Talk:Mark Geier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Mark Geier, has edited Wikipedia as
69.138.245.111 (talk · contribs)
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Mark Geier, has edited Wikipedia as
69.138.225.97 (talk · contribs)
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Mark Geier, has edited Wikipedia as
Justice2day (talk · contribs)
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Mark Geier, has edited Wikipedia as
Seidel,K (talk · contribs)

Contents

[edit] Biography?

Does anyone have any more information about Mark Geier as a person and scientist? We're sorely lacking details that are normally present in a biography: family, education and training (what schools, when?), even date of birth. Instead, much of this article consists of details that ought to be (or are already duplicated) in the articles Thimerosal, Andrew Wakefield, and MMR vaccine. Perhaps Mark Geier needs to focus more on Mark Geier. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, insofar as the need for further biographical info goes; a request has been forwarded to Geiers' associates. The thimerosal article is quite unstable currently, there is little crossover with the Wakefield article (as it pertains non TCV issues) and while some duplication is to be expected, removal of all redundancy may skew the integrity and accuracy of the Mark Geier article. The expansion of the passage about one clearly upset 'master' appears overblown, so information on the background and qualifications of this individual also needs to be gleaned. Ombudsman 03:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Although I agree that the thimerosal article is being extensively reviewed and edited right now, I don't think that this article should properly serve as a holding pen for that information. If you're concerned it will be lost, copy it to the talk page there, and discuss it in its proper context.
With respect to the Wakefield statements, they certainly need editing from a POV standpoint. Andrew Wakefield's work has faced harsh criticism for conflicts of interest and small sample size; saying that US agencies are "stall[ing]] corroboration" of his research is rather misleading. I thought it was best to avoid as much as possible the whole Wakefield controversy, and attempt to describe the cost/benefit tradeoff of chelation therapy.
I don't think it's helpful to report that Geier was interviewed by NBC but didn't appear on television. Makers of documentaries often perform extensive interviews and record a great deal of footage that they don't actually air. NBC did air a debate between some other experts over the pontential role of vaccines in autism, so it's not that Geier's position was suppressed by the network. (I'm not sure that not appearing in a television special is notable in and of itself.) I left the beginning of that paragraph in place, because I thought it provided a useful context and rationale for Geier's work.
Was Geier the one who actually mined the CDC data for potential vaccine reactions? If so, then perhaps the information should stay here. Otherwise, I would suggest it belongs over in vaccine in a discussion on side effects.
With respect to the Special Master, there were actually several who rejected Geier as an expert witness. The anon provided a link citing the other cases. The one who wrote the specific order in the link is Laura Millman. She has served as a Special Master since 1991 (the decision linked above dates to 2003), and has had a law degree since 1976.
I would ask you not to engage in blanket reversion of edits. Hopefully an excellent article can be forged through constructive discussion on this talk page. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 04:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps doing away with the NBC context is wise, but that begs the question of what is really going on here. Blanket deletions and insertion of POV is the standard operating procedure for the media and US health agencies, and it would be a shame if that were not addressed.
As for the criticism of Wakefield's purported financial interest in a certain study, little attention has been given to the irrationality of the timelines inferred by the smear campaigners, his timely and proper disclosures about the secondary study, and the egregious double standard on such conflicts. The very serious conflicts of interest for the IOM report and Danish epidemiological study (to point out the tip of the iceberg) are given a free pass by the media, scientific establishment and pro-vaccine campaigners.
Yes, the Geiers crunched the numbers, but they had to force the raw data out of the gov't via FOIA. It wasn't hard for them to detect the apparent fraud in the VAERS study: whereas an initial draft detected the correlation, after the lead author was hired by Glaxo, it was sanitized to meet industry criteria, just like the EPA gave a pass to the foregone conclusions requested by the energy industry with regard to mercury pollution. Scientific American just published an editorial bemoaning the way government agencies are giving industry a free pass on scientific input into decisions. Remember, US government agencies have impeded independent clinical research, making their manipulation of epidemiological reports all the more suspect. Are you aware yet of Wakefield's comments on the recent Japanese epidemiological studies?
Speaking of double standards, who are these 'masters' to condemn a medical doctor with a Ph.D. in genetics for his qualifications, of all things, when their own scientific qualifications for judging the Geiers is probably quite limited? Ombudsman 00:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is getting a bit unwieldy, so I'm breaking up my response to the above comment into sections. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Special Master

I'll address that last question first. First, reread the linked reference [1]. Geier was testifying as a medical expert who was introducing a diagnosis of vaccine-induced acute encephalopathy in a patient. To the best of my knowledge, Geier was not the attending physician and did not see the patient until well after the events took place; he was giving an opinion based on information in the case file and medical history.

The PhD in genetics is a red herring. It involves biological and not medical training, and would only be relevant to the matter in question if Geier was diagnosing a gene-linked disorder like Huntington's disease. His MD training is actually more on point, but Geier was an obstetrician and not a paediatric neurologist. By testifying that a particular patient suffered an acute encephalopathy, Geier was making a neurological diagnosis that he probably wasn't qualified to make. Geier further failed to meet the AMA's Code of Ethics standards for an expert witness in this case.

If Geier had wanted to testify about vaccine effects in general, or to the point that a reaction to vaccination may in some cases lead to acute encephalopathy, then as a published researcher in the field he would likely be qualified to do so. He was not qualified to make an neurological diagnosis after the fact for a specific patient, and the Special Master called him on it. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV insertion by media, government?

I'm not clear on what you're saying about blanket deletions and POV with respect to the NBC piece. Geier's viewpoint was presented in the NBC series, just not by Geier. My understanding is that it got a very thorough airing. If you believe there is a systematic suppression in the media of anti-big pharma sentiment, I would have to disagree. The media loves to scare people, legitimately or otherwise. If there was even a hint of suppression and scandal, I would expect it to be plastered all over the news. It's good for ratings and circulation to stick it to drug companies and the government. If anything, it means that bad science gets more than its fair share of airtime in the interest of 'balance'—you need look no further than that absurd Fox piece on how the Apollo moon landings were faked. Although I agree with you that insertion of POV is the modus operandi of the media, I would suggest that their tendency is to side with the underdog lone crusader—not with the CDC, FDA, or any other part of the government.

