Significant Misrepresentations: Mark Geier, David Geier & the Evolution of the Lupron Protocol (Part Two) · Jun 20, 11:45 AM

Related Articles

An Elusive Institute

Both the abstract and text of Dr. Mark Geier and David Geier’s article in Hormone Research, A Clinical and Laboratory Evaluation of Methionine Cycle-Transsulfuration and Androgen Pathway Markers in Children with Autistic Disorders, indicated that,

The Institutional Review Board of the Institute for Chronic Illnesses (Office for Human Research Protections, US Department of Health and Human Services IRB number: IRB00005375) approved the present study.

The Geiers’ reference to the IRB of “The Institute for Chronic Illnesses” drew my attention because there had been no mention of IRB oversight in their previous articles and presentations about the use of Lupron in conjunction with chelation to relieve supposed “mercury toxicity” in autistic children (previously discussed in my articles, Autism & Lupron: Playing With Fire and Patent Medicine, and in Orac’s articles, Why Not Just Castrate Them? and Mercury & Autism). Neither the Institute nor its IRB were mentioned anywhere in the patent applications describing the protocol and its scientific basis. Indeed, in all my readings on the subject of autism, I had never heard of “The Institute for Chronic Illnesses.” A Google search of “Institute for Chronic Illnesses” yielded only three returns, all 2002 references to a Slovakian health research group.

A review of the Office for Human Research Protection (OHRP) institution and IRB organization entries for the Institute for Chronic Illnesses revealed that it is located in Silver Spring, Maryland.

There is no record of the Institute for Chronic Illnesses on Guidestar, a comprehensive website containing U.S. nonprofit tax returns, nor does the name appear in the IRS Cumulative List of Organizations (Publication 78).

The Maryland Secretary of State Charitable Organizations Division holds no registration for the Institute.

The Institute has not been registered as a business with the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation.

A representative of the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene could find no references to the Institute in the agency’s database.

Representatives of the Maryland Board of Physicians and MedChi (the Maryland State Medical Society, which reviews and approves names under which individual physicians may conduct business) had no knowledge of or information about the Institute.

There is no telephone listing for the Institute for Chronic Illnesses in Maryland or anywhere else in the United States.

The Institute of Chronic Illnesses, Inc. was registered as a non-profit corporation on September 8, 2005 (Delaware Department of State Division of Corporations file #4027230). Its 2005 Annual Franchise Tax Report — which would contain names of officers and directors — was due in March 2006, but is not on file.

The Office of Human Research Protection responded to a request made under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) with copies of the electronic registration for the IRB of the Institute for Chronic Illnesses. The registration was confirmed by OHRP’s Division of Policy and Assurances on March 9, 2006.

The registration was filed by Dr. Mark Geier. The Institute’s address is 14 Redgate Court, Silver Spring, Maryland 20905 — Dr. Geier’s home; its telephone number (301-989-0548) is his home office number. Montgomery County property tax records indicate that 14 Redgate Court, Silver Spring, is a principal residence, currently assessed at $583,470; the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation lists its current value at $957,450. According to a press release from Uninformed Consent (a website which promotes the Geiers’ work), the home:

sports an Olympic sized tennis court, a lap pool, a green house, a hot tub, and granite countertops throughout along with wall-to-wall carpeting, granite floors and expensive faux wood paneling. A quick peek at sales in the neighborhood shows comparable properties to be selling at around $1.8 million.

The IRB registration lists the following members, and indicates whether they are scientists or non-scientists, whether they are affiliated with the Institute for Chronic Illnesses, their degrees and academic specialties:

