School and Hospital Grossly Overstep Their Bounds Restraining and Drugging Canadian 8 Year Old
"Boo To The Flu" Vaccine Campaigns in Schools & Hospitals

The One Where Brian Deer Throws A Hissy Fit

Male Temper TantrumBy Ginger Taylor

I am realizing that I need to narrow that down.

The One Where Brian Deer Throws A Hissy Fit Threatening Miranda Baily For Saying That He Declined To Participate In Her Film, By Sending Her A Letter Wherein He References The Emails He Sent To Her Declining To Participate In Her Film.

These emails do not at all suggest or even hint that Deer is paranoid, unwell or of unsound mind in any way.

A small taste:






When Dr. David Lewis's attorneys confronted Deer about the re-posting on Deer's website of a withdrawn biosludge-industry paper smearing Dr. Lewis, Deer replied that if the attorneys "looked carefully" they would see that the "f" in "pdf" had been omitted, thus the file couldn't be read and it had probably been that way for a long time, maybe forever. Deer was unaware, though, that Dr. Lewis's attorneys had been archiving Deer's website for quite some time and could see that someone had recently removed the "f." Oops!

What more does anyone need to know about Brian Deer?

Angus Files

When were dealing with powers who hold all the Aces and wish to control not only the present but the future and a short plan might be for the next 200 years or so, and were all on here seen as part of the problem needing solved- to make any difference however small is remarkable - keep the faith Barry we will win one day.

Pharma For Prison


John Stone

What ought to be iconic for our movement in the California debacle was all those heroic citizens queuing to give evidence before the legislature and the hard nosed, cynical, brutally indifferent reception - not Tim's posturing. I am very sorry.

Jenny Allan

"it is also not clever to turn on all the people who have done the hard work"

Yes indeed. We all have to work together and support each other, both locally and worldwide.
I have been on this planet a long time and I have learned that change happens. There are very few 'light bulb' incidents, but behind the scenes, persons with power and influence are taking notice. The huge increase in autism, cannot be explained by all those attempts to make out autism has always been with us, we just didn't notice. You can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Sometimes we have to 'take stock' by looking back and assessing where progress has been made. This enables us to build on successes in future strategies. Of course this is already happening. In several European countries and Australia there is currently a huge backlash against mandatory child vaccinations. Citizens are rising up and marching in the streets. The press and media are not reporting this, but it's a different story on social media. Politicians who deliberately ignore 'the will of the people' in so called democratic societies, soon find themselves out of office and discredited. This is history and it happens over and over. Angela Merkel in Germany has just received a 'bloody nose' via the ballot box, ostensibly over her immigration policies, but her draconian vaccine policies probably lost her support as well.

I think AoA , the Canary Party, and numerous others are doing very well. Robert Kennedy's Mercury Project is terrific and the Vaxxed crew are awesome! John works tirelessly behind the scenes, writing letters and commenting on forums. He deserves our thanks. I would respectfully suggest to Tim Bolen he goes back to preaching from his own pulpit in The Bolen Report.


Barry, I don't have all the answers. We are playing a long game of incremental gain, which is often infuriating and grindingly discouraging. We have made progress — surveys show increases in people who believe vaccines cause autism. The strong pushback from government/industry is also an indicator of progress, and will backfire.

To change others’ minds, we have to use every tool in the box. Social media. Legislation. Litigation. News reporting. Scholarly journal articles. Music. Word of mouth. We must speak our truth, with dignity and perseverance. And we must enlist our family, friends and community to help promote health freedom and honest government public health agencies. Their silence perpetuates the epidemic.

Many of the messaging strategies being designed by vaccine/autism advocates are necessarily done in private, underground. Some autism parents have learned the hard way when they’ve misplaced trust in others.

Credibility is key. We can’t afford to let inflammatory “friendly fire” undermine progress in the highest circles of national power.

