Dr. Mark R. Geier ... May God protect this brave doctor

Obviously Moron ... your opinions are just that ... your opinions ...

Dr. Geier has been a target of the dubious and unlicensed Barrett for
years ...

That's why I posted the opinion of non Pharma shills here for others
to decide themselves ...





..
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

Ilena wrote in message ...
Obviously Moron ... your opinions are just that ... your opinions ...

Dr. Geier has been a target of the dubious and unlicensed Barrett for
years ...

That's why I posted the opinion of non Pharma shills here for others
to decide themselves ...

I am happy with that , too. Let them decide between schoolground
name-calling and an attempt at reasoned debate.

Peter Moran








.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from
http://www.SecureIX.com ***

I think you'd be better received if you were to leave out the
name-calling and just stick to the facts. You can point out that it's
just Peter Moran's opinion without calling him names. It only cheapens
your post, IMHO. I personally believe those of us in the "alternative
circles" shouldn't need to resort to such measures. I believe there's
plenty of evidence out there to support many of our views. Just post
your data and let it stand on its own merits. Support it with
clarifications if you must, just don't lower yourself to name-calling.

Your post is much appreciated. It had a lot of information I didn't
already know. It would certainly appear the Dr. Geier is more
qualified to give opinions on most of the topics here than anyone in
this group. He seems to haev quite a resume.

Max.

Ilena Rose wrote:
Obviously Moron ... your opinions are just that ... your opinions ...

Dr. Geier has been a target of the dubious and unlicensed Barrett for
years ...

That's why I posted the opinion of non Pharma shills here for others
to decide themselves ...

After awhile Max, if you aren't one of them that is, you will call a dog a
dog. You must understand that these people don't have honest differences of
opinion but just don't care about finding out the truth which they know
already but have accepted the devil's shilling to lie and deceive
purposefully and made their peace with hell and evil.

"Max C." wrote in message
ups.com...
I think you'd be better received if you were to leave out the
name-calling and just stick to the facts. You can point out that it's
just Peter Moran's opinion without calling him names. It only cheapens
your post, IMHO. I personally believe those of us in the "alternative
circles" shouldn't need to resort to such measures. I believe there's
plenty of evidence out there to support many of our views. Just post
your data and let it stand on its own merits. Support it with
clarifications if you must, just don't lower yourself to name-calling.

Your post is much appreciated. It had a lot of information I didn't
already know. It would certainly appear the Dr. Geier is more
qualified to give opinions on most of the topics here than anyone in
this group. He seems to haev quite a resume.

Max.

Ilena Rose wrote:
Obviously Moron ... your opinions are just that ... your opinions ...

Dr. Geier has been a target of the dubious and unlicensed Barrett for
years ...

That's why I posted the opinion of non Pharma shills here for others
to decide themselves ...

Max C. wrote:
I think you'd be better received if you were to leave out the
name-calling and just stick to the facts. You can point out that it's
just Peter Moran's opinion without calling him names. It only cheapens
your post, IMHO. I personally believe those of us in the "alternative
circles" shouldn't need to resort to such measures. I believe there's
plenty of evidence out there to support many of our views. Just post
your data and let it stand on its own merits. Support it with
clarifications if you must, just don't lower yourself to name-calling.

Your post is much appreciated. It had a lot of information I didn't
already know. It would certainly appear the Dr. Geier is more
qualified to give opinions on most of the topics here than anyone in
this group. He seems to haev quite a resume.

He also has a dubious track record:

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

October 9, 2003

JEANINE WEISS and JOSEPH WEISS, Parents of CHRISTOPHER WEISS, Petitioners,

v.

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent

No. 03-190V

ORDER

After receiving petitioners' expert Dr. Mark Robin Geier's two
affidavits, the undersigned issues this preliminary ruling. The evidence
in the medical records contemporaneous with the events at issue in this
case show that Christopher Weiss did not have an acute encephalopathy on
January 25, 2000, which was the 15th day after he received MMR vaccine
on January 10, 2000. The records state that he had had fever on the
night of the 24th, cried a lot, had a temperature of 101°, or otherwise
less than l00.2°, and was teething. On physical examination, Christopher
was alert and in no acute distress. His temperature was 100.7° and he
had several new teeth. His left tympanic membrane was red with excessive
fluid. The doctor diagnosed Christopher with left otitis media. He had
several tiny white spots at the bottom of his jaw (gingiva) and was
prescribed Amoxicillin.

Three days later, Christopher saw the doctor again. He was still alert,
but irritable with a blister on his tongue. He refused to eat or drink,
had very red gums, but no fever. His left tympanic membrane was better,
the white spots were gone, and he had three new teeth. His temperature
was 99.1°.