Mark Geier, Chair
Affiliated Scientist; MD, PhD; Genetics
David Geier
Affiliated Scientist; BA; Biochemistry
Lisa Sykes
Unaffiliated Non-Scientist; MA; Clergy
   (Rev. Sykes is a Richmond, Virginia Methodist minister, anti-thimerosal activist, and mother of a participant in Dr. Geier’s study. The clinical data for Patient #1 in the Hormone Research article is identical to data from her son’s medical records, which were displayed at the 2005 and 2006 Autism One conferences.)
Kelly Kerns
Unaffiliated Scientist; RDH; Dentistry
   (Mrs. Kerns is a Lenexa, Kansas dental hygienist, anti-thimerosal activist, and petitioner in vaccine injury complaints for each of her three autistic children.)
John Young
Unaffiliated Scientist; MD; OB-GYN, Genetics
   (Dr. Young is Dr. Geier’s business partner in Genetic Consultants of Maryland and Genetic Consultants of Virginia; he, Dr. Geier and various business entities were codefendants in a 1994 medical malpractice lawsuit. He is also a newly-minted DAN! practitioner. According to his ARI listing, Dr. Young completed an eight hour training at the May 24-28 2006 DAN! conference in Washington, DC. Treatments he offers include antifungal pharmaceuticals and nutriceuticals, chelation, antiviral medications, and Lupron injections.)
Anne Geier
Affiliated Scientist; BS; Educator
   (Mrs. Geier is wife of Dr. Mark Geier and mother of David Geier. She is a ranking member of the U.S. Tennis Association.)
Clifford Shoemaker
Affiliated Non-Scientist; JD; Legal
   (Mr. Shoemaker is a vaccine injury lawyer, a member of the Vaccine Injury Alliance, and a member of the Omnibus Autism Proceeding Petitioners’ Steering Committee. Dr. Geier has testified on behalf of his clients in Price v. Wyeth et al, Platt v. HHS, Jenkins v. HHS, Lewis v. HHS, Raj vs. HHS, Jefferies v. HHS, and other cases.)

The Institute for Chronic Illnesses has received no federal grants or contracts, and its IRB is not linked to any OHRP-approved Federal-Wide Assurance (FWA), the document that commits an institution to follow The Common Rule at 45 CFR 46, the federal regulations on human subject protections. That is, although the IRB has been registered with the Office of Human Research Protection, its members have not explicitly agreed to adhere to the standards of human subject protection applicable to recipients of federal funding.

However, the Maryland Code (Title 13 — Miscellaneous Health Care Program, Subtitle 20 — Human Subject Research) requires that anyone conducting research involving human subjects comply with The Common Rule, whether he or she receives federal funding or none at all.

“A person may not conduct research using a human subject unless the person conducts the research in accordance with the federal regulations on the protection of human subjects. [...] Notwithstanding any provision in the federal regulations on the protection of human subjects that limits the applicability of the federal regulations to certain research, subsection (a) of this section applies to all research using a human subject.

The Institute for Chronic Illnesses’ IRB ostensibly meets the measurable criteria laid out in OHRP’s regulations — a minimum of five members, both male and female, one scientist, one non-scientist, and one member not affiliated with the institution. However, its ability to satisfy OHRP criteria for approval of the study described in A Clinical and Laboratory Evaluation of Methionine Cycle-Transsulfuration and Androgen Pathway Markers in Children with Autistic Disorders is questionable.

None of the IRB members have declared expertise in the field of pediatric endocrinology. Whereas the IRB was registered in March 2006, the research described in the article was conducted between November 2004 and November 2005. Further, according to The Common Rule, Mark Geier and David Geier would be ineligible to vote on any of their own research proposals. Anne Geier would be ineligible to vote on any research proposed or conducted by her husband or son. Rev. Lisa Sykes would be ineligible to vote on any study in which her son is a participant. As a co-investigator with Mark and David Geier in their Lupron research, John Young, too, would be ineligible to vote on any IRB supervising that research.

Of the seven members of the IRB, only a minority of two — Kelly Kerns and Clifford Shoemaker — would be eligible to vote on the research described in the article — and only if they are free of any personal or financial interest in its outcome. However,

In order to fulfill the requirements of this policy each IRB shall: [...] (b) Except when an expedited review procedure is used, review proposed research at convened meetings at which a majority of the members of the IRB are present, including at least one member whose primary concerns are in nonscientific areas. In order for the research to be approved, it shall receive the approval of a majority of those members present at the meeting.

Given the composition of this Institutional Review Board and its current purpose — that is, the oversight of Dr. Mark Geier’s and David Geier’s studies of endocrine function and metabolism in autistic children — it is unlikely that a majority vote of qualified members could ever be achieved.

to Part Three:
A Dubious Diagnosis


  1. I can’t wait to see what Erik says now. Maybe it’s an accident that the IRB members are all thimerosal activists?

    Outstanding job as usual.