John Stone


We have also had the benefit of Tim Bolen's blog throughout the same period. Were you impressed by his factual grasp of the Wakefield affair below -that, I am afraid, is simply a matter of competence or its absence. I was particularly unimpressed by his personalised attacks on almost who was trying to oppose Senator Pan in California: everyone else was supposed to be stupid but the simple reality was that politicians were bought or intimidated and actually very impressive and dignified opposition was ignored. Tim keeps on telling us it's all about him. It isn't about him at all, though I wish him well. There are no instant panaceas: it is also not clever to turn on all the people who have done the hard work. If you have some intelligible new strategy which is going to carry all before it everyone will be listening.


Such useless blather distracts from viable pragmatic strategies promoted by altruistic and well-informed political insiders within the vaccine injury and autism parent community.


With all due respect, in the 10 or so years since I've been coming here, the reported incidence of autism has gone from 1 in 150, to 1 in 68. Both of which, have likely been grossly underestimated.

Any chance you can explain what these 'viable pragmatic strategies' are ? And how exactly you feel they are making such a big difference?

Because although I appreciate the efforts of anyone who's honestly trying to improve this situation, this doesn't feel much like winning to me.


For Tim Bolen to imply that he could have prevented Andrew Wakefield’s worldwide excoriation by government, industry and medicine is the height of delusion.

Autism parents don’t need an indirect lecture on legal terminology. They follow VICP proceedings. They already know the Daubert standard. They know what impeachment is.

And they’ve spent years, decades even, being demeaned with the sneer, “Who are YOU to say what you say?” whenever they present vaccine/autism causality science and empiricism. Such insults only make them dig in deeper, like their opposition.

So when autism parents encounter a self-styled messiah figure who patronizes them with unworkable pie-in-the-sky suggestions showing little understanding of vaccine/autism politics, they realize they’ve detected a bullshit artist. Says the Urban Dictionary: “Bull shit artists are quite dangerous and may say things with a high degree of confidence while, at the same time, having inadequate support for what they are saying.”

Autism families deserve far more than self-serving know-it-all hindsight from outsiders — especially from someone who’s undermined autism advocates by lying publicly about them on a poached email address list. Such useless blather distracts from viable pragmatic strategies promoted by altruistic and well-informed political insiders within the vaccine injury and autism parent community.

John Stone

Hi Tim

Brian Deer has never been called as a witness - certainly not as an expert witness. Moreover, the GMC replicated his allegations without ever citing him. Rather sickly I recall once at the GMC, when Deer's name came up in evidence, the chair of the panel asked who the person was being referred to. What it all depended on was the GMC finding facts which were baseless and impossible - later found to be so in detail in the High Court, which hasn't stopped the media smoke and mirrors operation. Obviously, if Deer had ever had to be called in the Texas court in the BMJ litigation it would have been hilarious but BMJ squirmed out by arguing they didn't trade there (hoho!)

I think Daubert pretty much runs in the UK as well. I am not an admirer since it often enables consensus lies to over-rule hard evidence, particularly over vaccine injury vs alleged SBS, favouring JCVI recommendations in disputes between parents etc.

Tim Bolen

John - I operate using a courtroom approach. Opposition witnesses, like a Brian Deer, are "Fair Game" for what is called "Impeachment."

In court we have rules for what qualifies a witness as an expert. In the US we use what is called the "Daubert" standard. In short we ask the basic question "Who are YOU to say what you say?" THAT standard, used against Brian Deer early on, would have created a VERY different outcome for Andy.

VERY different...


True, John.


Jon Rappoport’s Sept. 19 column touches on the difference between unfocused anger vs. virtuous moral outrage:
“Learning to use anger requires having skills beyond the ability to get angry. Mindless anger is grotesque. Cultivating more and more anger is grotesque.”

In discussing his 1994 run for Congress, Rappoport mentioned dirty trick political tactics — such as fifth column infiltrators paid to distract and disrupt advocacy groups. Advocates should be wary of would-be group leaders who are all talk and no action, who speak in generalities rather than offering specific, well-researched action steps.

From Rappoport’s “What is public relations?” column two days earlier:
“Public relations for the truth has to fly in from a number of diverse vectors. It isn’t one centralized message.”
“Don’t play defense. Go on a sustained offensive thrust, from a number of different directions.”