Which important clinical research have government agencies impeded? You're going to have to be more specific on that. If you're referring specifically to Geier's work with VAERS data, I gather that there were serious concerns about him mishandling confidential patient information. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Wakefield

I think we might be getting a bit off track with respect to Andrew Wakefield. I think the key question about him here is, what mention should he have in this article? Remember, we're writing an article about Mark Geier. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Geier's occupation

David Geier isn't a lawyer; I am removing that assertion from the lead paragraph. To the best of my knowledge he isn't a member of any bar and he has no law degree. He is president of MedCon, a company which employs lawyers. MedCon draws part of its income from filing vaccine injury lawsuits, which may well be worth noting—but that doesn't make David Geier a lawyer. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 12:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chelation therapy

Chelation therapy is used by mainstream practitioners as a treatment for lead poisoning; I've removed the comment about "alternative practitioners" for that reason. What is controversial is the use of chelation agents in patients that do not have a very high body burden of heavy metals. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see your point, but I think maybe we could and should include both points: mainstream practitioners use it for certain very specific disorders; some alternative practitioners believe it, controversially, to be effective treatment for a much wider variety of conditions and disorders. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I actually had a heck of a time finding the work Geier did with chelation; there isn't anything apparent in PubMed. So far I've found one paper in an unindexed journal that has him as the last author (PDF is linked below):
It's a pretty small study—not a lot of cases were examined. Has he published any further work on chelation? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Detailed criticism

The American Academy of Pediatrics rebuttal was six pages long and listed fifteen specific flaws that they perceived in the Geier's work, as well as comments about the general misuse of VAERS data. Whether you agree with their points or not, the AAP's criticism is definitely "detailed". "Emphatic" and "scathing" might also be acceptable adjectives, but "detailed" strikes me as the most neutral. Removing the adjective implies that the AAP just didn't like the study and issued a one-page press release or something. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 23:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I read the AAP "rebuttal" and it only convinced me of Geier's merit, so adjectives that come to my mind are "weak," "pathetic," or "counterproductive to the critical mind." We could perhaps compromise on "lengthy," but I proposed avoiding an adjective altogether. --Leifern 00:03, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
The compromise wording seems reasonable. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 01:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NY Times Article

Copied from article main page:

The children who received greater amounts of mercury were more likely to have a complaint filed with the Vaccine Adverse Event
Reporting System (VAERS). Further studies by the Geiers yielded similar results.[1]

The link after this statement is pointing to a NYT article. This particular article has caused some controversy (and public rebuttals). But nonetheless, it doesn't "work" with the text.

The link to the article would be more appropriate after this line:

Nevertheless, Dr. Geier says public health officials are "just trying to cover it up."

However, if the NYT piece is going to be used as a source for the Geier article I feel it would be more "honest" to mention that it has received negative attention for it's unbalanced presentation. Becca77 11:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] See also

Ombudsman reinserted some deleted irrelevant "see also" links[2]. Links such as to the 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference are completely illogical if the relationship between Mark Geier and this conference is not stated. This is not the first time Ombudsman has listed numerous of his favoured articles in the "see also" section simply to push a POV. JFW | T@lk 14:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit apparently designed to make entire article marked as changed so as to hide reinsertion of those links reverted. Michael Ralston 13:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually the original paper on the spleen was in Nature and Dr. Geier was the first author. A short follow up was published in the New england Journal on which Dr. Geier was the second author.

[edit] New Paragraph

If Neurodiversity is to continue to contribute to this article it is only fair that the readers know what their position is on autism research, treatment, etc. They somehow want to prevent the diagnosis and treatment of severely autistic children most of whom never speak, who often are violent and who without treatment will almost certainly need life time care. (IP user)

First, the paragraph is irrelevant to the article. There's already an article on neurodiversity if anyone cares to look. Second, "Neurodiversity" is a movement, not a Wikipedia contributor. Clearly, Neurodiversity advocates contribute to Wikipedia, just as curebie advocates do. Third, I was not aware that "they" want to prevent a diagnosis. Neurodiversity advocates clearly oppose unproven and dangerous treatments. There's no evidence that they oppose clearly effective clinically proven treatments. They are divided on semi-experimental treatments such as ABA. Fourth, about 50% of Kanner autistics attain "good or very good" speech. I'm not sure where you get your data from. Data on PDD-NOS (the most common type of ASD) is not available. It's not clear that violence among autistics is more common than in the general population. Whether autistics need a "lifetime of care" (and it's not clear what IP User means in regards to this) has not been shown to be dependent on "treatment". Neurodivergent 17:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the paragraph explaining what neurodiversity is was irrelevant to the article to being with, and has grown to contain too much information about neurodiversity, Kathleen Seidel, and the other activities of neurodiversity activists. These should be in separate articles if needed. I propose the paragraph should be removed, and perhaps replaced with a short phrase that states Kathleen is a neurodiversity advocate/activist. Readers can check what neurodiversity is by clicking on the link. The neurodiversity article has a section on criticism of neurodiversity. Neurodivergent 22:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I should clarify that I am in no way associated with Neurodiversity.com. I'm just a reader of that blog. But my username might confuse IP User. Neurodivergent 22:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that the IP address of a frequent contributor (and "Ip user"?) resolves to Silver Spring, MD, home of the Geiers. To what degree is this a vanity article? - DaveSeidel 22:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
IP User is likely David or Mark Geier, but I did not feel like outing him. Some edits are probably vanity edits, even though the article was started by Obudsman. It's unclear how appropriate it is for someone to edit the article about themselves. It could even lead to inclusion of information that is unpublished "original research". The paragraph added by IP User about "Neurodiversity" (or Kathleen perhaps) was intended to deflect attention from embarrasing information. Neurodivergent 23:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As there have been no objections to my proposal to delete the irrelevant pragraph, I'll just go ahead and delete it. Neurodivergent 23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

