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

Mark Probert wrote:

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.

I asked you this question in another thread, but maybe you didn't see
it.

"In the treatment of precocious puberty, does it render the boys
sterile? If not, would it be a safe assumption that the difference
would be dosage amount? If so, how does the recommended dosage by the
Geier group compare with that of the treatment of precocious puberty?
I have yet to see recommended dosage levels. Could you post links to
doses for both the Geier group's treatment and precocious puberty
treatment? "

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.

Where could one find a list of expert witness rejections for a given
person?

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.

That *does* look bad. Has the appeal trial already taken place? I
noticed this was discussing a trial in 1988 and the appeal was made in
1990. Surely this has been resolved by now. What was the outcome?
There must be links to follow up on this. It's old news, apparently.

Max.

Max C. wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:

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.

I asked you this question in another thread, but maybe you didn't see
it.

"In the treatment of precocious puberty, does it render the boys
sterile? If not, would it be a safe assumption that the difference
would be dosage amount? If so, how does the recommended dosage by the
Geier group compare with that of the treatment of precocious puberty?
I have yet to see recommended dosage levels. Could you post links to
doses for both the Geier group's treatment and precocious puberty
treatment? "

You are jumping over the fact that there is no medical/scientific basis
for using Lupron as sold by the Geiers.

http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/art...ying-with-fire

First, justify the use and then we can discuss dosage.

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.

Where could one find a list of expert witness rejections for a given
person?

AFAIK, there is no handy-dandy, one stop shopping URL for that. An
expert witness can be search in the Federal System through PACER, and
then you can read all of the citations to see what happened.

However, the professional Barrett haters surely do know every time he
has not been accepted as an expert. I am sure that they have the records
handy.

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.

That *does* look bad. Has the appeal trial already taken place?

I do not know, and it is not germane to the points made, the sloppy (I
am being charitable) use of numbers.

I
noticed this was discussing a trial in 1988 and the appeal was made in
1990. Surely this has been resolved by now. What was the outcome?
There must be links to follow up on this. It's old news, apparently.

Sloppiness is never old news. Geier continues to do sloppy research
using improper datasets and playing fast and lose with statistical
analysis.

"Skeptic" wrote in message
news:XS6%f.94777$oL.52940@attbi_s71...

"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.

Do you have a vision problem?

IIena certain DOES present data.

OTOH, I have seen NONE from you.....

Just disruption, arguing and insulting

Was there more coming or
did the remnant of your brain just let out a fart?

Point made.....

"Max C." wrote in message
ups.com...
Mark Probert wrote:

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.

I asked you this question in another thread, but maybe you didn't see
it.

"In the treatment of precocious puberty, does it render the boys
sterile? If not, would it be a safe assumption that the difference
would be dosage amount? If so, how does the recommended dosage by the
Geier group compare with that of the treatment of precocious puberty?
I have yet to see recommended dosage levels. Could you post links to
doses for both the Geier group's treatment and precocious puberty
treatment? "

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.

Where could one find a list of expert witness rejections for a given
person?

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.

That *does* look bad. Has the appeal trial already taken place? I
noticed this was discussing a trial in 1988 and the appeal was made in
1990. Surely this has been resolved by now. What was the outcome?
There must be links to follow up on this. It's old news, apparently.

Max.

It appears Mark can not answer your questions.

Very little doubt, he saw it.

Under the thread:

The Geiers try to patent chemical castration as an austism treatment

You asked the question in post number 26.

Post # 27..Mark addressed your post #2...NOT 26.

Nuff said.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Max C. wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:

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.

I asked you this question in another thread, but maybe you didn't see
it.

"In the treatment of precocious puberty, does it render the boys
sterile? If not, would it be a safe assumption that the difference
would be dosage amount? If so, how does the recommended dosage by the
Geier group compare with that of the treatment of precocious puberty?
I have yet to see recommended dosage levels. Could you post links to
doses for both the Geier group's treatment and precocious puberty
treatment? "

You are jumping over the fact that there is no medical/scientific basis
for using Lupron as sold by the Geiers.

http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/art...ying-with-fire

First, justify the use and then we can discuss dosage.

NO, I don't think so....

Max asked you under another thread...

AND

YOU ingored his questions...