Angry autism parents have been smeared in media as desperate, ignorant and dangerous. It's important to put down the spears and use honest science as a shield.

John Stone


These matters have not become complicated because I made them so. Nevertheless, we can boil it down a bit. What people need to know is that Deer was hired to go on a fishing expedition, he used a false identity to conduct interviews, he was supported by an industry detective agency, he was allowed untrammelled access by the PTB to confidential medical and legal documents, he came to an arrangement to disguise his role as the single complainant with the body (the GMC) holding the disciplinary hearing against Wakefield and colleagues, he fabricated a story which was trashed by a judge in the British High Court when he reviewed the GMC decision in respect of Andrew Wakefield's colleague Prof Walker-Smith. Nevertheless 13 years later the global elite are still hiding behind his nonsense, while scapegoating Andrew Wakefield for their greed and catastrophic science.

This is the substance: that he might not be the sort of person many people would like (if that is so) is pretty irrelevant, and doesn't get us anywhere that I can see. You can read plenty of things on the web saying I am bad person - all sorts of deficiencies of personality etc notably by Mr Deer - but that doesn't get us anywhere either.


Different people listen to and are motivated by different messages. As eloquent, measured, intelligent and authoritative as John is, I know of plenty of people who wouldn't stop to read what he writes and wouldn't understand him if they did. Which is not to say that John should change his style, because he no doubt reaches many others who respond to and benefit from his voice.

And John's audience might not stop to listen to the way that Tim delivers his message, but plenty others do (which is not to say that Tim can't be eloquent, measured, intelligent and authoritative too :o).

So, really, we need the diversity because humans are diverse. I think ad agencies would agree.

And John: "...even then a placard saying "Paul Offit is the anti-Christ" probably wouldn't grab me as opposed to one carrying checkable information."

That is checkable information! :o)

Jeannette Bishop

I suppose Deer might see this as another opportunity to work in the "interest of 'public health'" (and I'm hoping that someday the identity of "public health" will be revealed because I can't find evidence of any such entity's existence, anywhere). I'm amazed, too frequently, whenever Snopes is referenced to back upon claims that the CDC whistleblower is debunked. I therefore can't confidently suppose that this email exchange won't eventually be held up as proof that one shouldn't take this film seriously, somehow. On the other hand, this suggests the film is probably pretty good, especially if Deer who was not apparently encouraged by "public health" to at first participate, is now eager to maintain, I suppose in the name of "public health," he was not given an appropriate opportunity to participate.

John Stone


My comments were not particular about being polite, they were about focusing on the right target. It doesn't concern me whether Deer is a narcissist or a sociopath - I have said he is a fantasist and documented it. It wouldn't matter if he was sociopath or a narcissist if at the end of the day he was telling the truth, which he isn't. Anyone can say rude things about anyone, but there is so much of substance in this story to expose and that's what people need to know about.

I find in your columns a lot of personal rancor, just as I find it in Deer's comments about the web, but in the end I only learn who you don't like, which in itself is not very useful or interesting. If I was an outsider trying to get to the bottom of the subject all the personal animosity would just obfuscate things. Deer, his cronies, and his patrons need things to be obfuscated while we need to expose what they did in cold light of day, and without prejudice.

Tim Bolen

Brian Deer, and his financial support network, COUNT ON all of you staying nice and polite.

There is a reason why the old adage "fight fire with fire..." carries on.

If you act like victims you will be treated like victims, and hence, will BE a victim.

Take the fight to him...

Jenny Allan

Thanks for the link nhokkanen, who attended Deer’s UW-LaX presentation then, and wrote it up for Age of Autism.
Without going into the complete fiasco of the University of Wisconsin LaCrosse, inviting Deer to give a prestigious annual life sciences lecture to vulnerable students, (Deer has no qualifications in life sciences or medicine), he was quoted as saying he loved sex and 'getting his name in the newspapers and media'. Like John, I don't like to respond to Deer's abuse with similar 'name calling' and unqualified psycho labelling. ( What rattles Deer most is having his own words ridiculed and publicly flung back at him!) In the light of these comments, it might be considered quite surprising that Deer declined to appear in a forthcoming movie, although his twisted subsequent version of events seems to be suggesting he would have been 'delighted' to participate, but had 'no knowledge' the documentary was about Andrew Wakefield.

