pattern of racketeering,
plaintiff is entitled to treble damages,
attorneys’ fees and costs under section
1964(c) (commonly referred to as RICO’s
civil liability provision).
Section 1962(c)’s utility stems from its
breadth. Section 1962(a) and (b) claims are
relatively narrow. To have standing under
sections 1962(a) and (b), the plaintiff must
allege more than injury flowing from the
racketeering activity. Under section
1962(a), a civil plaintiff has standing only
if he has been injured by reason of the
defendants’ investment of the proceeds of
racketeering activity. Under section
1962(b), a civil plaintiff has standing only
if he has been injured by reason of the
defendants’ acquisition or maintenance of an
interest in or control over an enterprise
through a pattern of racketeering activity.
These distinctions will be discussed in
greater detail in the section of this
memorandum that is particularly concerned
with the section 1962(a) and 1962(b) claims.
The elements of a section 1962(c) claim
can be described in many ways. Generally, to
establish a claim under section 1962(c), the
plaintiff must prove that (1) a defendant
person (2) was employed by or associated
with an enterprise (3) operated or managed
(4) through a pattern (5) of racketeering
activity. To establish civil liability, a
plaintiff must also establish injury to
business or property by reason of the
pattern of racketeering activity.
Return to Nutshell Table of Contents
But, more than
this "treble damages" situation is the fact that
a victory in a Civil RICO case can easily,
and with the slightest of pressure, roll the
Defendants into a whole new Courtroom - this
time involving State or Federal Prosecutors in a
CRIMINAL RICO case. After all, Plaintiff
must allege, and prove in a Civil RICO case,
that the Defendants engaged in a criminal
activity. Any current Federal Court case,
can, and should Subpoena the Form 990 Schedule B
(anonymous contributor) information of the two
In short - the
legal question I see is "Are the skeptics
intentionally engaging in, and organizing,
fraudulent activities as defined under section
practical question I ask is
"Are there deep
pockets out there in pseudo-skeptic-land capable
of paying treble damages?"