In FACT, his post was # 15 (I was incorrect in another post)

Tues, Apr 11, 2006 10:06 am
Max wrote:

Mark Probert wrote:
Lupron has ONE medical use, i.e. treatment of precocious puberty in boys,
and one other use: CHEMICAL CASTRATION of sex offenders.


In the treatment of precocious puberty, does it render the boys
sterile? If not, would it be a safe assumption that the difference
would be dosage amount? If so, how does the recommended dosage by the
Geier group compare with that of the treatment of precocious puberty?
I have yet to see recommended dosage levels. Could you post links to
doses for both the Geier group's treatment and precocious puberty
treatment?

You not only failed to answer him..

In FACT, you asked him a question in post # 17.

Tues. Apr 11, 2006 5:11 pm

Max C. wrote:
Peter Moran wrote:
PM Actually the the study on the first hair cuts of autistic children
was performed because Haley himself and Safeminds expected it to show
larger quantities of mercury in the hair of autistic children. I have
documentation of this expectation somewhere.

I'm not familiar with this study. Is it available online to read
somewhere? I'd like to see how long after thimerosal injections the hair
was tested. If it was soon after (1 and 6 months... depending on the
length of the child's hair) and little or no mercury was found in the
hair, that would be a good indication that mercury elimination was not
working properly.



Why would you assume that? Do you know all the means by which the body
eliminates mercury?


The theory that they cannot excrete mercury was produced in retrospect to
try and explain this awkward fact.

It's interesting that it was in retrospect. Your mention of it yesterday
was the first I'd heard of it, and my initial thought was that the
expectation was backwards. I'm no scientist. Why did I suspect an
elimination problem and they didn't?


This other study seems to show that autistic children can eliminate
mercury in the hair. This is actually what you would expect. It is not
an excretory process, it is simple physicochemistry, as would be the
inevitable elimination in the urine and sweat. Are you aware of any
direct evidence that autistic children cannot eliminate mercury? This
is hypothesis number two of the sequence of unproven and unlikely ones.


Just because it's unproven doesn't automatically make it unlikely. I had
come to think of you as more open minded than that.



With all of the studies done on mercury and kiddies, the fact that it is
unproven suggests that there is nothing to the claim. One would think
that the phenomena would have manifested itself by now.

So..it was YOU who jumped right over his questions!


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.

Where could one find a list of expert witness rejections for a given
person?

AFAIK, there is no handy-dandy, one stop shopping URL for that. An expert
witness can be search in the Federal System through PACER, and then you
can read all of the citations to see what happened.

However, the professional Barrett haters surely do know every time he has
not been accepted as an expert. I am sure that they have the records
handy.

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.

That *does* look bad. Has the appeal trial already taken place?

I do not know, and it is not germane to the points made, the sloppy (I am
being charitable) use of numbers.

I
noticed this was discussing a trial in 1988 and the appeal was made in
1990. Surely this has been resolved by now. What was the outcome?
There must be links to follow up on this. It's old news, apparently.

Sloppiness is never old news. Geier continues to do sloppy research using
improper datasets and playing fast and lose with statistical analysis.

But...YOU still can NOT answer the questions...

Speaking of playing fast and loose...NOT lose [as is your habit to use this
word incorrectly]

In the Matter of Mark Probert (Admitted as Mark S. Probert), a
Suspended Attorney, Respondent.
Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.

92-02731

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT

183 A.D.2d 282; 590 N.Y.S.2d 747

November 9, 1992, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: [***1]

Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Grievance Committee for the
Tenth Judicial District. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on
February 15, 1978, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court in the Second Judicial Department, under the name Mark S.
Probert.

DISPOSITION: Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline
upon the respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is
granted; and it is further,

HEADNOTES: Attorney and Client - Disciplinary Proceedings

Respondent attorney, who is charged with 22 counts of failing to
cooperate with investigations of alleged misconduct by the Grievance
Committee, and who has failed to answer or appear, is disbarred.

COUNSEL:

Frank A. Finnerty, Jr., Westbury (Muriel L. Gennosa of counsel), for
petitioner.

JUDGES: Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ.,
concur.

Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline upon the
respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is granted; and
it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately,
the respondent, Mark Probert, is disbarred and his name is stricken
from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent shall continue to comply with this Court's
rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned
attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary [***2] Law § 90, the respondent,
Mark Probert, is commanded to continue to desist and refrain (1) from
practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or
employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or
counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission
or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to
the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4)
from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and
counselor-at-law.

OPINIONBY: Per Curiam.