8-2-06 I have attempted to edit this article to remove things that are totally inaccurate and I have tried to update the article while not removing any of the negative editorial things which various people have added to this article. I should point out that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a blog. I have never seen such contoversial things put in an encyclopedia before. Dr. Mark Geier

Articles about controversial persons will naturally document controversial claims. See, for example, the George W Bush article, which is a featured article candidate. Deleting content while adding other content will not get you anywhere, BTW. Neurodivergent 18:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not the article that you keep saying has been removed has been published Horm Res 2006;66:182-188. Look it up if you wish on pubmed and the Hormone research web site. Also our patent has nothing to do with testosterone sheets and everything to do with what we published in Hormone research. Try reading it if you can. Also you have no knowledge of what we are currently doing at the VSD. We are there regularly. Try contacting the National Immunization Program of the CDC. They no loger exist as i have said. The rules of this are to publish the truth. Dr. Mark Geier

Dr. Geier, your contributions to the article are appreciated. Please be aware, however, that it may be very difficult for someone so intimately related to this article's topic to write entirely neutrally. It is for this reason that editors are strongly discouraged from writing their own biographies, though your participation on the article talk page – as you have been doing – is welcomed.
Please don't engage in an edit war over the content of this – or any – Wikipedia article. First and most importantly, it will not resolve any issues over disputed content. Second, it may result in a suspension of editing privileges. (this message cc'd to User talk:69.138.245.111) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I have read the relevant articles and the two patent applications and am available to discuss this article's NPOV if need be. I appreciate that Dr. Geier has left information critical to him in the article but we do need that all rules are followed here. I'm not sure that his edits constitute writing his own biography. I think that it falls under what the linked page refers to as correcting factually inaccurate information or updating information. I understand this is a bit of a sticky situation, but hopefully together we can keep the article honest. It must be frustrating to see incorrect information about you prominently displayed but be withheld from correcting it. InvictaHOG 02:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that Hormone Research has republished the article with a corrected byline. This article should mention that. However, the fact that the article was pulled and the byline corrected is notable and should be documented. Neurodivergent 14:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, nowhere that I'm aware of has Hormone Research indicated that they made a mistake in the byline. In fact, the byline was changed to something that does not include "George Washington University" at all. So the paragraph that indicates Hormone Research made a mistake should be changed. I'm aware that Mark Geier claims the originally submitted byline was "Graduate Student, ... George Washington University" and that Hormone Research conducted an investigation. While Hormone Research has not released the results of their investigation AFAIK, it is clear that they determined it was not appropriate to include GWU in the byline, as the research is totally unrelated to that institution. Additionally, it appears that David Geier is only technically a student there. Neurodivergent 14:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's contrast Mark Geier's statement above:

"Also our patent has nothing to do with testosterone sheets and everything to do with what we published in Hormone research"

and the new "conflicts of interest" statement in the Hormone Research article:

"Neither Dr. Mark Geier nor David Geier has any conflict of interest regarding anything related to this paper."

That's pretty interesting. Too bad Wikipedia cannot reference itself. No matter, I understand Kathleen's most revealing finding is yet to come. Neurodivergent 21:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Publishing the truth

Dr. Geier wrote above:

"The rules of this are to publish the truth." Dr. Mark Geier

I would certainly hope that we attempt to publish the truth, but the rules here are that we publish verifiable facts from reliable sources. They must be third party sources, so if you can provide those sources (not your own, that would constitute original research), we'd be happy to consider incorporating the information in the article, including to correct inaccuracies.

BTW, please remember to sign your comments with four tildes. -- Fyslee 11:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Comment by Dr. Mark Geier 8/8/06
The last section of the article:
Kathleen Seidel has made additional allegations regarding the likelihood that the diagnosis of "precocious purberty" has been validly applied [11], an apparent shift of terms from "precocious puberty" to "hyperandrogenicity" [12], and misrepresentation of cited work [13].
is inappropriate since, (1) Kathleen Seidel is not a physician, (2) she has no knowledge of what I have diagnosed my patients to have nor what they should be diagnosed to have and (3) if she does it is in violation of Federal guidlines on patient confidentiality and (4) it is not even clear what work she thinks I have mis-cited, and (5) she is also not a scientist or physician and therefore her opinion on all of these things belong to her and not in a "neutral" piece on a living person as described by the policy of the encyclopedia. Thanks for considering my comment.
To Dr. Geier,
Please begin to use Wikipedia practice when making comments:
  • Sign your comments with four tildes.
  • Use the appropriate number of colons to properly indent your comments in a thread. -- Fyslee 05:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Mark Geier's comment could be considered in regard to the allegation that the diagnosis of "precocious puberty" is unlikely to be valid. Kathleen makes a good argument as to why it's unlikely to be valid. But it's true that the claim might not be deemed verifiable unless there were an article by a pediatric endocrinologist confirming the opinion. The other allegations are verifiable and are well documented, however. For example, the shift from "precocious puberty" to "hyperandrogenicity" is clear from presentations by the Geiers. Neurodivergent 16:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's pretty incredible that, after decades renting himself to attorneys to attack vaccines, going way outside any plausible qualifications, sometimes giving ludicrous false testimony (eg "I must have missed a zero"), using a kichen lab and bogus ethical approval to experiment on children, Mark Geier should complain about Kathleen's credentials. She's doing a great job. 86.129.110.60 19:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
What's funny is the complaint about her not having the medical qualifications to determine if a diagnosis is applicable. Well, clearly neither does he. Neurodivergent 15:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't find this kind of discussion helpful. This seems more appropriate for private e-mail, etc. Any discussion about his findings or his intentions should be backed by sources, not by innuendo. Same goes for original research on his part. InvictaHOG 17:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent anonymous edits