    Joseph    Jun 20, 12:13 PM    #

  2. Fascinating and disturbing. Its really worrying how easy it is to get away with this kind of thing. Well done for being vigilant as usual.

    Kev    Jun 20, 12:30 PM    #

  3. So let me get this straight…

    These guys develop some theory out of the air about mercury not being able to be chelated out of a body because of testosterone, so they start trying to knock the testosterone down? And the evidence for this invented science is where?

    Then they try to publish some sham article with misleading credentials and the journal yanks the paper when they figure it out?

    And now it turns out that the IRB that approved this drug, Lupron (the chemical castration drug used on sexual predators), to be used on young autistic children, is comprised of their buddies who have little-to-no medical experience?


    — Hey Zeus is my homeboy    Jun 20, 12:51 PM    #

  4. This is bad. Very bad. There’s no way this IRB could ever be objective, and it’s so riddled with blatant conflicts of interest that it is a sham.

    Orac    Jun 20, 01:25 PM    #

  5. This is horrifying. They evidently have no conscience whatsoever. If they thought their work actually had merit, wouldn’t they be eager to have actual scientists review it?

    — Lisa Randall    Jun 20, 01:32 PM    #

  6. Another great article. Kathleen.
    Is David Geier BA; Biochemistry the same David Geier who has BA in Biology on his CV? Do the Geiers ever get anything right?

    Mike Stanton    Jun 20, 01:46 PM    #

  7. Let’s just hope that they get to the bottom of this mess!

    — Common Sense    Jun 20, 02:16 PM    #

  8. WOW! I’ve been waiting anxiously for the next installment and I was not disappointed. This is simply unbelievable yet there it is. Mind blowing

    notmercury    Jun 20, 02:27 PM    #

  9. /None of the IRB members have declared expertise in the field of pediatric endocrinology. Whereas the IRB was registered in March 2006, the research described in the article was conducted between November 2004 and November 2005./

    So, maybe it was like:

    “I know, lets use a very expensive, dangerous drug on little kids because we can convince their parents to pay us to write the prescription and besides that we can get a patent on our ‘protocol’ so that when everyone starts copying us we take our portion off the top … and some months after we start experimenting on kids with this drug, we’ll create a sham IRB to ‘approve’ of what we will have already have been doing for months! ”

    “But Dad, there are only 2 of us.”

    “That’s, OK son, your mom can be on the IRB, too. And Rev. Sykes, because she believes in us. And my buddy Dr. Young, and that dental assistant, what’s her name, the one who said her mouth drips with acid when she talks about that generation of children poisoned by thimerosal thing …”

    “Kelly Kerns?”

    “Yeah, her.”

    “Who will be get for the 7th member? ”

    “Hmm. Maybe one of your mom’s tennis coach? Hmm. There’s the gardener… no he doesn’t speak English, though, that could be a plus… Uhh. Oh, I know, that lawyer, Shoemaker, he ‘owes’ me for helping him out on those vaccine cases. But there’s no need for an IRB approval anyway, so let’s just get started on this chemical castration experimenting deal and we’ll work out the pesky details of the ‘IRB’ later….”

    “Will we have to actually, meet and make decisions?’

    “Don’t be silly, David.”

    — Ms Clark    Jun 20, 02:44 PM    #

  10. Mike…

    “Is David Geier BA; Biochemistry the same David Geier who has BA in Biology on his CV?”

    Yes, but that uni doesn’t do a BA in biochem.

    “Do the Geiers ever get anything right?”

    Never, it seems….

    — David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)    Jun 20, 02:49 PM    #

  11. Can you do bio-medical research in a private home? Like, is that legal? That seems like it would be – at least – a zoning violation – you can’t just be dumping blood and chemicals and stuff down your kitchen sink. Something like that should be reported.

    — fgh    Jun 20, 03:26 PM    #

  12. So lots of people must have asked the Geiers if they had IRB approval, so they made up an IRB after the research was done? As part of my degree program, I have observed real IRB’s, and this won’t fly. It’s a cargo cult IRB.

