Jeff Bradstreet deserts the sinking ship

12 Feb

Cast you mind back, dear Reader, to July last year when the RhoGAM ruling failed to find general or specific causation for thiomersal causing autism. That little episode has taken a heavy toll on the ‘expert witness’ status of both Mark Geier and Boyd Haley, both of whom were eviscerated by the presiding judge.

But, hey, at least they had the guts to stick around. Some people decide to do a runner at the first sign of trouble.

Enter Jeff Bradstreet, advocate of <a href="exorcism (yes, really) for treating autism.

In September of 2006, Bradstreet was the designated ‘expert witness’ in a case of Aventis Pasteur, Inc. v. Skevofilax, the latter being a family that filed suit on the claim that:

…their minor son’s autism was caused by toxic levels of mercury contained in thimerosal, a preservative used in the vaccines.

This trial ended abruptly when:

After three amended scheduling orders and nearly eleven months of discovery, Respondents’ sole expert on specific causation withdrew from further participation in the case without ever having rendered his expert opinion.

There’s a lot of legal stuff going on in the background of this case regarding whether it was right to hold the Skevofilax’s responsible for the failure of the case. The first trial said it was, they appealed and the appeal judge supported this appeal and now this summary judgement has reversed the appeal.

However, what I’m really interested in is _why_ the ‘expert witness’ failed to materialise.

James Jeffrey Bradstreet, M.D., was designated to testify to specific causation, i.e., “that significant amounts of mercury to which the minor plaintiff was exposed, including bolus doses received as a result of vaccination, was a substantial factor in causing [Michael’s] current injuries and symptoms,” and further, “that the exposure to toxic levels of mercury within the vaccines [was] a substantial contributing factor to the minor Plaintiff’s ultimate injuries and symptoms.”

But what happened? Why did Bradstreet never testify?

On 26 October 2004, Respondents notified Petitioners, by letter, that “due to unforeseen circumstances [genomic profiling] test results critical to [Dr.] Bradstreet’s opinions” would be delayed up to sixty days. The relevant genomic susceptibility tests assertedly needed for Dr. Bradstreet’s expert medical opinion were being performed by a laboratory at the University of Arkansas. An affidavit completed by Dr. Bradstreet stated that an outbreak of leukemia in New Mexico caused the Arkansas lab ‘s director, Dr. Jill James, to be called out of town to consult on that outbreak, and that she would not be returning for several weeks. Drs. James and Bradstreet previously had collaborated on other projects. According to Dr. Bradstreet, he would be unable to formulate an expert medical opinion regarding causation specific to Michael’s injuries until the results of the genetic test results were received fro m Dr. James’ lab

Who else is rolling their eyes right now? Apparently, these ‘tests’ can only be performed by Jill James lab. And only by Jill James herself (I assume the other employees are useless?). There’s further no evidence to assume that these tests provide evedence of anything anyway and apparently the dog once ate his homework.

So, respondents and plaintiffs argued over a new schedule and a new schedule had to be enforced by the court in the end and Jeff Bradstreet was once again instructed to be made available for deposition, this time on 19 Nov 2005. Subjects at that deposition concerning Bradstreets role as an expert witness would include:

[a]ppropriate topics of inquiry for this deposition, [were to] include, but not be limited to, the nature and purpose of the GST [glutathione-S-transferase, a particular family of enzymes in the human genome] M1 [a particular gene which encodes the GST enzyme] polymorphism [i.e., difference or variation] test, the work that Dr. Brad street [had] performed to date in this action, his qualifications, his affidavit submitted in connection with Plaintiff ‘s Motion for Continuance, all of his opinions on the subject of general causation, and the results of those tests that Dr. Bradstreet [had] performed or directed to be performed and that [were] available as of the date of [the] initial discovery deposition.

In other words, a thorough examination of the man, his qualifications and the quality of his science.

But, the court decided if the results of his tests of unknown origin or efficacy that could only be performed by Jill James at Jill James lab ‘became available’ (snigger) then:

Dr. Bradstreet would be made available for additional discovery by no later than 14 January 2005 in order to explain how those results pertained to his expert opinion regarding specific causation.