Deer's website contains a legal warning 'threatening' to sue anyone who publicly quotes from it. This is nonsense of course; in the UK it's OK to quote from material 'in the public domain', provided the quotes are properly attributed to their authors. Deer's entire Wisconsin lecture was multi transcribed by his audience, including several persons from AoA, and published widely via social media. There were a number of official complaints made to the University regarding Deer's lecture, including ones from myself and Jennifer Larson of the Canary Party. Deer's response was to claim these complaints were 'abusive' , but Jennifer Larson responded by writing another letter to the University and publishing it on social media. There was no 'abuse', just a factual politely delivered formal complaint. The Dean of the Faculty's response to me was to claim he was not involved with organising the lecture.

Deer is an expert in mixed metaphors and twisting facts to suit his own agenda. He has made a life project out of denigrating and destroying the career of Dr Wakefield. He has failed. Deer's GMC evidence was subsequently 'rubbished' in the London High Court Appeal of Professor Walker-Smith. The Judge stated the GMC's scrutiny of Deer's evidence was 'superficial and inadequate' and restored the Prof's licence to practice. This did not stop Deer from denigrating the Judge on his website, but in the UK Judges are inviolate and I have no doubt at all this will have resulted in an official rebuke.

The world has moved on in the twenty years since the Lancet article by Dr Wakefield and twelve colleagues from the Royal Free Hospital. The link first identified by Dr Wakefield between autism and bowel disorders has now been officially proven and accepted. The role played by gut flora and viruses within the immune system is also being actively investigated, as are dietary interventions, now known to ameliorate, the bowel and behavioural symptoms associated with autism.

Deer continues to churn out the 'same old same old'. Increasingly he is being ignored. I suspect the REAL reason he declined to appear in the documentary, is he was forbidden by whoever or whatever is paying his living expenses. Deer's only ace in the pack (he likes playing card analogies) is he knows where the pharma-medical-political bodies are buried!

John Stone

In defence of Barry, I don't think he has ever spent much time calling people names I just think he reacted to what I said. I do think it is worth having a discussion about, which is about how we are effective.

I am not sure I would not have been impressed by mass demonstrations but the autism community is not really geared for it and perhaps it is not our strength: even then a placard saying "Paul Offit is the anti-Christ" probably wouldn't grab me as opposed to one carrying checkable information. In Italy of course there have been mass demonstrations about mandated vaccination (largely of course unreported even in the Italian mainstream media), and I am impressed by those.

But here we have it: Deer complains that he is going to receive abuse. There is no need to abuse Deer, it is the record of what he has done which is at issue.


i am 100% with John on this. I don't know anything much about Deer as a person,( maybe he loves kittens and gives homeless people money) but I do know how I feel about what he is saying, and whether or not he is willing to protect vaccine injured children. His stance ( which imo shows complete indifference to vaccine injured children ) is what is wrong.
Barry; while for you, someone yelling insults at someone else down the road would have made you decide not to vaccinate, for me it was information. Facts. Never been very interested in spending time reading people writing insults to each other, but facts on the other hand can tell you the reality of the situation.
I agree that people have an absolute right to be angry about all this. Channeling anger into giving information and taking appropriate action ( letters , legal stuff telling people your story even when they don't want to hear it) is how change happens. Imo, calling names, not so much.But we all see things differently, and maybe all of us doing the best we can in our own ways will make change happen.

Carol; would also add ; the need to please people in authority, the desire to be accepted as one of the crowd, not wanting to experience the results of bucking the system, and therefore convincing yourself that you are lying because of some "higher good" to theoretical people can all be pretty strong motivators as well.