There have been some very heavy edits happening recently from the anonymous user 69.138.225.97, and it looks like they may be coming from someone close to the subject of this article. Just a heads-up for those monitoring things here. -- Tim D 07:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have left a message for Dr. Geier here. He has edited previously using a similar IP. -- Fyslee 09:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and reverted a few of the recent edits because I feel that they compromise some of the neutral presentation of the article. Obviously, there's probably some good information in what was added, though referencing will be required. I invite the anonymous IP, whether Mark Geier or not, to join the discussion here before readding the information. InvictaHOG 14:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing Justice2day is Dr. Geier's registered name? I'm a bit uncomfortable with him re-writing a good portion of this article. I would recommend collecting references and letting a third-party source objectively analyze and integrate them. -- Tim D 02:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I feel better at the moment since he's avoided the criticism sections and simply added more info on his papers, etc. InvictaHOG 03:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I have placed a request for identification. Until he identifies himself, we need not extend any special privileges or considerations. Uncollaborative editing (IOW not discussing edits on the Talk page, especially major ones) should not be tolerated, so just revert anything that looks suspicious. -- Fyslee 14:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that given the overall controversy surrounding Dr. Geier, that's a good thing to do. Major revisions should be collaborative, so Dr. Geier if you're reading this, I would suggest just sharing your new studies, etc. as references here in the talk page. Other more objective editors can then integrate them. That's generally how things work in biographical articles of living people anyway. For general Wikipedia policy, see WP:BLP and WP:AB. -- Tim D 14:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears his behavior becomes even more suspicious. He has or does edit using the following user names:

  • 69.138.245.111
  • 69.138.225.97
  • Justice2day
  • Seidel,K

If he really doesn't intend to use the first two IPs anymore and sticks to using Justice2day, fine, but the last one is a very serious matter, as it is a misuse of Kathleen Seidel's name. She is webmaster for neurodiversity.com. -- Fyslee 21:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Fyslee. Kathleen Seidel is my wife, and she certainly did not make those changes. In fact, she doesn't even have a Wikipedia username. I agree, this a serious matter -- what are the administrative options for dealing with impersonation (if you know)? -- DaveSeidel 22:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
An admin could examine the checkuser status. Right now his use of multiple user names violates this:
"Avoiding scrutiny from other editors"
"Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail. Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors can't detect patterns in your contributions. While it may be legitimate to do this from time to time (for example, by creating a special account to make edits that might serve to identify you in real life), it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions."
I think this needs to be investigated immediately. I have to run, so maybe Dave and others should contact some admins to get them to investigate. The use of another persons name is an aggavating factor that should not be countenanced.
If Geier ever wants to take advantage of the BLP rights conferred upon editors who contribute to their own articles, he should make a user account with his own name and stand forth as himself. He should also cease to use the other accounts. -- Fyslee 05:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be appalling if Mark Geier really created a Kathleen Seidel sockpuppet, for the explicit purpose of deleting content in the article he finds embarrasing. It's kind of childish too. But it's funny also that User:Leifern afterwards went and reverted to the blanking out done by User:Seidel,K. It's like they would like that content to go away -- no kidding. Neurodivergent 16:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reported the incident here: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Justice2day -- DaveSeidel 01:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Speaking of references.....this article is in desperate need of help. I have added the references code, so now it is possible to turn all links and the existing notes into proper references. One can look at other articles to see how it's done. More information here: WP:FOOT. -- Fyslee 19:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The lead section needs attention. There is no mention of controversies, and the lead should include short mention of all the significant subjects in the article:

"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article." Source: WP:LEAD

-- Fyslee 14:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The lead paragraph mentions that Dr. Geier is board certified in two medical disciplines. However, a search of the American Board of Medical Specialties website, www.abms.org, fails to find Dr. Geier's certifications AND fails to find either board. This could be constured as misleading, since the average lay person may equate "board certification" with the well known boards in such disciplines as internal medicine, orthopedics, etc. It should be properly addressed.

FreeSpeaker 21:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)== Lead ==

[edit] Allegations of ethics violations

An anonymous editor deleted the "Allegations of ethics violations" section. While I don't like it when people delete things without explanation, I do think that the section in question was a little iffy in terms of being suitable for the article. Perhaps a shorter section with an external link would be better... -- Tim D 01:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous editor who blanked out that section is User:24.15.236.23. There have been prior attempts to blank out some sections by the Geier household and User:Leifern. If there are problems with the section, those can be discussed here, or the sections could be reworded. Blanking out will achieve nothing. I for one think the content in those sections is both verifiable and notable. The fact that it's embarrasing to the subject of the article is irrelevant. Neurodivergent 16:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW, User:24.15.236.23 has blanked out the Lenny Schafer article without explanation as well. I'd characterize this kind of activity as drive-by censorship. And it's unfortunately becoming more and more common in Wikipedia, and it seems to be generally carried out by certain interest groups about whom embarrasing information exists. See Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Censorship. Neurodivergent 16:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I totally understood what the underlying intention was and I was going through the section to maybe clean up formatting and such. The problem is that the article had been looking extremely not neutral, and even with valid points, the tone could turn readers off. Some could read it more as a article about a personal crusade by Kathleen Seidel than anything else. -- Tim D 16:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quantumerik

Just for the record, User:Quantumerik tried to add the following original research and personal attack into the article:

"These similarities, according to Dr. Mark Geier, are more than coincidental; they are the result of a replication of the Verstraeten study, using the same data sets. This study replication was mandated by a congressional committee. Kathleen Seidel, because of her biased views concerning neurodiversity and a rejection of all medical research of autism, fails to include this information and should therefore be censored."