Petitioners' amended petition includes an allegation of a Table
encephalopathy. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-14, as modified by 42 CFR §
100.3(b)(2), states:


(i) An acute encephalopathy is one that is sufficiently severe so as to
require hospitalization (whether or not hospitalization occurred).

(A) For children less than 18 months of age who present without an
associated seizure event, an acute encephalopathy is indicated by a
significantly decreased level of consciousness lasting for at least 24
hours.


Section I00.3(b)(2)(i)(D) states:


A "significantly decreased level of consciousness" is indicated by the
presence of at least one of the following clinical signs for at least 24
hours or greater....:

(1) Decreased or absent response to environment (responds, if at all,
only to loud voice or painful stimuli);

(2) Decreased or absent eye contact (does not fix gaze upon family
members or other individuals); or

(3) Inconsistent or absent responses to external stimuli (does not
recognize familiar people or things).


Section 100.3(b)(2)(i)(E) states:


The following clinical features alone, or in combination, do not
demonstrate an acute encephalopathy or a significant change in either
mental status or level of consciousness as described above: Sleepiness,
irritability (fussiness), high-pitched and unusual screaming, persistent
inconsolable crying, and bulging fontanelle....


Christopher's mother states in her affidavit and in the amended petition
that on the night of January 24, 2000, Christopher became very ill and
developed a fever. ¶ 3 of Mrs. Weiss' affidavit. She states that, on
January 25, 2000, at the doctor's office, Christopher was not his normal
happy, cheerful self. He was extremely sick and miserable. She concedes
he was awake. ¶ 4 of Mrs. Weiss' affidavit.

Dr. Geier, who is a geneticist and an obstetrician, is not qualified to
give a neurological diagnosis. (NOTE 1) Nonetheless, he has opined in
his first affidavit, that Christopher had an acute encephalopathy
beginning on the night of January 24, 2000, 14 days after receipt of his
MMR vaccination based on the information in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Mrs.
Weiss' affidavit. In his supplemental affidavit #1, he discusses in
depth how MMR can cause acute encephalopathy and encephalitis. Those
portions of his supplemental affidavit #1 discussing acute
encephalopathy and encephalitis are hereby STRICKEN from the record as
irrelevant since Christopher had neither an acute encephalopathy nor
encephalitis. A child who is alert and in no acute distress does not
have an acute encephalopathy or encephalitis. See Duncan v. Secretary of
HHS, No. 90-3809V, 1997 WL 7529 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 6, 1997)
(without holding a hearing, special master dismissed case asserting
measles encephalopathy because petitioner's affidavit contradicted
contemporaneous medical records as to onset of symptoms and physician's
report in support of petitioner was insufficient). See also, Bunting v.
Secretary of HHS, 931 F.2d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("the conclusions
of a medical expert are not binding on the decisionmaker....");
Sternberger v. US, 401 F.2d 1012, 1016-17 (Fed. Cl. 1968) ("Even
uncontradicted opinion testimony is not conclusive if it is
intrinsically unpersuasive.").



NOTE 1: It is doubtful that Dr. Geier fulfills the American Medical
Association (AMA) guidelines for expert witnesses: H.265-994 Expert
Witness Testimony: (3)(a) "Existing policy regarding the competency of
expert witnesses ... (BOT Rep. SS A-89) is reaffirmed, as follows: The
AMA believes that the minimum statutory requirements for qualification
as an expert witness should reflect the following: (i) that the witness
be required to have comparable education, training, and occupational
experience in the same field as the defendant; (ii) that the
occupational experience include active medical practice or teaching
experience in the same field as the defendant; and (iii) that the active
medical practice or teaching experience must have been within five years
of the date of the occurrence giving rise to the claim." American
Medical Association, Policy Compendium (1999). In addition, the AMA
"Code of Medical Ethics" states at 9.07 Medical Testimony: "Medical
experts should have recent and substantive experience in the area in
which they testify and should limit testimony to their sphere of medical
expertise.... The medical witness must not become an advocate or a
partisan in the legal proceeding." AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial
Affairs, "Code of Medical Ethics" (2002-2003 edition). Dr. Geier's
expertise, training, and experience is in genetics and obstetrics. He is
however a professional witness in areas for which he has no training,
expertise, and experience. Petitioners must seriously consider whether
they want to proceed with a witness whose opinion on neurological
diagnosis is unacceptable to the undersigned. When we reach the end of
this case and the question of expert fees arises, there will be serious
doubt whether Dr. Geier should be compensated for his time devoted to
diagnosing an acute encephalopathy where none exists, and discussing (in
his first supplemental affidavit) the MMR reactions of acute
encephalopathy and encephalitis when neither is relevant in this case
because Christopher, who was alert and in no acute distress on the 15th
day after his MMR vaccination (when Dr. Geier opines his acute
encephalopathy began on the 14th day, less than 24 hours earlier), could
not possibly have had a Table acute encephalopathy or encephalitis.
Moreover, three days later, he was also alert and in no acute distress.
He was, however, miserable on January 25th with left otitis media, a
fever, and new teeth, and on January 28th with a blister on his tongue
and very red gums (with three new teeth).