Jonathan Rose

Barry, I'm with John here. Remember, when we make our case, we are not addressing the Brian Deers and Paul Offits: we will never persuade them. No, we are talking to parents in the "Not Sure" category: they have been assured by their doctors and the media that vaccines are perfectly safe, but they see terrible things happening to children all around them, and they have growing doubts. When they ask questions, the Dark Side responds with ridicule and threats, "firing" patients and barring their children from school. People calling themselves "doctors" appear on Jimmy Kimmel and shout obscenities at these quiet doubters, which was a first-class blunder: did they think that anyone would respect a "doctor" who behaved like that? If we treat these parents with respect, answer their questions, refer them to scientific papers, treat them as intelligent human beings who are capable of making up their own minds, then we win (eventually). As I pointed out in "The Autism Literary Underground" (published a few weeks ago in AoA), 31 percent of Americans now believe that vaccination can cause autism, and another 39 percent aren't entirely sure that vaccination doesn't cause autism -- together, a large potential majority. In a sense we're lucky to have enemies like Deer and Offit, who are so obviously obnoxious and offputting. Let's not copy their mistakes.


John wrote regarding motivators to do something felt to be wrong: "....Or just being able to work?"

That's probably right, though I balk at accepting that people will do things they know to be very wrong just to have a nice car (or something). I think it would have to be bolstered by a "greater good" argument, where suffering is justified for some present or future utopian goal. I guess that would be the fourth thing.

John Stone


I promise you I have been pissed off every day for the last 22 years.




It wasn't really a point about anger, only just occasionally how it is focused.

I get that .

But my point is that some times you need to get pissed off. And let the world know that your pissed off, to promptly draw the proper amount of attention to something that truly is horrific.

We have children being poisoned in thier doctors offices. And 10 or so years of polite and 'proper' blogging, aint done shit to change that.

John Stone


It wasn't really a point about anger, only just occasionally how it is focussed.

John Stone


Or just being able to work. How many journalists even think like Sharyl Attkisson now? Journalisn is just an extension of PR. I guess bribery is near.

Cait from Canada

I'm with John on this. Going the personal insult route is just playing into the hands – and by the rules – of the pro-vax lobby.

I started looking into vaccination back in 2015 after the Toronto Star article on Gardasil was retracted. That just didn't sit right with me. I had previously see numerous casual references to the "fact" that Wakefield had committed research fraud, and that the vaccination – autism link had been debunked, and until then I hadn't questioned that view.

Initially I read a few posts by the so-called skeptics that were essentially ad hominem attacks on Wakefield and others. In contrast those questioning the safety of the current vaccine schedule presented respectful, well-reasoned arguments, with frequent reference to supporting research. They didn't need to resort to personal attacks.

So while I concur that Brian Deer certainly looks like a narcissist (he might even quack like a narcissist), it's his arguments – not his psyche – that we need to address.


On the general issue of how to pressure people to do things they know are wrong, I think there are three prongs: blackmail, bribery and physical threat. (I think of the first two taken together as the "Dial 'M' for Murder" gambit.) Maybe there's a fourth thing I haven't thought of.

Having read Classified Woman by Sibel Edmonds, this has become my personal lens for viewing the world. I'm not saying it applies in every case, or in this case.


venting in itself doesn't serve much purpose, except perhaps for the person doing it


My child was injured by vaccines, because I saw nothing in the media previous to his injuries, that even caused me to pause for thought.

If i had instead seen parents raging in the streets, demanding justice for the injuries that they knew vaccines had inflicted upon their children, my children would never have been vaccinated at all.

And you and I wouldn't even be having this conversation.

John Stone


I certainly don't think we should compromise on saying what harm they do, but I think it will be most effective said in the most sober terms - venting in itself doesn't serve much purpose, except perhaps for the person doing it. Everyone here has plenty to say of substance.

The other side don't want an argument in respectful terms because they will lose it, and if we just exchange insults it is pretty much playing into their hands.


Yes John I can agree with you in principle. I find it disagreeable to read constant verbal attacks on anyone. But in Andy's own case it seems perhaps justifiable in attempting to understand why someone like Brian Deer would so wholeheartedly maliciously defame and ruin the professional reputation of a decent man and take a personal pride in his downfall. It wasn't all because of the monetary reward.