Another editor rightly removed it shortly after that. I wonder, does Quantumerik think readers are stupid? Even if the Geiers used the same data (and Dr. DeStefano of the CDC does not believe they even had access to the same data) are we to believe this automatically would cause dozens of English phrases to match in the two manuscripts in basically the same order of appearance? That is NOT replication of a study. Dr. DeStefano, BTW, is the one who first complained about the similarities. Neurodivergent 22:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Kathleen and Dave Seidel have used this Wikipedia entry as part of their smear campaign against Dr. Geier. How is it valid to use this as a forum for their grudge against him? Is this really the PLACE for it, when Kathleen has made it her career to harrass Dr. Geier on her blog? There are folks here that accuse Dr. Geier's self-made corrections of factual errors as "vanity", yet you have the Seidels coming here, making accusations... and quoting as references their own blog! How is that NOT vanity? Using Wikipedia in this fashion may be considered libel. The seidels need a new hobby. --Erik —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.253.127.2 (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC).
Erik, get your facts straight and stop making accusations that you can't substantiate. I have made very few edits to this article, and all of them were valid. I have never added any links to Kathleen's site. Check my user contributions page to verify this. As for Kathleen, she has never edited a single Wikipedia page. -- DaveSeidel 15:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clinical studies on the role of mercury and androgens in autism

The entry for Mark Geier has been several times updated with factual information in this section regarding a new scientific/medical publication. The article was published in Medical Hypotheses, and the article is presently listed on PubMed (Medline). The information provided in the entry was accurate. Despite this fact, it is obvious that some with a potential political agenda have deleted this information. This type of action has happended multiple times on the entry for Mark Geier, and as a result it seems that the entry for Mark Geier is nothing more than weblog for those whose who disagree with Mark Geier. Furthermore, it is apparent that the Kathleen Seidel of Neurodiversity has been directly refuted and discredited in her claims of non-hormonal problems in autistic disorders, and regarding her claims that anti-hormonal treatments in autistic disorders do not produce clinically significant improvements in autistic disorders. Additionally, it should be noted regarding the new scientific/medical publication that the authors are both Ph.D.s and M.D.s and have affilitations with significant academic institutions including the University of Virginia and Tulane University, and hence far outweight any claims may be Kathleen Seidel of Neurodiversity who has no medical training and is simply claims to be the parent of an autistic child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DHEA-S (talk • contribs) 08:22, 10 December 2006

The additions would be fine if the publications were from heavier journals! Doesn't matter if PubMed indexes something...the fact is that Medical Hypotheses is there basically for publishing hypotheses, in order to put them out in the open so that others can test them emirically. Personally, if I found a series of objective studies that showed anything related to this, I would be open to them; there's no "political agenda" on my end. -- Tim D 15:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
In response to Fyslee [who stated with the removal of my new additions for Mark Geier Wikipedia entry, "rmv vanity one case study preceded by speculations, not yet published in journal of speculations, by doctors who will profit from this advertisement") and TimD who questions the journal and the researchers, Ombudsman from Wikipedia specifically sent to me in the discussion section for my user name that both of your claims were inapproriate. He stated, "The research described in your edit appears to have merit" and he also stated regarding Fyslee's comments that he had, "mistakenly misrepresented as vanity" the additional information added to Mark Geier's Wikipedia entry. Furthermore, once again, I call attention to the fact that a significant porition of the information posted on Mark Geier's Wikipedia entry cites speculations from Kathleen Seidel of Neurodiversity [a known political activist, with a posted political agenda that, "Autism is as much a part of humanity as is the capacity to dream."], who as I stated previously has no expertise, training, or knowledge in medical practice or scientific research, but yet, my addition, which is an accurate direct reflection of published research from a medical/scientific journal (indexed on PubMed [Medline]) by authors (with Ph.D.s and M.D.s) from significant academic institutions including the University of Virginia and Tulane University keeps being removed. This situations is completely against the purpose of Wikipedia to provide factual information in its entries, and helps one to draw the conclusion that the entry for Mark Geier in Wikipedia is being run as a weblog for those who disagree with Mark Geier's opinions. I might state further, that in reviewing the history for the entry for Mark Geier, that previous editors, including Mark Geier himself, had tried to remove what they believed was information (most especially, material that cited Kathleen Seidel as its source) that was posted on the Mark Geier Wikipedia entry, that was characterized as offensive and without merrit, but each time such information was re-posted on the entry for Mark Geier.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DHEA-S (talk • contribs) 14:01, 10 December 2006
I didn't question the journal or the researchers - just the weight given to any study published in that particular journal (which is what it is and does serve a purpose). Those who are familiar with Medical Hypotheses will understand my concern about an article from there being cited on level with other peer-reviewed journals. You can't justify it based on the institutions of the authors or their degrees or the fact that it was indexed in PubMed. None of those mean anything when the true merit of a study is grounded solely in the study itself. I'd suggest that we discuss that instead... -- Tim D 07:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
My apologies to DHEA-S for my edit summary. I didn't see that there was discussion here. My concerns are that this is advertising by those who stand to profit from a patent, as well as their clinical practices. Such additions are not allowed here. The information should be presented on this talk page first, and then discuss it with the other editors, and let editors who have no financial interest add an approved version to the article. It needs the PubMed reference.
This is just a one case report of an autistic child, preceded by a lot of opinion by the authors that is not the study itself. If this is included, it should be labeled as a one case study, and all the opinion left out.
Another matter. Continually reverting is not the proper way to edit here. DHEA-S is already in violation of the WP:3RR rule and can be blocked.
Don't be fooled by Ombudsman's user name, he's not an admin here. -- Fyslee 20:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I would like to comment to Fyslee, you have also edited information multiple times on the Mark Geier entry you are in violation of the the WP:3RR rule and can also be blocked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DHEA-S (talk • contribs) 21:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
Very interesting. This is a verbatim excerpt of some text that was posted to this page and then immediately removed by 69.138.225.97, who is known to be Mark Geier. From this I presume that DHEA-S is yet another sock puppet for Mark Geier. I will add it to my ongoing sock puppet complaint at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Justice2day. I have no comment on the content, but I would suggest that Geier might increase his credibility as an editor is he would simply post under his own name and refrain from transparent diversionary and obfuscatory tactics (such as referring to himself in the third person). -- DaveSeidel 21:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I rarely read this trash but I will comment this one time. I have not made any of the changes you say. If I ever do make any changes be assured I will sign my own name. I grow tired of this slander.
Dr. Mark R. Geier—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.225.97 (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2006
Another post from 69.138.225.97. If the other edits by this user are not you, then who are you sharing your IP address with? -- DaveSeidel 03:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