OPINION: [*282]

[**747] By decision and order of this Court dated September 29,
1989, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law until the
further order of this Court based upon his failure to cooperate with
the Grievance Committee. By further order of this Court dated June 4,
1992, the Grievance Committee was authorized to institute and
prosecute a disciplinary proceeding [*283] against the respondent
and the Honorable Moses M. Weinstein was appointed as Special Referee.

[**748] A notice of petition and petition was personally served upon
the respondent on July 2, 1992. No answer was forthcoming. The
petitioner now moves to hold the [***3] respondent in default. The
motion was personally served upon the respondent on August 14, 1992.
The respondent has failed to submit any papers in response to the
default motion.

The charges involve 22 counts of the respondent's failure to cooperate
with the Grievance Committee in its investigations into complaints of
professional misconduct.

The charges, if established, would require the imposition of a
disciplinary sanction against the respondent. Since the respondent has
chosen not to appear or answer in these proceedings, the charges must
be deemed established. The petitioner's motion to hold the respondent
in default and impose discipline is, therefore, granted. Accordingly,
the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of
attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately

Skeptic wrote:
"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.

Ilena has only opinions, not facts.

Seems like Dr Geier has a difficult history when it comes to his math.
Not sure I'd rely on any stats this guy has to offer:

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

Mark Probert wrote:
You are jumping over the fact that there is no medical/scientific basis
for using Lupron as sold by the Geiers.

No I'm not. I'm jumping *TO* the fact that you have stated he will be
castrating these children. If it's not true, you shouldn't have said
it.

http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/art...ying-with-fire

First, justify the use and then we can discuss dosage.

No, *YOU* are the one making claims he's going to chemically castrate
these children. The burdon of proof is on you. My guess is that your
claims are not true and that you're jumping to extremes.

AFAIK, there is no handy-dandy, one stop shopping URL for that. An
expert witness can be search in the Federal System through PACER, and
then you can read all of the citations to see what happened.

However, the professional Barrett haters surely do know every time he
has not been accepted as an expert. I am sure that they have the records
handy.

Well, I'm not a professional Barrett hater, so I wouldn't have those
numbers... but you made a claim that Barrett hadn't been turned down as
many times as Geier. I'm just curious how you came to that conclusion.

That *does* look bad. Has the appeal trial already taken place?

I do not know, and it is not germane to the points made, the sloppy (I
am being charitable) use of numbers.

It's one point in the midst of a very large trial. If the appeal
verdict stayed the same as the original verdict, then your whole rant
is practically moot. To me, a bigger embarassment for Geier would be
to lose the appeal because of his sloppiness. Since the hounds that
dug up this original mistake didn't harp on the appeal trial, I'm
guessing the verdict must have stood.

I
noticed this was discussing a trial in 1988 and the appeal was made in
1990. Surely this has been resolved by now. What was the outcome?
There must be links to follow up on this. It's old news, apparently.

Sloppiness is never old news. Geier continues to do sloppy research
using improper datasets and playing fast and lose with statistical
analysis.

In your opinion. Others have the same opinion of Barrett. That
doesn't make either opinion correct.

Max.

sunnydisposition wrote:
Skeptic wrote:
"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.
Ilena has only opinions, not facts.

Seems like Dr Geier has a difficult history when it comes to his math.
Not sure I'd rely on any stats this guy has to offer:

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


'taint the only example of Geier being innumerate:

http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/03...d-mercury.html

and his comparison with the Shattuck investigation which showed that
using school data, as the Geiers, et al, do, is utterly bogus:

http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/04...m-studies.html

Of course, the recent Geier (rhymes with liar) crappola is further
tainted by the fact that the developers of the two datasets they relied
on say that the datasets are not designed to be used as the Geiers do.

Max C. wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
You are jumping over the fact that there is no medical/scientific basis
for using Lupron as sold by the Geiers.

No I'm not. I'm jumping *TO* the fact that you have stated he will be
castrating these children. If it's not true, you shouldn't have said
it.

What do you think Lupron does?

http://archive.salon.com/health/feat...01/castration/

http://archive.salon.com/health/feat...ron/print.html





http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/art...ying-with-fire

First, justify the use and then we can discuss dosage.

No, *YOU* are the one making claims he's going to chemically castrate
these children. The burdon of proof is on you. My guess is that your
claims are not true and that you're jumping to extremes.