    Incredible research. I wish the newspaper reporters like Olmsted had Kathleen’s ability and integrity.

    — Ruth    Jun 20, 04:15 PM    #

  13. As to “getting to the bottom” of what the Geiers are doing, it seems like a game of ethical Limbo… how low can they go? ... that is before some Federal agency or other puts a stop to what they are doing.

    I wish Kathleen had Dan Olmsted’s paycheck for what she does, and that Dan got Kathleen’s ($0) ... it’s incredible what she does totally gratis…

    Thank you again.

    — Ms Clark    Jun 20, 04:30 PM    #

  14. Excellent work Kathleen. Thank you for all your time and effort.

    — Dad Of Cameron    Jun 20, 10:58 PM    #

  15. Good one Kathleen. Now, how come a princely paid investigative (apparently) journalist like Olmsted has so much trouble locating verifiable evidence in the public domain that Geier, Pere et fils are up to no good? Does he need a refresher course do you think?

    — Alyric    Jun 21, 02:17 AM    #

  16. Thanks to everyone for visiting, reading, and becoming outraged.

    fgh, I've been wondering about zoning, too. There was an article published in Seed Magazine (Part One and Two) that features a photograph of David Geier sitting next to a fumehood. That's quite a piece of industrial equipment to install in a suburban home. If you want to install one in Seattle, anywhere other than a lab or hospital, you need to get a building permit.

    There's more commentary and discussion of this matter at:

    Mike Stanton: More Significant Misrepresentations
    Kevin Leitch: Mark and David Geier Carry On Misrepresenting
    Autism Diva: Fun and Pretense chez Geier
    Autism Street: Mark Geier, David Geier, and an IRB
    Orac: Antivaccination warriors vs. research ethics

    Kathleen Seidel    Jun 21, 07:51 AM    #

  17. Very good work, but horrifying findings…

    — Kristjan Wager    Jun 21, 08:07 AM    #

  18. No word from Sue or Erik yet? It’s like someone turned on the light, and all the rodents scattered.

    Joseph    Jun 21, 08:33 AM    #

  19. Joseph, to be fair to Sue, she has already commented (under another name), and it was a respectful post at that. I would hope that not all anti-vax folks will accept the Geiers’ quackery. Look at the way Buttar seems to have fallen out of favor.

    I’m definitely interested in Erik’s response though—should be interesting to see how he tries to weasel out of this one, since he seems to have appointed himself as the chief apologist for the Geiers.

    Dave Seidel    Jun 21, 08:53 AM    #

  20. Can someone tell me that Erik was correct and that the Hormone Research paper will be published again, in that same journal soon? I’d love to see it go online and then the editors learn about the IRB shenangans (shenanigans being an extreme euphemism), only to pull the paper again.

    It’d be like watching a tennis match… in the Geiers’ back yard.

    — Hey Zeus is my homeboy    Jun 21, 09:15 AM    #

  21. Erik’s response

    Kev    Jun 21, 11:56 AM    #

  22. That’s quite a cottage industry the Geiers have going. I can hardly wait for the next installment. I just hope they don’t call Kathleen and offer to drive over and educate her.

    — Anne    Jun 21, 01:31 PM    #

  23. BTW, do spend a few moments checking out the home address on MSN Live, Google Earth, etc.

    — TheProbe    Jun 21, 04:27 PM    #

  24. There's a satellite picture on display over at Autism Diva.

    Kathleen Seidel    Jun 21, 04:31 PM    #

  25. That’s not a tennis court in the back yard. It is a retractable canvas cover camouflaged to look like a tennis court. Underneath is an advanced research facility and high energy particle accelerator where they generate strange quacks and Higgs Bosons.

    — clone3g    Jun 21, 05:10 PM    #

  26. Do you suppose that the Geiers are packing for a long vacation overseas about now? Will they even be welcome at the Tennis Club any more when Biff and Muffy find out?

    “Where we going, Dad?”

    “Shut up and pack, David, don’t forget the tennis togs and the Swiss bank account number. Make sure Mutti has her teeth”.