No, it's not legal. It is just something that worries me. There's so much hate material about vaccine critical people about, and I dislike arguments in which people are labelled "bad". None of this reads well for people who are undecided. It is probably an observation that Deer behaves in a narcissistic way (which in itself is human) but it is the perpetuation of falsehoods which is what matters in the end.

So far John, our side has been the quieter, more respectful one. And the side led by Brian Deer has been the loud, ignorant, dishonest and disrespectful one.

Which side would you say has been winning for the last 10 or so years?

I kinda hear what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree. What really matter here, is that children are being injured, and often disabled for life by vaccines.

And I personally feel that it's lost past time for gloves to come off in this fight.

John Stone


No, it's not legal. It is just something that worries me. There's so much hate material about vaccine critical people about, and I dislike arguments in which people are labelled "bad". None of this reads well for people who are undecided. It is probably an observation that Deer behaves in a narcissistic way (which in itself is human) but it is the perpetuation of falsehoods which is what matters in the end. Deer is screaming blue murder, and it is very functional - a smokescreen on behalf of himself and the people who hired him to do a job all those years ago.



John is that reasoning about not putting labels on people because of possible legal repercussions? If so I would like to know. But if it is because in your view it is unhelpful I would agree with you wholeheartedly if my motivation was simply to insult. But I can assure you it is not. It is simply because I believe it assists people to understand certain behavior patterns in people. True I am not a psychiatrist or a medic. You can say I have no authority to make such observations. But I have read the same observation of Deer in more authoritative articles elsewhere time and time again. Deer would have a very hard time collating all those references and attempting to sue them.

John Stone


Some very good points. My own feeling, however, is that it would also be a very good thing for us all if we stopped putting labels on people (ie narcissist, sociopath etc.) and just focussed on what they do. I have probably offended as well, but I don't think it really helps.



Andy's views on the email exchange and other insights.



John have you watched Andy's latest video interview with the Vaxxed team, now put up on you tube? In this lengthy interview he discusses his views on Miranda Bailey's documentary and also his views on the failed attempt to take the BMJ and Deer to court. Very interesting insight. I also hope that Tom Petrie has now had an opportunity to read all the email exchanges between Miranda and Deer which will certainly clarify all his confusions. If one googles Miranda Bailey and Brian Deer it will come up in full. It is quite clear why he declined, 2 reasons 1. No money in it for him and 2. He had heard from his own sources that it was not going to be the hatchet job he hoped for which left him deeply suspicious of Miranda. Was she for or against him? And that uncertainty to a full blown narcissist is life threatening.


Hi Wendy Stephens;
if the emails are frauds, then hopefully Brian Deer will inform everyone of that fact. Otherwise, people can easily read them and judge them for themselves.
I haven't really been following his speaking career, so I don't know the answer to this one,but I do wonder; how many of the events or places he chose to speak at in the past allowed Dr Wakefield an equal right of reply?


If there's one thing which must be apparent to us all, it's that he has never been shy in addressing any topical issue pertaining to Andrew Wakefield and has consistently been vocal in both addressing the subject and expanding on his own investigative journalism.
This makes me question why he would suddenly have changed direction and declined an invitation to be interviewed on a subject which is very, very meaningful to him.


What Brian Deer ... does, has nothing to do journalism.

He's a character assassin, who plies his trade by telling lies. And until now, he's been able to do that with an entirely complicit media, who all KNOW that he's lying. But who are just as corrupt as he is, and who have given this stooge a stage upon which to spread his nonsense.

If anything, the media has been protecting this piece of garbage. And although Brian Deer is evil, I don't think he's stupid. And I'm sure he understands that if his lies ever bear the scrutiny of a REAL journalistic inquiry... then that will be the day that this whole charade ends for Brian Deer.

Isn't it funny how what goes around... ALWAYS comes around.

John Stone


I am sure Deer spent a little time being the toast of the student unions in the UK after the GMC hearing, very little evidence that he spent any significant time being a journalist - after all he was a bit of busted flush. After all, if they set him after anyone else it might become alittle obvious.