And then (gasp!) the court received the following:

Counsel for Respondents informed the Circuit Court and opposing counsel, by letter dated 23 November 2004, that Dr. Bradstreet declined to participate further in the litigation. According to Respondents’ counsel, Dr. Bradstreet withdrew due to outside “professional and personal commitments and time constraints.

According to Bradstreet:

…the primary reason for his withdrawal was the impact the time commitment would have on his ability to spend time with his family.

So either he had no family before the start of proceedings or he forgot he had a family and then remembered or…oh hell, I don’t know…but strangely, Bradstreet was not to busy to speak at The Autism One conference in May 2005, or May 2006, or to attend and speak at a conference of the American Dietetic Assoc in October 2005.

I guess ‘too busy’ depends pretty much on how much money each gig pays and how often difficult questions are asked.

The end result for the Skevofilax’s?

Despite three amended scheduling orders, and approximately 11 months allotted to conduct discovery, Respondents failed to produce an expert who could testify to specific causation within a reason able degree of scientific certainty. Without such an expert, Respondents’ claims must fail as a matter of law.

Bradstreet hung them out to dry and they couldn’t find anyone else prepared to take on causation.

Thanks to A for the file :o) .

104 Responses to “Jeff Bradstreet deserts the sinking ship”

  1. isles February 12, 2007 at 12:48 #

    Bradstreet is still on the list of “expert” witnesses in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding. I’m thinking the petitioners’ counsel in that case – which is probably paying a whole lot more than the one family in Skevofilax – realized they couldn’t afford to have precedent out there of him having been found incompetent to testify on these questions, and told him to get the heck out by whatever means necessary.

  2. David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction) February 12, 2007 at 12:54 #

    In other words, people know that Bradstreet talks bollocks, then?!

    Or is he just too scared himself to be seen making a pig’s ear out of somebody’s case?

    Whichever way… good!

  3. notmercury February 12, 2007 at 13:21 #

    He probably didn’t like the idea of people looking in to his background or finances. I seem to remember some substantial federal grant money for his developmental center. That’s a lot of “Sea Buddies” buddy.

  4. Bartholomew Cubbins February 12, 2007 at 14:08 #

    Those pinning their hopes to winning court cases over thimerosal by using these people as expert witnesses should take note. Expertise is required for the job and there isn’t a single person who can demonstrate that thimerosal is a causative agent of autism. Their case is stitched together with hacks and experts in tangential fields and this net doesn’t hold water. Going up against a fragmented, ill-informed group of private practitioners and former academics is a lawyer’s pipe dream.

    I cringe at the amount of money that has been spent on efforts like this. What that money could have done in the hands of autistic advocates would have been extraordinary.

    The medical history books of the future will have the names Geier, St. James, Bradstreet and others in footnotes detailing an ill-fated, science-free, and bizarre attack on vaccines.

  5. anonimouse February 12, 2007 at 15:08 #

    Seriously, did anyone think it would NOT go this way? When push came to shove, “expert” witnesses would either be exposed as frauds or figure out some excuse not be exposed as frauds in order to keep whatever shreds of credibility they have left.

    What amazes me, though, is that people with a reasonable amount of intelligence still think this is a viable pursuit. At what point do you look at the lay of the land and say to yourself, “self, I think we’re f—-d.” I’m sure not until the Supreme Court hears the case (or declines to hear it) but that’s probably the Concorde effect talking.

  6. mike stanton February 12, 2007 at 15:59 #

    It is a shame that just as the whole mercurial thing comes crashing down in the States there are signs of them taking off in the UK. Did anybody hear how the biomed conference in Bournemouth went?

  7. Kev February 12, 2007 at 16:22 #

    Yeah, they got a spot on local TV (Fred Dinhage presenting!) but that was about it. No mention of vaccines. No mention of Wakers. I think ‘taking off’ might be an overstatement.

    I do think that we need to turn our attention more to the UK though.

  8. mcewen February 12, 2007 at 16:22 #

    I’m with Mike on this one, I heard the same news, and that probably means that other countries will go through the same unnecessary hoops.
    Best wishes

  9. j February 12, 2007 at 17:08 #

    Story here on that Bournemouth conference, “Has This Doctor Been Misjudged? Dr Andrew Wakefield ought to admit that he was wrong”
    -jypsy

  10. mike stanton February 12, 2007 at 20:08 #

    Thanks Jypsy,
    I just read it and left a comment. The previous 10 comments were all pro Wakefield and slammed the journalist.

