Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
Tuesday, March 20th, 2012
Something is very clear to me. It’s this: Brian Deer is coming apart under pressure. Deer was the instrument used against Andrew Wakefield over the MMR vaccine issue. With, or without, his consent he has become, and will continue to act, as the instrument to reverse that attack. He has no choice in the matter.
(1) Brian Deer has lost his media voice. He is no longer being published in the Mainstream media. It has been three years since he was last published in the London Times, or anywhere. Simply spoken – he has been dropped. He caused this to happen. Below, I will show you how he did that to himself.
(2) Deer’s association with the skeptics was a big mistake. He’s finding out that the old adage “If you lie down with dogs you get fleas…” applies.
(3) It is a simple fact that Brian Deer, under pressure, does not do well. I will show you what I mean, very graphically, below, with a video of Deer being confronted. Deer is about to face the confrontation of his life – in a Texas courtroom, and during all the “discovery” leading up to it. I imagine that Wakefield’s attorneys are eagerly anticipating those opportunities.
How Brian Deer lost his media voice…
From 2004 through 2009, and before, Brian Deer, and his articles, were accepted at face value. But, that is not happening anymore. In about April of 2011 Deer submitted a proposal for an article to Nature magazine. Nature responded with a simple contract offer, requiring Deer to legally, and personally, stand behind his writing, indemnifying them against any legal actions that might arise from Deer’s article. Deer not only refused, but attacked Nature publicly, by “posting” about that proposed contract, nastily, in the Guardian blog area. Don’t count “posting” in the Guardian as being published – anyone can post there.
Nature is a huge magazine operation, highly respected in the science industry. To them they were simply making it clear that they were not interested in printing anything that the author would not personally stand behind – no libel, no personal attacks, no misinformation, etc. Apparently, Deer’s article was an attack on the British Medical hierarchy., assaulting them because they did not attack Andrew Wakefield strongly enough. Nature simply asked:
“You represent and warrant that the Article will not be libellous and will not violate the privacy rights of any individual; and that the Article will not infringe any copyright, or trademark, or obligation of confidentiality or give rise to any legal cause of action of any kind against Nature Publishing Group …”
You agree to indemnify NPG for any losses, damages, costs and expenses …”
Nature magazine responded to Deer’s attack indirectly – they nailed Deer’s ass to the wall in their November 2011 issue by mentioning David Lewis of the National Whistleblower’s Center’s criticism of the GMC findings. The article sent Deer into a rage, and Nature let Deer comment on the article, printing his comments just below the online version of the piece. Deer, clearly laying on the floor kicking his feet like a three-year-old-who-needs-a-nap, focused his “scientific” response on the fact that Lewis had once met Wakefield at “the 2,000 acre Tryall Club villa resort in Montego Bay, Jamaica,” as though that had some information value.
Then, just about ten days ago, the Guardian itself made it clear that it had had enough of Brian Deer. Their columnist Martin Robbins ripped Deer to shreds. The article title:
“Scientists say…” Journalists need to get over their unhealthy obsession with individuals, speculative arguments and single studies in a world where context is everything
The article in the Guardian, blasted out in the very vehicle Deer, himself, used, was about Brian Deer, and it was not flattering.
More, Deer never mentioned in his rant against Nature magazine, that the very blog vehicle he was using to attack Nature, the Guardian, had exactly the same rules about publishing that Nature required. The Guardian’s “Terms of Service” include language virtually duplicating Deer’s complaint about the Nature magazine contract:
What is of importance here is that, clearly, Deer is finished as a real journalist. More, if Deer can’t get anything published in Mainstream media what value is he to those that finance his activities?
Deer is relegated to publishing self-aggrandizing notes about himself on his own website, and the VERY occasional blog in the Guardian. And, of course, the skeptics promote him, completely ignoring the reality that Deer, is basically, out-of-work, and has been for some time.
For amusement, go to Deer’s blog and look at the photo he uses to promote himself. Notice the suit coat he’s wearing? It is obviously from a MUCH larger man – a 46 regular coat on a 36 regular body? Heavens to Murgatroyd. Things, I guess, are getting real bad for Brian Deer.
More, one simple fact had to jolt Deer and his support network right to their core. When Deer filed his Motion to Dismiss in the Wakefield v Deer Texas case no media covered it. Remember, however, that when Wakefield filed his case against Deer, Godlee, and the BMJ ,the whole world covered it.
Deer’s association with the skeptics was a big mistake…
I’m not going to go into detail about this here. I write about the sleazy skeptics often enough. Deer inserted himself into the skeptic filth pile. Now he can pay the price along with the rest of them.
It is a simple fact that Brian Deer, under pressure, does not do well…
I am going to show you a video on Youtube, taken of Brian Deer being nicely confronted by the parents of the twelve children mentioned in the Wakefield Lancet study. It is a real eye opener. It demonstrates the REAL Brian Deer clearly and concisely.
Oh my, is it revealing. Very revealing.
Like both Stephen Barrett (quackwatch) and Robert S. Baratz MD, DDS, PhD (bobbie baratz – the former president of the National Council Against Health Fraud) Brian Deer is a person so arrogant, so self-deluded, that he, like the other two, cannot personally deal with being publicly challenged over his questionable claims.
Neither Stephen Barrett, nor Robert Baratz survive well in the courtroom, nor in public debate – juries, and judges dislike them immensely once they are forced out of their comfort positions, and questioned about their real knowledge and veracity. Brian Deer is, obviously, the same.
Push a megalomaniac and they react – and not well. The video shows that graphically.
In fact, it is so revealing I can see why Fiona Godlee and the British Medical Journal (BMJ) are going all out to try and get a Dismissal in the Texas Wakefield v Deer, et al, case, long before this case ever gets to trial.
Why? Because Brian Deer is the very best witness Andy Wakefield could bring for the Plaintiff. I am not exaggerating one bit. Wait until you see the video. This is the REAL Brian Deer. This is the Brian Deer that a jury of twelve people in Travis County, Texas (Austin – the Texas State Capital) is going to see. This is the Brian Deer the Texas jury is going to hate.
Deer, in the beginning of the video is telling the parents of the Lancet 12 that none of their children had bowel disease, over and over and over again, as you can see – treating those parents as though they were stupid. As we know, of course, all of them DID have bowel disease.
Now, bear with me for a minute. I watched this video several times and something was bothering me about it. While watching it for the fourth time it finally came to me what my brain was trying to register on my consciousness. It was this – from 0:24 through 3:30 in the video I was watching Brian Deer’s nose grow. I swear. Don’t believe me, because this can’t actually happen? Watch the video again. Keep your eye on his beak…
I have to say that if his nose grows in front of the Texas jury there’s going to be significant punitive damages awarded.
So, let’s talk about “crowdsourcing” again…
See the quote from the Wikipedia article:
“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, who’s “keeping” Brian Deer? For sure, the Texas jury will want the answer to that question. So, of course, do the attorneys for Andrew Wakefield.
Things are about to get even more interesting.
Tim Bolen – Consumer Advocate