AFAIK, there is no handy-dandy, one stop shopping URL for that. An
expert witness can be search in the Federal System through PACER, and
then you can read all of the citations to see what happened.

However, the professional Barrett haters surely do know every time he
has not been accepted as an expert. I am sure that they have the records
handy.

Well, I'm not a professional Barrett hater, so I wouldn't have those
numbers... but you made a claim that Barrett hadn't been turned down as
many times as Geier. I'm just curious how you came to that conclusion.

That *does* look bad. Has the appeal trial already taken place?
I do not know, and it is not germane to the points made, the sloppy (I
am being charitable) use of numbers.

It's one point in the midst of a very large trial. If the appeal
verdict stayed the same as the original verdict, then your whole rant
is practically moot. To me, a bigger embarassment for Geier would be
to lose the appeal because of his sloppiness. Since the hounds that
dug up this original mistake didn't harp on the appeal trial, I'm
guessing the verdict must have stood.

I
noticed this was discussing a trial in 1988 and the appeal was made in
1990. Surely this has been resolved by now. What was the outcome?
There must be links to follow up on this. It's old news, apparently.
Sloppiness is never old news. Geier continues to do sloppy research
using improper datasets and playing fast and lose with statistical
analysis.

In your opinion. Others have the same opinion of Barrett. That
doesn't make either opinion correct.

Max.

Max C. wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
You are jumping over the fact that there is no medical/scientific basis
for using Lupron as sold by the Geiers.

No I'm not. I'm jumping *TO* the fact that you have stated he will be
castrating these children. If it's not true, you shouldn't have said
it.

What do you think it does?

http://archive.salon.com/health/feat...01/castration/

http://archive.salon.com/health/feat...ron/print.html

for just two examples.

http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/art...ying-with-fire

First, justify the use and then we can discuss dosage.

No, *YOU* are the one making claims he's going to chemically castrate
these children. The burdon of proof is on you. My guess is that your
claims are not true and that you're jumping to extremes.

No, the burden of proof is on the Geiers who claim that this treatment
is warranted in the first place. That burden is exclusively theirs, as
the consequences of the treatment are quite devastating to the child.

AFAIK, there is no handy-dandy, one stop shopping URL for that. An
expert witness can be search in the Federal System through PACER, and
then you can read all of the citations to see what happened.

However, the professional Barrett haters surely do know every time he
has not been accepted as an expert. I am sure that they have the records
handy.

Well, I'm not a professional Barrett hater,

so far...

so I wouldn't have those
numbers... but you made a claim that Barrett hadn't been turned down as
many times as Geier. I'm just curious how you came to that conclusion.

By reading the posts of the professional Barrett haters. I invite them
to jump in and post the statistics, or cases, of where his testimony was
not permitted to be made a part of the records.

I truly would like to see a numerical comparison.

That *does* look bad. Has the appeal trial already taken place?
I do not know, and it is not germane to the points made, the sloppy (I
am being charitable) use of numbers.

It's one point in the midst of a very large trial. If the appeal
verdict stayed the same as the original verdict, then your whole rant
is practically moot.

Nope. Not at all. The point is that Geier was, at best, sloppy, and, at
worst, intentionally misleading. What happens afterwards is irrelevant
to that point.

Note that because of his "error" the case had to go back and be re-tried
at substantial expense to his employers, i.e. the plaintiff's attorneys,
the defendants (mean evil pharmaceutical companies that deserve to be
made to waste their ill gotten gains, and, of course, the taxpayers, who
pay for the congested courts.

To me, a bigger embarassment for Geier would be
to lose the appeal because of his sloppiness.

True.

Since the hounds that
dug up this original mistake didn't harp on the appeal trial, I'm
guessing the verdict must have stood.

The case was sent back for retrial. Whatever happened there is immaterial.

I
noticed this was discussing a trial in 1988 and the appeal was made in
1990. Surely this has been resolved by now. What was the outcome?
There must be links to follow up on this. It's old news, apparently.

Sloppiness is never old news. Geier continues to do sloppy research
using improper datasets and playing fast and lose with statistical
analysis.

In your opinion.

My opinion based on understanding the poor math he recently used, and
the improper use of datasets not designed to be used the way he did.

Others have the same opinion of Barrett. That
doesn't make either opinion correct.

Not all opinions are created equal. Mine are based on facts that are not
refuted.




Max.