While I'm in the frame of mind, I just need to bring this up: I think that the criticisms section needs a lot of work. Personally, I'm not comfortable with it and it sounds like a persuasive speech rather than something from an encyclopedia. Wouldn't it be best to report the meat of what's going on and leave the ugly details to an external link? It just looks and sounds messy as it is, and I cringe from time to time because name-dropping and excessive details can quickly pull down the perceived objectivity of anything. No offense of course! There just seems to be a thin line that needs to be treaded. -- Tim D 08:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DHEA-S text

Just for the record, this is the text DHEA-S wanted to add:

"Independently of Mark Geier and David Geier, and in direct contradiction to claims by Kathleen Seidel of Neurodiversity on the lack of hormonal abnormalities in autistic disorders and the non-usefulness of anti-androgen therapy in autistic disorders, James Jeffrey Bradstreet (International Child Development Resource Center), Scott Smith (International Child Development Resource Center), Doreen Granpeesheh (Center for Autism Related Disorders), Jane M. El-Dahr (Tulane University Health Sciences Center, Departments of Pediatrics and Medicine, Section of Pediatric Allergy, Immunology and Rheumatology) and Daniel Rossignol (University of Virginia, Department of Family Medicine) have published a Medical Hypotheses article, "Spironolactone Might be a Desirable Immunologic and Hormonal Intervention in Autism Spectrum Disorders" [3] and according to the article three of the authors have filed a patent for the use of Spironolactone in the treatment of autistic disorders."

Clearly, the phrase that reads "in direct contradiction to claims by Kathleen Seidel of Neurodiversity" just can't be part of Wikipedia. It's a personal attack of sorts, of course, but it's also uncitable. Nowhere that I recall has Kathleen stated there is a lack of hormonal abnormalities in autistic disorders, nor even that anti-androgen therapy is useless. Furthermore, the phrase that reads "of Neurodiversity" gives the impression that Kathleen belongs to an organization named Neurodiversity. There's no such thing. The phrase should be "Kathleen Seidel of neurodiversity.com" or something to that effect. The citation provided says "Spironolactone might be a desirable immunologic and hormonal intervention in ASD". I fail to see how this speculation supports DHEA-S's contention. Never mind that the journal is Medical Hypothesis, or that the senior author, Jeff Bradstreet, is someone who has suggested exorcism is a treatment option for ASD and that Secretin is still a valuable autism treatment. As to suspicion of sockpuppetry, the admins should look into that, although I don't believe they were helpful the last time around. Neurodivergent 16:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Page Vandalism

Erik Nanstiel, using at least two anonymous accounts (24.15.236.23 and 209.253.127.2), persists in removing a section of this page. While the disputed content is not directly relevant to the article, it is relevant in that it documents a pattern of anonymous editing by a person with personal ties to the Geiers.

Nice way to take attention off your own biased use of this article, Dave! Such an artful dodger! --Erik
Please show how I have "used" this article, or made any irresponsible edits. -- DaveSeidel 15:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Erik, neither I nor anyone else have attacked you personally here, but we have questioned your behavior. If you are going to contribute to Wikipedia (and why shouldn't you?), you should try to follow both the rules and the spirit of the thing.

Does that include not using Wikipedia for libelous accusations of honest researchers? --Erik
And who added those links, Erik? -- DaveSeidel 15:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't claim to be neutral regarding the Geiers, and clearly neither are you.

That's right. My daughter is light years ahead of where she had been, thanks to Dr. Geier. --Erik

So the least that either of us can do is to at least identify ourselves so that readers and other editors can judge our contributions appropriately. I would argue that unless you are willing to log in, sign your comments, and stop hiding behind several different unnamed IP addresses, then you should refrain from editing. -- DaveSeidel 04:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see you bringing folks like Ken (Bart Cubbins) Wickiser or David (Orac) Gorski to task in other fora for trying to remain anonymous. (although I wasn't going to any special lengths to be anonymous. I just don't care whether I log in or not.) --Erik
"I just don't care whether I log in or not." Thanks for admitting that you have no regard for the rules here. -- DaveSeidel 15:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Ombudsman, you removed the preceding (which was made in an attempt to satisfy the requirements of the first step of WP:RD) as "questionable comment", and with no discussion. How is it questionable? Do you or do you not agree with the basic WP tenets that editors should sign their talk page comments, and that they should log in before editing? Please explain how your action is not in itself an act of talk page vandalism. -- DaveSeidel 12:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Dave, you and your wife are improperly using this wikipedia article as part of your personal smear campaign against Dr. Geier. A couple of libelous bullies. Take your plagiarism accusation, for instance. A pretty serious charge that has gone nowhere because it's a bunch of B.S. Dr. Geier replicated the Verstraeten study using the VSD, apparently borrowing passages when handy. That doesn't mean he didn't do the analysis. Or how about the accusation of the CDC to the Keisers that the Geiers were attempting to breach patient confidentiality? Again, Bogus. The accusation came before the Geiers even got in to view the data... because they had to reschedule at the last minute. So the CDC got caught in a lie. But nobody blogs about that... I want to know how the two of you have so much time to devote to harrassing people like this? Are you being paid? Do you know WHY I'm personally trying to defend Dr. Geier? Because his help has made a HUGE difference in my daughter's life. His protocol works, pal. Know what that means? Other doctors are going to follow. Sorry. -Erik
Again, either show how we are "using" this article or drop it. You are free to comment on Kathleen's weblog if you wish, but this is not the appropriate place for tis discussion. -- DaveSeidel 15:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Dave, just the fact that you come here EVERY SINGLE DAY to make sure that negative criticism on the Geiers remains in this article is evidence that you are "using" it for your agenda! You did the same on the Ayoub article, when you tried to salvage the claim that ayoub mentions the illuminati in his video...which he didn't if you bothered to watch it. And the fact that you called attention to me with TWO discussion entries really shows your mania on this.
What's this? Erik N. has blanked out not only the article but also comments in the talk page? Come on. Erik: Wikipedia doesn't work like that. While it is open for edits, it's not easy to get away with blanking out content, and much less Talk Page comments, unless there's a really good reason for it. Of course most editors have agendas and/or strong POVs. Should we pretend Ombudsman or Leifern don't have agendas? Of course not. But this doesn't mean editors don't have to follow the rules of Wikipedia. I realize you don't want some of the tidbits Kathleen has found about the Geiers to be public. There's not much you can do about that. Even if you were to successfully keep that info out of Wikipedia, the information is already out there, unaddressed and unaddressable. How can you explain dozens of lifted phrases from one draft to a paper in the same order of appearance? Study replication? Don't kid yourself. How do you explain the composition of the fake IRB? You can't. Sorry. The best advise I could give to you would be to seriously reexamine your opinions and trust of the Geiers. Neurodivergent 01:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Neurodivergent, it is perfectly okay to make public information about the Geiers known. I take exception to false accusations of plagiarism... or the fact that followers of Kathleen Seidel have used this article to republish her lies. This article is being used in a libelous manner. You want to talk about rules? How about breaking the law? It's not that difficult to "OUT" people and hand their addresses to a lawyer.
I stand by what I said about the study replication. The duplicate passages (in my opinion) were more laziness than plagiarism. That does not mean they didn't do their own analysis of the VSD data. The IRB board they created, in my opinion, was not a very good choice. I can see why they likely did it... to help them publish. These are honest people who care deeply about helping these kids. The worst they may be guilty of is taking shortcuts to publication... but their science deserves followup by outside researchers. They do NOT deserve to be lambasted and libeled by the Seidels and their fanatic followers. You may find this hard to believe... but the children enrolled in their protocol are getting BETTER. Mine is. -Erik