  11. Ms. Clark February 12, 2007 at 20:29 #

    Thank you, jypsy, that was a good article. Besides Wakefield, the rest of those con artists in doctor’s clothing need to apologize and admit they too are wrong about measles, vaccines, enzymes and heavy metals, the gut in autism and just about everything else they spout. It’s all about their making money off of frightened, guilt-laden and sometimes desperate parents.

  12. Prometheus February 12, 2007 at 23:39 #

    If anyone thinks that Wakefield, Bradstreet or any of the others are ever going to admit they were wrong – let alone apologize – they are sadly mistaken. All of these folks will eventually fade away into bitter anonymity, still convinced that they were right and that a massive government-Big Pharma-AMA-Illuminati-Masonic conspiracy to hide the “truth” is responsible for their situation.

    Jeff Bradstreet’s sudden interest in the quiet family life may actually be an indicator that he is able to sense which way the wind is blowing. Having watched Geier and Haley publicly humiliated in court, he may be reluctant to step up for his fair share.

    He’s a survivor.

    Prometheus

  13. anonimouse February 13, 2007 at 14:50 #

    Bradstreet is a cockroach. How often can you have wacky ideas (c’mon, exorcism) about treating autism yet still be considered in some circles as a credible expert? Hey, perhaps that’s why Jeffy decided he didn’t want to particpate:

    Laywer: So, Dr. Bradstreet, is it true that you believe that you can exorcise the “autism demon” from the soul of a patient?

    Bradstreet: Your honor, do I have to answer that?

    Judge: Yes, answer the question…

  14. Prometheus February 13, 2007 at 16:48 #

    Cockroaches are survivors, too.

    Jeff at least has enough sense left to scurry for cover when the lights come on. Haley and Geier were squashed.

    BTW, any word on how the Geier’s lawsuit is progressing? I’d heard they were suing someone who had described their work as “questionable”, claiming that it hurt their business. Frankly, I don’t see how anything could have hurt their expert witness business any worse than the verbal spanking they got in that RhoGam case.

    Prometheus

  15. David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction) February 13, 2007 at 18:53 #

    anominous: “Bradstreet is a cockroach.”

    No.

    Bradstreet is a prick.

  16. Kathleen Seidel February 13, 2007 at 22:00 #

    Prometheus, the Geiers’ defamation suit was dismissed without prejudice after one of the Geiers’ two lawyers (Jim Moody of SafeMinds) bailed on them. You can read all about it here.

  17. Brian Deer February 14, 2007 at 13:05 #

    The Geier defamation suit stuff is amazing. It’s the same as what happened with Wakefield. The Geiers evidently thought they could threaten with lawsuits, but then found the other side coming at them like the proverbial freight train.

  18. anonimouse February 14, 2007 at 16:49 #

    I think the Geiers were looking to fund their business on the backs of taxpayer-funded agencies and the AAP. Not shocking in the slightest.

  19. Anne February 14, 2007 at 19:14 #

    At least the Geiers were permitted to dismiss their case without prejudice, meaning that there was no decision on the merits and the case could be re-filed later if the statute of limitations hasn’t run.

    The Skevofilaxes were not permitted to do that. Instead, the court determined the case against them and entered judgment in favor of the defendants. The Skevofilaxes even have to pay the defendants’ costs of defense.

  20. HN February 15, 2007 at 00:25 #

    Too bad the Skevofilaxes are out all of those funds. That was probably money that could have been better used getting therapies for their son that was not covered by insurance.

    Perhaps they should have looked at the evidence, or more accurately, LACK of evidence for their claims before they decided to sue. Then they should have looked a bit closer at who the qualifications of their “expert” witness.

    Perhaps they were persuaded by the pernicious lies of the Mercury Militia that they might have had a real chance.

    But instead they lost lots of money… for nothing.

    Yet, another reason to despise the vaccine scaremongers.

  21. Brian Deer February 15, 2007 at 17:27 #

    Methinks something isn’t quite straight here. Maybe I’m missing a key element.