    — Miranda Reitz    Jun 21, 06:14 PM    #

  27. Kathleen—
    I’ve been following your work very closely and I just wanted to tell you how much I appreciate your work and how impressed I am with your research and your presentation.

    The hubris that encompasses the G. family is more breathtaking by the moment.

    kimmah    Jun 21, 08:14 PM    #

  28. A logical person with some common sense would know that it would be a good idea to check up on the Geiers work with the VSD data. Why aren’t they? That’s really the only question that matters to me at this point.

    — Common Sense    Jun 22, 12:57 PM    #

  29. Common Sense,
    I agree. Someone ought to check up on the Geiers work with the VSD data. O look someone already did.

    Strategic Disregard · Mar 24, 10:00 PM

    Mike Stanton    Jun 22, 01:38 PM    #

  30. Hey Mike,

    Is there anything in that Kathleen Seidel piece which speaks of other researchers being allowed in to see/study the VSD data which the Geiers were privy to? If not, that doesn’t help me. Point it out if so, I don’t have time to go clicking through 100 links that Ms. Seidel references. — Common Sense    Jun 22, 03:11 PM    #

  31. Oh yeah, the Verstraeten study doesn’t work for me.

    — Common Sense    Jun 22, 03:19 PM    #

  32. SueM (by whatever other names you wish to go by on here… we know it’s you… you have a unique style… we find you every time)... if all you can be bothered to do is to be a troll, annoying the snot out of everybody here, go and do that somewhere else. We’re actually conducting serious business here.

    I am concerned about the fact that the ‘IRB’ acting as watchdog on the Geiers’ ‘work’ is a collection of people most of whom are connected to the Geiers and some of whom actually are the Geiers! It surprises me that the authorities with whom that ‘IRB’ is registered have not commented on this… well, Orac gave it its correct name… it’s a conflict of interest.

    And SueM… you have an attrocious memory deficit, to the point where you seem to lack object permanence… so I’ll refresh your memory for you here:

    You said “A logical person with some common sense would know that it would be a good idea to check up on the Geiers work with the VSD data. Why aren’t they? That’s really the only question that matters to me at this point.”

    A very logical person with a hell of a lot of common sense did alreaday check this out, as Mike S has stated. It was Kathleen. But your memory deficit won’t allow you to recall that, will it?

    — David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)    Jun 22, 03:30 PM    #

  33. “Oh yeah, the Verstraeten study doesn’t work for me.”

    Pray tell, what will work for you?

    Joseph    Jun 22, 03:32 PM    #

  34. Oh, I’m sorry I must have missed that, David. You mean to tell me that Kathleen Seidel was allowed in to see the super-secret VSD data? How come she didn’t blog about it? Give me a break, I want someone to go in there fresh with no conflict of interest in the situation to take a look. What’s so difficult about that? As for Verstraeten… come on Joseph, do you need to be reminded of where you can find his original e-mail which shows he was very concerned about the connection. Kathleen should do some homework on him. That should keep her busy.

    — Common Sense    Jun 22, 03:41 PM    #

  35. Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles
    for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects

    “13. The design and performance of each experimental procedure involving human subjects should be clearly formulated in an experimental protocol. This protocol should be submitted for consideration, comment, guidance, and where appropriate, approval to a specially appointed ethical review committee, which must be independent of the investigator, the sponsor or any other kind of undue influence. This independent committee should be in conformity with the laws and regulations of the country in which the research experiment is performed. The committee has the right to monitor ongoing trials. The researcher has the obligation to provide monitoring information to the committee, especially any serious adverse events. The researcher should also submit to the committee, for review, information regarding funding, sponsors, institutional affiliations, other potential conflicts of interest and incentives for subjects.”

    Adopted by the World Medical Association, Helsinki, Finland, 1964, revised 2002

    brian deer    Jun 22, 03:46 PM    #

  36. I shouldn’t be convinced by the Verstraeten study, should I? That would be foolish.

    — Common Sense    Jun 22, 03:46 PM    #

  37. Consider that when the Geiers had access to the VSD data, they tried unauthorized merging and got themselves kicked out. Now they have made a sham IRB. I used to work in clinical trials, I know how this sort of work should be done. Can anyone show me an actual protocol or informed consent, or even an inclusion/exclusion criteria to show that this is a real study?