In other vaccine cases, Dr. Geier's testimony has similarly been
accorded no weight: Thompson v. Secretary of HHS, No. 99-0436, 2003 WL
221439672 (Fed. CI. Spec. Mstr. May 23, 2003); Bruesewitz v. Secretary
of HHS, No. 95-0266, 2002 WL 31965744 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 20,
2002); Raj v. Secretary of HHS, No. 96-0294V, 2001 WL 963984, *12 (Fed.
CI. Spec. Mstr. July 31, 2001); Haim v. Secretary of HHS, No. 90-1031V,
1993 WL 346392 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 27, 1993) ("Dr Geier's
testimony is not reliable, or grounded in scientific methodology and
procedure. His testimony is merely subjective belief and unsupported
speculation."); Marascalco v. Secretary of HHS, No. 90-1571V, 1993 WL
277095 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 9, 1993) (where the special master
described Dr. Geier's testimony as intellectually dishonest); Einspahr
v. Secretary of HHS, No. 90-923V, 1992 WL 336396 (CI. Ct. Spec. Mstr.
Oct. 28, 1992), aff'd, 17 F.3d 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Aldridge v.
Secretary of HHS, No. 90-2475V, 1992 WL 153770 (CI. Ct. Spec. Mstr. June
11, 1992); Ormechea v. Secretary of HHS, No. 90-1683V, 1992 WL 151816
(Cl. Ct. Spec. Mstr. June 10, 1992) ("Because Dr. Geier has made a
profession of testifying in matters to which his professional background
(obstetrics, genetics) is unrelated, his testimony is of limited value
to the court."); Daly v. Secretary of HHS, No. 90-590V, 1991 WL 15473
(Cl. Ct. Spec. Mstr. July 26, 1991) ("The court is inclined not to allow
Dr. Geier to testify before it on issues of Table injuries. Dr. Geier
clearly lacks the expertise to evaluate the symptomatology of the Table
injuries and render an opinion thereon.").

Petitioners may proceed in this case on their alternate allegations, a
Table measles infection and causation in fact autism from either MMR or
thimerosal-containing vaccines. Their allegation of a Table
encephalopathy is hereby DISMISSED for failure to prove a prima facie
case of an acute encephalopathy occurring within 5-15 days of
Christopher's MMR vaccination.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Oct. 9 2003

Laura D. Millman Special Master

Skeptic wrote:

Ilena has only opinions, not facts.

I don't understand why you would call all of the information on Geier
in her original post in this thread her opinion. It seems to me she
just pasted it in from somewhere else so people could easilt find it.

I find that helpful since I don't really know that much about the Geier
group. Until this post, all I had heard about him was from the
pro-medical gang in this group. Since there are 2 sides to every
story, I found llena's post an interesting read.

I've never studied autism in depth, but it *is* a subject of interest
to me since I grew up with an autistic classmate. I know that the
medical side has little to offer the autistic, but I am starting to
find more and more about what the alternative side has to offer. From
one of the parents of an autistic child I know, they've gotten positive
results from the alternative therapies they've tried, though I don't
know a lot about the specifics of the therapies.

Max.

Mark Probert wrote:

NOTE 1: It is doubtful that Dr. Geier fulfills the American Medical
Association (AMA) guidelines for expert witnesses: H.265-994 Expert
Witness Testimony: (3)(a) "Existing policy regarding the competency of
expert witnesses ... (BOT Rep. SS A-89) is reaffirmed, as follows: The
AMA believes that the minimum statutory requirements for qualification
as an expert witness should reflect the following: (i) that the witness
be required to have comparable education, training, and occupational
experience in the same field as the defendant; (ii) that the
occupational experience include active medical practice or teaching
experience in the same field as the defendant; and (iii) that the active
medical practice or teaching experience must have been within five years
of the date of the occurrence giving rise to the claim." American
Medical Association, Policy Compendium (1999). In addition, the AMA
"Code of Medical Ethics" states at 9.07 Medical Testimony: "Medical
experts should have recent and substantive experience in the area in
which they testify and should limit testimony to their sphere of medical
expertise.... The medical witness must not become an advocate or a