-Erik

You can't justify plagiarism and circumvention of ethics with laziness, Erik. I can't believe you even said that. And I can't believe you're trying to defend it. What's wrong with you? Imagine a student at a University... "well, professor, I didn't really plagiarize my friend's paper, I was just being lazy." If the Geiers had an employer, what do you think might have happened after this information came out? FYI, something is libel when it's an intentional fabrication about someone. You have every opportunity to take anything Kathleen has posted verbatim and demonstrate it's a fabrication. Why don't you do that? I won't hold my breath. Don't you know that the CDC knows about the similarities with their 2000 draft? Dr. DeStefano wrote a letter to MedSciMonitor where he pointed them out. It's not only Kathleen who noticed them. They must be very pissed at the CDC. The Geiers I'm sure are only able to continue to publish because they have friends at "journals" like JPANDS and MedSciMonitor, who apparently don't think stuff like plagiarism is a big deal. Is this stuff about libel a threat of some kind, Erik? Is that how your side conducts science, by intimidation? (I'm well aware of prior instances of such a tactic). Neurodivergent 23:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Erik, you can't just invent a new definition of plagiarism and say what the Geiers did wasn't plagiarism. It's a textbook example of Plagiarism. The Geiers know enough about the guidelines for writing to know what must be cited, when in doubt, always cite. Anyone who gets to 6th grade knows what plagiarism is, they certainly know what it is when they get to college. As for "laziness" as an excuse, It's not like they didn't have time to get "rested up" and then cite the source of all the exactly copied words, and there are two of them, one of them ought to have been in a "not lazy" mood some time before they sent the manuscript off to the journal. Now will I be threatened with a SLAPP (lawsuit) for stating what is common knowledge? I haven't posted to a talk page before, so let me know if I'm breaking any conventions here. None of this is plagiarized, by the way, they are my words. Erik your steadfast loyalty to the Geiers and their Lupron (chemical castration drug) protocol for your daughter is of historic proportions, in my opinion. It just might deserve it's own wikipedia entry one day. You just may become infamous yet. (explanation: Erik posted to the EoHarm Yahoo Group on Dec 28, 2006, 12:49 PM, that a psychic predicted that one day he would be infamous. "Dennis also predicted that I would have a special child, which he also described as "spiritually significant" and that I would later become (and I quote) "infamous. Well, maybe notorious. ..." See how I gave a citation for the quote?) Autismdiva 08:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
And, BTW, Dr. DeStefano of the CDC says he does not believe the Geiers conducted the VSD ("Stage 2") analysis in the 2005 paper, because the Geiers apparently did not have access to the same data. Dr. DeStefano told MedSciMonitor he could provide additional details. Even though Dr. DeStefano is retired now, I suppose it's not that hard to get a hold of those details. What do you think, good idea to find out about those or not? Neurodivergent 23:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Ms. Clark, you like to take quotes out of context. The whole psychic thing was half serious/tongue-in-cheek. (Did you happen to also see my comments about professional psychics?) Another example of your quoting out of context is when you accused Dr. Ayoub of UFO/Illuminati conspiracies when he never mentioned anything about UFO's or the Illuminati. Yet you folks like to make up contexts... Regarding the Geiers, I'm just speculating as to why they would employ such similar passages. (If one was to replicate a study... the language describing its design wouldn't need to be different. It's not the words, but the data and the analysis that's important.) Doctor DeStefano can only SPECULATE that the Geiers didn't have access to the data or did the analysis themselves. Why have I defended the Geiers? Because my daughter is doing GREAT, thank you very much. Their protocol has given us so much more hope than anything else we've ever tried. And as I said before... their research is going to be followed, because they're onto something profound.
Erik, You have stated seriously in a couple of places that you feel you were destined to do something important because of a psychic's say so. I wasn't taking anything out of context. You believe the psychic had some psychic powers, that's obvious from that thread. You also believe that some psychics are fakes, just not the one who "told your future", apparently. You still may end up with your own wikipedia entry for all your support of the Geiers and what all, even for your support of Ayoub. If people watch the whole 'vaccines are part of a worldwide conspiracy to keep people from having babies and to cause babies to be unable to reproduce when they get older presentation by Ayoub, available on Google video they can see that he's thinking that vaccines were designed to create autistic kids if not to kill them outright... if you get lots of autistic kids they won't be having children. It's all about planetary control of population according to Ayoub, and everyone is in on it, including Bill Gates. He's talking about a conspiracy to stop people like him and his friends from outing Bill Gates as one of the Illuminati. He doesn't use the word Illuminati, but he's hinting at the whole famous Illuminati story at the end of his talk. For the unititiated the Illumiati is the super-race of half-lizard aliens who bred with Alfred the Great and Charlamagne and produced all the world's leaders... see: David Icke... promoted by paranoid conspiracy theorists. He makes this issue about the ruling families like DuPont and Rockefeller. If someone is working for or with the Rockefellers, they are part of the conspiracy, isn't that how it goes? I believe you said something like, "If there is an Illuminati, Bill Gates is one of them." In a comment on EoHarm Yahoo! group didn't you? I can dig it up if you want.
There are threads of David Icke style Illuminati talk all through Ayoub's presentation. As for your speculation and making excuses for the Dr. Geier (who appeared on Radio Liberty and talked CDC conspiracy talk until Dr. Whatisface started crying about the anti-Christian conspiracy out to destroy Christians in the US) a person can quote huge swaths of anything in any paper so long as they put it in quotes and cite the source. Even if you take someone else's idea and reword it you still need to cite the source, even if all the words are different! If the Geiers accessed the database on a different day from DeStefano they'd have different numbers wouldn't they??? What happened to "if it walks like a duck..."? What about the IRB, that wasn't a real IRB and broke rules for being an IRB besides? What about the "institute of chronic illness" that is at their home address? It doesn't appear to be a legitimate business at all from what I remember Kathleen reporting. She cites everything to the nth degree. Anyone can check her sources. Autismdiva 07:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Erik: I guess you're entitled to believe Lupron (a chemical castration drug) is helping your daughter, just as I may attribute my child's significant recent progress to my way of dealing with autism. That's fine. Neither of us has a controlled trial to argue either way. But I fail to see why a recommendation given to you by the Geiers that you feel is working would cause you to ignore right vs. wrong, and furthermore, defend wrong. As to David Ayoub, I do not believe Autism Diva or anyone has exactly quoted Ayoub on UFOs and the Illuminati. Maybe "tongue in cheek" as you say? Why? Because Ayoub did say of Lisa Reagen, "...she told me she had black helicopters flying over her house for three weeks after that..." You've never heard of black helicopters? The first time I heard about them must have been in an Art Bell show about Area 51, the New World Order or something like that. Ayoub's conspiracist beliefs are undeniable. The Illuminati is basically synonymous with a "New World Order" type of conspiracy, hence the reference. Neurodivergent 22:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Black helicopters are used for surveillance. I don't know which branch of the military, or which agency is using them. But if David says that he was told that... he was. Now it's a matter of whether he was told the truth. As for his presentation on global population control... I think he has some compelling data. If you want to make fun, go right ahead... but do so with some counter facts. And why the hell are you listening to Art Bell, but bashing someone like Dr. Ayoub???
As for defending "wrong," I disagree with you. We have so few researchers investigating the biochemistry of autism... who genuinely care about the kids and the crimes perpetrated by the CDC in covering up their massive failure with the vaccine program. The Geiers may not "have their act together" 100%... and if they've made mistakes, that's another dicussion... but they're fighting the good fight and they're investigating important areas. Do I believe Lupron has helped my daughter? You bet I do! As long as we keep her testosterone levels within reference range, she's almost a normal kid (despite having no speech). When her testosterone goes up again (because of an inadequate supply of LUpron), we see clear regression in her behaviors and learning ability. Toxicology shows she still has a mercury problem, which we will begin treating again in the near future.
Anyhow, this little discussion has gone way beyond the intended purpose of the discussion area for editing this Wikipedia article. If you'll excuse me, I'll be returning to more important pursuits. -Erik —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.236.23 (talk) 03:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
The "black helicopter" reference was obviously as in "they are trying to get her." When you couple that with the population control thing, it's clearly about the New World Order. As to why I used to listen to Art Bell, it's because I was into skepticism of the paranormal, UFOs and things like that long before I encountered autism quackery. FYI, the population control thing is ridiculous; it's a classic grand conspiracy theory as it's called. It's up to Ayoub to provide evidence that it exists (he does not come close) not up to me to disprove it. Neurodivergent 15:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of plagiarism