    — Ruth    Jun 22, 04:00 PM    #

  38. “I shouldn’t be convinced by the Verstraeten study, should I? That would be foolish.”

    The thing is, no study will convince you, ever. You’ll soon come up with an excuse about Fombonne’s study in Canada. If, say, Blaxill came out with a study that said there’s no correlation between vaccines and autism, you’ll claim that Blaxill has joined the conspiracy.

    What are the significant problems in Verstraeten (2003)? Some sampling flaws maybe. I don’t see flaws of the kind I see in Geier’s work.

    Joseph    Jun 22, 04:58 PM    #

  39. Exactly Brian.

    How these people get away with this in 21st century America is amazing.

    Anthony    Jun 22, 05:17 PM    #

  40. Common SenseSue is a true believer. Nothing more, nothing less. There isn’t a damn thing you could say to make her believe anything other than mercury causes autism.

    In other words, don’t feed the troll.

    — anonimouse    Jun 22, 09:55 PM    #

  41. I see Sue’s as accomplished as ever at distracting from the points under discussion.

    Kev    Jun 22, 11:14 PM    #

  42. Common Sense: This Discovery Order, dated 2005-04-15, from the Omnibus Autism Proceeding, may answer your question, if I understand it correctly.

    I have no idea whether or not Ms. Lally and Dr. Harlan examined the data sets as of yet, or if these are the ones you had in mind. The discovery order does seem to indicate that plaintiffs’ (independent) experts were granted access to the Verstraeten VSD data sets.

    I can’t speak to the status of the Geiers’ VSD study, but based on my experience with similar situations in research regulated by FDA and OHRP, when an IRB suspends research, you have to explain how the objectionable circumstances happened (protocol violations, for example) and why they won’t happen again. It never works to try to tell the regulator they’re wrong – for anyone. And believe me, it’s been tried before. If the Geiers are still in limbo (which is something I don’t know), the simplest and swiftest way to deal with the issues would be to hire a contract research organization to complete the VSD study. While it’s true you’d have to get approval from the IRBs again, as well as from the National Center for Health Statistics folks in charge of the RDC, the CRO would be able use the same protocols which had been previously approved, and any CRO would be much less likely to get hung up by preventable delays – cutting through red tape is one of the major selling points for CROs.

    liz    Jun 23, 03:09 AM    #

  43. “How these people get away with this in 21st century America is amazing”.

    In what sort of world do we live in that vaccinations do not fall under this same sort of scrutiny? Why is it safe to inject babies and pregnant women with mercury? Brian, Brian are you there? How about that really safe DTP vaccine? — Common Sense    Jun 23, 08:41 AM    #

  44. “I see Sue’s as accomplished as ever at distracting from the points under discussion”.

    Let’s take a quick peak at Kev’s blog these days. We’ve got Martina Navratilova, marrying older women, links to silly grandpa sites and discussions about how you have more hits on your website than anyone else… blah, blah, blah. Kev, can you ban me for the whole summer please? Do you understand how hypocritical you are Kev? Do you see it?

    ps. it’s an elephant.

    — Common Sense    Jun 23, 09:12 AM    #

  45. Sue/Common Sense:

    Try to pay attention. This is not a discussion of Kev’s blog, nor is it a discussion of vaccine policy. This is the last off-topic comment by you that will be allowed on this entry, or anywhere else on this blog. If you have more you feel compelled to say, get your own blog.

    Dave Seidel    Jun 23, 09:25 AM    #

  46. “What are the significant problems in Verstraeten (2003)? Some sampling flaws maybe. I don’t see flaws of the kind I see in Geier’s work”.

    Let’s start with the fact that Verstraeten has said that the study was “neutral” and needs more research. Then let’s remind yourself about what he originally wrote in an email when he first started analyzing the data. Go here:

    Then of course you can go take a look at this from SafeMinds:

    Then you can always try to remind yourself that the Geiers (unlike the CDC) are asking for MORE RESEARCH. As far as I can tell, they would be very happy to get another group of researchers in there to check out their work. You (and the CDC) should be thrilled with this idea… instead nobody cares to look… In the meantime, more babies here and around the world are being injected with a substance which may (or may not) cause significant neurological damage in children. It’s not that big of a deal though. No problem. Carry on…

    — Common Sense    Jun 23, 09:37 AM    #

  47. Dave,

    Here’s the thing. Kev made it about me when he mentioned me by name here:

    “I see Sue’s as accomplished as ever at distracting from the points under discussion”.