    Are we to believe (a) that Dr Geier was obliged to abandon his lawsuit against the department of health and human services, because his lawyer (the ex-partner of the lady, whose name I forget, who funded Wakefield and was killed in a car crash) was too busy and they couldn’t find a replacement; and (b) that this hapless family had to abandon their lawsuit against some vaccine manufacturer or other, because Bradstreet’s wife said he didn’t have time to write a report, and they couldn’t find anyone else?

    I just don’t believe these things. These are among the most highly motivated (and highly-paid) anti-vaccine campaigners, who profess all kinds of high moral claims, and yet they can’t even turn up to help in these crucial legal confrontations.

    I don’t know if anyone with an open mind reads these discussions, but, if they do, I think they should have a good think about these goings-on.

  22. century February 15, 2007 at 20:22 #

    Brian Dear wrote

    “I don’t know if anyone with an open mind reads these discussions..”

    Ho ho!

  23. Ms. Clark February 15, 2007 at 21:36 #

    Mr. Deer,

    I think the lawyer who bugged out on Geier was Jim Moody, and the woman who died in the car crash was Liz Birt.

    Jim Moody really looked like he was flailing to find an excuse to get himself out of representing Geier, he said something abou this health that he couldn’t keep practicing so much, but it appeared that Moody never stopped practicing law, or that he cut back appreciably.

  24. anonimouse February 20, 2007 at 21:40 #

    Hey, mostly off-topic – but did you know Barbara Loe Fisher (NVIC chief and anti-vaccine sycophant) has her own blog now?

    Hey, at least it isn’t Hating Autism

  25. Seth L February 22, 2007 at 03:03 #

    I am upset by all the bashers of Jeff Bradstreet. Perhaps Bradstreet prefers not to testify as an expert under oath until he has enough data to ethically form an opinion that is supported by enough science. I have a son who is on the autistic spectrum, my son is also a patient of Dr. Bradstreet. I am an attorney. There are so many reasons why a known neurotoxin should not be injected into a child, when Thimerosol is just a preservative to give vaccines a longer shelf life. Why are pregnant women discouraged from consuming mercury-containing foods like tuna, or not getting a mercury containing flu shot? Then as soon as the child is born, it is OK to inject the child full of mercury? This is not about conspiracy theories, who has an ax to grind, or any of that—this is about searching for a reason why schools and communities are being over run with case of autism. Better diagnosis? Where are all the 30 and 40 year old autistic adults? Jeffery Bradstreet is a good man, and a brilliant Doctor. Unless you know–you shouldn’t make these assumptions and speculations about his actions. I trust my son’s life with him, and none of these uninformed opinions wlll detract from his tireless efforts to treat my son. He never, in countless meetings, ever attacked big pharma. My son is mercury toxic, that is a fact. We’re focused on treating him. Trying to find out how he got that way is simply a by-product of this.

  26. Do'C February 22, 2007 at 03:43 #

    “My son is mercury toxic, that is a fact.”

    How do you know he’s mercury toxic? What makes it a “fact”?

  27. anonimouse February 22, 2007 at 04:19 #

    I will make any assumption about a public disgrace, er, figure like Jeff Bradstreet that I want. And his public actions have been those of a duplicitous weasel. Sorry if you don’t like it.

  28. Seth L February 22, 2007 at 04:43 #

    Do’C–Numerous labs, performed on my son showed toxic levels of mercury in his system.
    Ani mouse–you are free to make all the assumptions you want–it is hard to dislike the assumptions themselves, because that’s all they are.

  29. Kev February 22, 2007 at 08:51 #

    _”I am upset by all the bashers of Jeff Bradstreet. Perhaps Bradstreet prefers not to testify as an expert under oath until he has enough data to ethically form an opinion that is supported by enough science.”_

    Yeah, right. But enough to start treating kids with any old crap – including exorcism – he chooses to.

    Sorry Seth, you’re living in a fantasy world.

  30. notmercury February 22, 2007 at 13:46 #

    “Jeffery Bradstreet is a good man, and a brilliant Doctor. “

    If he was a good man he would have stood by the Skevofilax’s to the end. If he was a brilliant doctor he would have had strong evidence in hand before signing up to be an expert witness.

    A good man and brilliant doctor doesn’t perform iv infusions using untested and unnecessary chemical cocktails to treat autism.

    A good man doesn’t grow very wealthy at the expense of desperate families while hiding behind the veil of his religion.