This section was removed due to lack of citations. Add back once sources found?

On August 8, 2005, Dr. Frank DeStefano of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wrote a letter to the Editor-In-Chief of the journal Medical Science Monitor regarding supposed similarities between Geier & Geier (2005) and the 2000 draft of the Verstraeten et al. study published in 2000.[citation needed] DeStefano, who is one of the co-authors of the study, stated that he had doubts that the Geiers actually performed the Phase II analyses because, to the best of his knowledge, the Geiers had not had access to the VSD data required to perform those analyses.[citation needed] Medical Science Monitor acknowledged receipt of the letter on August 17, 2005, [citation needed] but there is no evidence the editorial board of the journal considered the complaint credible.

Fences and windows (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


This note is being done by Dr. Mark Geier. I have not made any changes to the article. Here are some documented facts that if you wish you may use to increase the accuracy of this articele: 1. In addition to my MD I hold a PHD in genetics 1973 from George Washington University. This fact has somehow been removed from the article. 2. I am board certified in genetics by the American Board of Medical Genetics and I am an Associate Founding Fellow of the American College of Clinical Genetics (FACMG). 3. I am board certified in epidemiology and I am a Fellow of the American College of Epidemiology (FACE). 4. In the section called "Limited access to Vaccine Safety Datalink records" further investigation revealed no wrong doing and I was again granted access to this database and in fact I have just recently published, along with an Professor of Public health from George Washington University and with my son David Geier, a paper on my studies from the database in the Journal of the Neurological Sciences, "Thimerosal exposure in infants and neurodevelopmental disorders: An assessment of computerized medical records in the Vaccine Safety Datalink." by Young HA, Geier DA, Geier MR. 5. I was a treating physician and I filed an expert report which included approximately 500 peer-reviewed references in the case of Poling V. HHS which was the first case in which the US Government conceded that vaccines caused autism in a child with an underlying mitochodrial disorder. If you wish to keep the article up to date and accurate, I will from time to time write you notes like this one. Mark R. Geier, MD, PHD, FACMG, FACE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.225.97 (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)