    I figured that I could do the same. Probably not. Where’s Bart? I could use another monkey video to bring us back on topic?? — Common Sense    Jun 23, 09:41 AM    #

  48. Sue,

    Here’s the thing. Kev was discussing your typical tactic of misdirection as it has manifested on this thread. Your comment had nothing to to with this thread at all. Sorry if you don’t get that.

    That’s the end of the road for you on this topic, you’ve struck out. Have a nice weekend.

    Dave Seidel    Jun 23, 09:50 AM    #

  49. “Then you can always try to remind yourself that the Geiers (unlike the CDC) are asking for MORE RESEARCH.”

    The Geiers ask for more research that supports their views, and hence their vaccine litigation income and potentially their future Lupron patent revenue. If that research requires misrepresenting affiliations, fake IRBs, omitting data, forcing data to fit, and so on, they don’t care.

    I’m sure they are not interested in more valid research, which continues to be routinely published, and at this point could be characterized as ‘beating a dead horse’.

    Joseph    Jun 23, 10:11 AM    #

  50. It has just been called to my attention that John L. Young is not only an OB-GYN; his name appears on the Autism Research Institute’s list of DAN! practitioners. According to his ARI listing, Young completed an eight hour Intensive Training by the DAN! Physician Training Team at the 2006 DAN! conference in Washington, DC. He offers vitamin/mineral supplementation, essential fatty acids, gluten and casein-free diet, antifungal pharmaceuticals and nutriceuticals, heavy metal detoxification (i.e., chelation), antiviral medications, and last but not least, Lupron injections to autistic children.

    Kathleen Seidel    Jun 23, 08:43 PM    #

  51. Regarding Mr. Young – seeing how he’s into a lot of games other than Lupron he ought to be thrilled that Erik N. is basically telling others not to chelate and to switch over to Lupron. This clip is from Eric as posted on Kev’s blog,
    “By suppressing tesosterone… you don’t even NEED TO CHELATE!”

    Sweet. When he starts telling them not to use Lupron then he’ll pretty much be cured.

    Also, there’s a comment from an ebohlman that ought to scare just about anyone – tumors have been known to throw off one’s androgen count. Got to wonder who’s going to die from woo next. I also wonder about the revisionist history that will occur when it’s time to write something on the tombstone.

    Orac had a nice bit of info today as well:
    Orac’s latest post regarding the Geier track record

    Bartholomew Cubbins    Jun 23, 09:38 PM    #

  52. I’ve just revised the article to include the new information about Young, and to point out that as a co-investigator, he would be disqualified from voting on an IRB supervising the Geiers’ current research.

    Kathleen Seidel    Jun 23, 10:03 PM    #

  53. This is just too horrifying unbelieveable. It’s worse than I imagined.

    Fake affiliations, fake Internal Review Board. I am letting my attorney general know about this.

    I keep picturing the Geiers as actors in a horror “B” movie…the mad scientest in his basement with his loopy son, making up protocols to use on vulnerable children.

    — Nana    Jun 24, 12:36 AM    #

  54. CommonSue,

    Guess what, genius? There is a follow-up study to Verstraeten’s in progress. That doesn’t mean the IOM was well within their bounds to assert – based on the evidence available – that thimerosal was unlikely to be a role in autism.

    Since all you know are the SafeMinds Talking Points™ I’m not shocked that went over your head.

    — anonimouse    Jun 29, 12:43 PM    #

  55. Thank you for this post! These guys have a new mercury article out. I’d also never heard of the group and was looking for some additional information—your post now comes up right quick on google.

    The Article: “A meta-analysis epidemiological assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders following vaccines administered from 1994 through 2000 in the United States.”

    Caitlin    Jul 22, 11:35 AM    #

Add a comment

  Textile Help