    Would you trust him with your son’s life, Seth? Let’s hope it never comes down to that.

  31. worriedmom February 22, 2007 at 16:51 #

    Seth
    I agree with you. These crazy freaks atacking whomever they want needs to stop. Having an autistic child that has been through countless testing is proof. Can’t help that the drug manufactures are sitting so nicely in their big fat offices earning wages that make mine like one cent. Getting the FDA to back drugs to inject into our children without having the proper tests and studies. The government should be held responsible too! I could blog all day but why waist my time to an audience who could care less.

  32. anonimouse February 22, 2007 at 17:16 #

    Worriedmom,

    Your pleas would make more sense if you don’t hyperlink your profile to a shill natural health/foods/drink whatever website. I’m sorry if real, proven treatments are more popular than the ones you’re obviously not selling.

    Learning to spell might be beneficial as well.

  33. Do'C February 22, 2007 at 17:50 #

    Do’C—Numerous labs, performed on my son showed toxic levels of mercury in his system.

    Well that tells us a lot, doesn’t it Seth? It’s completely clear that “numerous” unspecified tests (argumentum ad numerum) about an unspecified “system” are totally meaningless. Help us understand. Explain the tests, what they show, and how they show it.

  34. Seth L February 23, 2007 at 02:43 #

    What is you people’s deal? There is so much sarcasm and downright hatred in your remarks that I just wonder what personal interest you have in seeking treatments that work, or rather don’t work? Has any of you ever met with or spoken to Jeff Bradstreet? Have you been to ICDRC? Have you been to his school? Have you met his autistic child? Or do you just believe everything you read on the internet? Even if you do, why attack someone with remarks that don’t help anyone. Really, what is your interest in this issue? Mine is my son, what is yours?

  35. Do'C February 23, 2007 at 03:55 #

    Seth,

    My request was simple.

    Help us understand. Explain the tests, what they show, and how they show it.

  36. nosofast February 23, 2007 at 05:32 #

    This isn’t the same Rev. Jeff Bradstreet of the ICDRC is it? The guy who recommended exorcism for autistic children? The guy with all the fake and inflated creedentials provided for the sake of the fatuously credulous? That guy? The guy who hits on other men’s wives? That one? The guy who put a photo slide of his young teenage daughter in his powerpoint presentation at a DAN conference, the one where she had a tight shirt on that showed her (rather zaftig for her age) cleavage, and made a comment on how when he took his family to Malta the waiters were hitting on her. That guy?
    Isn’t he the guy who is supposed to have done a bait and switch with cheap secretin, according to his former patients and a nurse?

    I like him. He’s great. We need more DAN like him.

  37. anonimouse February 23, 2007 at 14:41 #

    What is you people’s deal? There is so much sarcasm and downright hatred in your remarks that I just wonder what personal interest you have in seeking treatments that work, or rather don’t work? Has any of you ever met with or spoken to Jeff Bradstreet? Have you been to ICDRC? Have you been to his school? Have you met his autistic child? Or do you just believe everything you read on the internet? Even if you do, why attack someone with remarks that don’t help anyone. Really, what is your interest in this issue? Mine is my son, what is yours?

    Here’s the problem, genius. Bradstreet’s treatments don’t work. He’s had, what, a decade to prove that they do and publish legitimate findings in a legitimate journal and hasn’t done so. Yet he continues to charge parents thousands of dollars anyway.

    And of course, because we suggest that Jeff Bradstreet might be a lying piece of garbage and a fraud, you immediately question whether we have ulterior motives. Well guess what, I do.

    My motive is to make sure that desperate parents don’t go to quacks like Bradstreet.

    My motive is to ensure that any treatment protocol has a strong scientific basis and proof of efficacy before people spend lots of money on it.

    My motive is to demand a high standard of proof before we suggest that autism is something that can (or even should) be “cured”, as Bradstreet and his ilk claim.

  38. Lucas McCarty February 23, 2007 at 18:07 #

    It was funny at first but now it’s just sad how many websites I can go to often frequented by Autistic adults including those in their 30s and 40s and there will occassionaly be a comment from someone pretending those same Autistic adults don’t exist and ask “Where are all the autistic adults?” with a good chance that more than one Autistic adult will be giving the answer.