However, the moral turpitude of the British establishment at the time is detailed in my article 'Swept aside' which includes a submission to the Leveson Inquiry.


The link Susan Welch provided shows Bailey’s correspondence with Deer a month prior to his October 2012 presentation at the University of Wisconsin in La Crosse. Deer wrote Bailey, “…I’m not in Wisconsin for long, and I have a lot of stuff to do for the university in terms of interacting with students.”

I attended Deer’s UW-LaX presentation then, and wrote it up for Age of Autism.

Note Deer’s hypocrisy regarding his willful use of deception:
“Deer admitted to withholding his true identity from Mrs. Kessick, telling the audience of future reporters, ‘You are entitled to mislead the public’ if it’s in the public interest. ‘It’s in the best traditions of journalism… It wasn’t dishonest,’ he said.”

Deer’s florid disinformation juggling is semantically amusing but ethically reprehensible.

Wendy Stephen

I'm with Tom Petrie on this one with regards to being confused. Is it not the case that the elephant in the room is being overlooked? Who among us really believes that the journalist Brian Deer would have turned down an opportunity to participate in a documentary had he been told that the subject matter was Andrew Wakefield? How likely does that seem, given that the past 15 years have been dominated with an incalculable number of instances where Brian Deer has welcomed and participated in both screen and radio interviews, newspaper and journal articles, after dinner speeches and lectures on the subject of Andrew Wakefield.
If there's one thing which must be apparent to us all, it's that he has never been shy in addressing any topical issue pertaining to Andrew Wakefield and has consistently been vocal in both addressing the subject and expanding on his own investigative journalism.
This makes me question why he would suddenly have changed direction and declined an invitation to be interviewed on a subject which is very, very meaningful to him. Why would he suddenly opt out of an opportunity to provide his input on the subject of Andrew Wakefield when his reputation clearly supports the fact that he has welcomed hundreds of other invitations?
Frankly, the notion that he was asked and refused to participate in this particular documentary on this particular subject matter, doesn't sit right with me. Something is clearly not right here.


Hey guys; he is for hire.
Soooo, I wonder what his price would be to, I wonder if I or a group of us could afford thim to turn and tell all about Murdock's role in all of this?
Would he be greedy enough to put himself in jail.
Ahhh, who am I kidding; apparently there are those that are just above the law, no matter the evidence the justice system simply will not go there.


Once, I went to Brian Deer's website. After reading for an hour or 2, I was more confused than ever. It seems to me, that Brian Deer's role in all this is just to create the maximum amount of confusion regarding the whole thing..... Sometimes, confusion *IS* the goal of the Global Ruling Elites and Global Banksters who control all the MONEY and POWER and CONTROL, which is what vaxxing is all about. Vaxxing is NOT about healthy people.... Brian Deer just reinforces that truth....

John Stone


I just had a look. One problem is that Deer complains that people will abuse him, and I agree it is not necessary or very advisable, but it should be recorded that he is about the most foul mouthed, abusive journalist in the history of the profession - nor is it what a professional journalist ought to do. An example:

There is much more where that comes from. Of course, he can waffle, stand on his dignity, complain about bias which is a bit much coming from him, but it won't cover up the fundamental story that he was hired to stuff Wakefield and made up a story which has long ago been completely disproven in the High Court. Yet it remains the basis of the global cover up over vaccine damage.

PS I have frequently been the target of personal abuse by Deer: and it is only a big deal in so far as it demonstrates his inability to cope with any scrutiny of these events.


Tom, everything in the insert is from Brian Deer's letter to producer Miranda Bailey. Susan Welch links to the site where you can see his entire letter, their response, and the emails that were exchanged while the movie was being made. These emails make it clear that they asked to interview him for the film but he declined. They offered to fly him to NY or visit him in England but he again declined. He said he's too busy and he expects to be paid for his work.

Deer claims that he wasn't told this film would be about Dr. Wakefield. Like, duh! If they said they wanted to interview him about the MMR scandal, what else would it be about? Deer's only connection to the MMR is his trashing of Dr. Wakefield.