Oh, so uummm...., what does the AMA say about the qualifications of
Barret as an expert witness? By the way I don't know the facts of this
case although I'm am sure Grier is respected in his field but I have to
laugh when the AMA and ADA set "rules" on standards of care, ethical
behavior, rules for
testimony etc, since they never hold themselves legally responsable
for any of what they say in court. Why should a slick trade
organization
who act as the "agent apparent" for the good old dental and medical
boys
clubs have any authority whatsoever. I'm sure if the AMA had its way
the only doctor who could testify would be the who treated the case.
Anywayt, while the above "rules" appear to be reasonable, When the AMA
defends its positions in court , then I'll listen to what "it" says a
little harder.

"Skeptic" wrote in message
news:LsY_f.890654$x96.455360@attbi_s72...
Ilena posts other people's opinions and her own. She never presents any
data.

What a LIE!

[ ]

"Max C." wrote in message
ups.com...
Skeptic wrote:

Ilena has only opinions, not facts.

I don't understand why you would call all of the information on Geier
in her original post in this thread her opinion. It seems to me she
just pasted it in from somewhere else so people could easilt find it.

I find that helpful since I don't really know that much about the Geier
group. Until this post, all I had heard about him was from the
pro-medical gang in this group. Since there are 2 sides to every
story, I found llena's post an interesting read.

I've never studied autism in depth, but it *is* a subject of interest
to me since I grew up with an autistic classmate. I know that the
medical side has little to offer the autistic, but I am starting to
find more and more about what the alternative side has to offer. From
one of the parents of an autistic child I know, they've gotten positive
results from the alternative therapies they've tried, though I don't
know a lot about the specifics of the therapies.

Max.

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
. com...

"Skeptic" wrote in message
news:LsY_f.890654$x96.455360@attbi_s72...
Ilena posts other people's opinions and her own. She never presents any
data.

What a LIE!

I'm sorry Jan... seems like your post ended there. Was there more coming or
did the remnant of your brain just let out a fart?

Clinton wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
NOTE 1: It is doubtful that Dr. Geier fulfills the American Medical
Association (AMA) guidelines for expert witnesses: H.265-994 Expert
Witness Testimony: (3)(a) "Existing policy regarding the competency of
expert witnesses ... (BOT Rep. SS A-89) is reaffirmed, as follows: The
AMA believes that the minimum statutory requirements for qualification
as an expert witness should reflect the following: (i) that the witness
be required to have comparable education, training, and occupational
experience in the same field as the defendant; (ii) that the
occupational experience include active medical practice or teaching
experience in the same field as the defendant; and (iii) that the active
medical practice or teaching experience must have been within five years
of the date of the occurrence giving rise to the claim." American
Medical Association, Policy Compendium (1999). In addition, the AMA
"Code of Medical Ethics" states at 9.07 Medical Testimony: "Medical
experts should have recent and substantive experience in the area in
which they testify and should limit testimony to their sphere of medical
expertise.... The medical witness must not become an advocate or a


Oh, so uummm...., what does the AMA say about the qualifications of
Barret as an expert witness? By the way I don't know the facts of this
case although I'm am sure Grier is respected in his field

Do not be so sure. He is now patenting the use of Chemical Castration as
a way to enhance the effects of chelation. His recent study published in
the AAPS rag has been decimated as a valid study for numerous reasons,
e.g. using improper datasets, lousy math, etc.


but I have to
laugh when the AMA and ADA set "rules" on standards of care, ethical
behavior, rules for
testimony etc, since they never hold themselves legally responsable
for any of what they say in court. Why should a slick trade
organization
who act as the "agent apparent" for the good old dental and medical
boys
clubs have any authority whatsoever. I'm sure if the AMA had its way
the only doctor who could testify would be the who treated the case.
Anywayt, while the above "rules" appear to be reasonable, When the AMA
defends its positions in court , then I'll listen to what "it" says a
little harder.

Fine. In the meantime, Geier has been rejected as an expert witness more
times than Barrett. In AltThink, that should make Barrett more credible
than Geier.

Oh, and read this:

http://briandeer.com/wakefield/dtp-garth.htm

Where Geier conducts "research" and makes a "mistake" of using 240
instead of 20...12 times the number...

Only an utter moron would think that this is an accident. No credible
researcher would make an error on such a fundamental number.