It's absolutely absurd that he threatens the producers and tells them they are lying and tells them to put an apology on their FB page, while quoting from the emails in which they invited him to participate and he declined.

It's as if he took a class on "How to make yourself look ridiculous".


He has an article on his webpage now, it appears. I found it rather long and rambling but it seems to be speaking on the same subject.

Is that right?

Jeannette Bishop

Remember when the media wrote about the release of Vaxxed as if that documentary was all about Wakefield and at the same time they were upset that the film didn't adequately inform or address the all-about-Wakefield storyline? Could that be because the official line regarding the existance of the anti-vax movement, especially the MMR part of it, is that IT'S ALL ABOUT WAKEFIELD?!?


Hi Tom,
Just my opinion here. Deer did appear to refuse to participate in the extended emails, whether it is described as an MMR movie or an Andrew Wakefield movie; the two are imo so intertwined at this point, that one implies the other, and Deer certainly knew about the link between the two, since it has been his focus for years.
Trying to be scrupulously fair here; it probably would have been kinder if the documentary makers had told him that if he didn't participate, they would include a statement to that effect in the movie. That way his choice would have been more informed.
I can't help feeling though, that being on the other end of someone else controlling the narrative and telling the story may be a salutary experience for Deer. Perhaps he will learn something from it .


So...the filmmakers contact Brian Deer and tell him that they are making a documentary about the MMR scandal and offer him a chance to sit down and give his side of the story at length and in detail. (Presumably he could stipulate that he might have some control over how these interviews were edited.)

Deer responds, as he "does to other documentary makers," that he doesn't have time and adds that it's similar to asking him to paint her house.

I would take that as a "no."

John Stone


There is no question either that the core findings of the GMC were found to be erroneous when Andrew Wakefield's co-defendant Prof John Walker-Smith appealed, or that they were also based on the complaint of Deer. History will show that Deer was simply a stooge which the government industrial complex were hiding behind.

susan welch Tom, This may clarify the issue. It is the complete email from Brian Deer and the response from Miranda Bailey.

John Stone


One thing to be clear about is that BMJ decided in the end not to contest the substance of Wakefield's suit but to maintain that they did not trade in Texas: the court accepted this though they certainly traded in the realms of hundreds of the thousands of dollars and regarded the US as one of their main markets. It was scarcely a glorious moment for BMJ.

This may help:

Tom Petrie

Sorry, but from this post, I have to admit I am confused.

In the beginning, you state that "These emails do not at all suggest or even hint that Deer is paranoid, unwell or of unsound mind in any way."

I agree. The fact that he had the disrespect to call Andrew Wakefield "a charlatan" indicates to me that he's disrespectful, but many ardent pro-vaccine advocates are disrespectful to those that even ask that we look into vaccine safety issues.

The article is written so I can't quite figure out who's saying what. Of course by context, I usually can figure it out. Was Deer asked for commentary on the MMR scandal OR was he asked to participate in a documentary about Andrew Wakefield's case?

Anyway, you quoted Deer as declining to help, "he declined," but this statement is in the third person, NOT a quotation from him. If he DID decline, he says, Almost every week, someone asks him to participate in an MMR project, but he declines because he's too busy with his own. But presumably you asked him to participate in a documentary about the Andrew Wakefield fiasco, NOT "an MMR project."

So did a lawsuit in Texas by Andrew Wakefield get tossed out? Did he have to pay Brian Deer's legal bills back in England? Did he decline to participate in the Vaxxed documentary OR did he decline to particpate in "an MMR project"? He states the he declined to participate in a documentary about "the MMR," but there is no quotation from an e-mail where you asked him to participate in a documentary about the Andrew Wakefield scandal. A direct quotation from that crucial e-mail asking him the question would have made your case.

I'm no fan of Brian Deer, that's for sure, but this post is confusing and doesn't make its case. A hissy fit? If Brian Deer's statements are factual, I see no hissy fit and other than calling Dr. Wakefield a charlatan (" You're creating a "hymn to this charlatan"), you haven't made your case for any "hissy fit."

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)