  39. Seth L February 24, 2007 at 04:27 #

    Mr. or Ms. Mouse, I’m not a genius, nor ever professed to be. I asked you what your personal interest in this issue is. You responded that you guess you had ulterior motives, then rattled off a list of noble ones—essentally protecting us desperate parents from “weasels”,”quacks”,”lying pieces of garbage”,”cockroaches”, and finally,”pricks”, like Bradstreet. I commend you for your sense of duty and eloquent and classy expression of it.

  40. Seth L February 24, 2007 at 04:41 #

    Lucas, my sincere appology for my “where are all the 30-40 year old autistic adults?” comment previously. I never meant that there aren’t ANY, I simply meant that if previous misdiagnosis is the reason for the epidemic rise in the cases of autism, as some suggest, then 1 out of every 150 (even significantly higher in males )adults should be autistic, as is the diagnosis rate in the most recent studies involving children. If my comment seemed insensitive, it was not intended to be. Again, I appologize.

  41. Kev February 24, 2007 at 07:52 #

    Has anyone ever looked Seth? What were the results of this study? I can show you documents from the UK (where the prevalence rate is 1 in 100) that describe autistic adults as severely under diagnosed. However, no study has ever seriously looked in large numbers. When small scale studies look (see link) then they are found.

    Sorry Seth, you’ve been sold a bill of goods.

  42. Lucas McCarty February 25, 2007 at 23:34 #

    There is also a simple math calculation using the numbers from the UK National Autistic Society.

    There are 600,000 Autistic people(said to be an under-estimate as Kev says) and 160,000 of them are children. So the ratio of children to adults coincides with the UK average life expectancy. There hasn’t been any epidemic here.

  43. anonimouse February 26, 2007 at 14:36 #

    Seth,

    Look, if you can’t see the forest throught the trees, there isn’t a whole lot I can do for you. Try going to reputable medical professional who knows something about autism and doesn’t sell you expensive supplements in his office or through his special “distributors” – and see if he or she agrees with Jeff’s world view. You’d be surprised.

  44. Seth L February 27, 2007 at 01:13 #

    Anonimouse, Since Dr. Bradstreet doesn’t fit your criteria of a reputable medical professional who knows something about Autism, perhaps you can reccomend someone? How about a Doctor who shares the views of the American Academy Of Pediatrics? Their advice is essentially to do nothing. So maybe you can help. Meanwhile, if you have time, why don’t you grit your teeth and listen to a presentation of Dr. Bradstreet’s given in May ’06 to parents and Drs. If you google Jeff Bradstreet, it is about the tenth site down the list under the heading “Teri Small-interview with Dr. Jeff Bradstreet and Dr. Manuel….” Perhaps you’ll be directed to some of the published literature that you say is lacking regarding Dr. Bradstreet’s efforts. Of course, you probably wouldn’t want to do that.

  45. Friend in California February 27, 2007 at 03:59 #

    Seth –
    My name is Steve. I’ll make you a deal. I’ll take the time to look at the site you are recommending if you’ll take the time to peruse this site by typing “Bradstreet” into the search box on the right hand column and reading each blog entry that refers to him.
    After we are both done, we can converse verbally or by email and discuss our findings. Perhaps Kev will facilitate a private email address exchange?
    Maybe we both can learn something, maybe we can agree to disagree.
    I am the parent of an autistic child, and my offer is sincere. Let me know.

  46. Seth L February 28, 2007 at 04:49 #

    Friend in California, Deal. The presentation by Bradstreet is approximately an hour long—audio—you don’t have to download. Just hit play. I will read the blogs, but it’s impossible to know who is saying what, and what their interest is. A mature, non-vicious exchange is what I think would be beneficial, and you sound inclined to that.

  47. Friend in California February 28, 2007 at 06:15 #

    Hi Seth –
    Great.
    Assuming its ok with Kev, please send him your email address, which he can then send to me. I will contact you soon for discussion.
    Saying you will read the blogs is great, but beginning with a disclaimer about bias and authenticity is not a good start.
    Note to Kev: I hope I am not being presumptuous in asking you to play the role of email clearinghouse.

  48. Kev February 28, 2007 at 08:22 #

    Not at all :o) Happy to help. Seth – if you want to find out more about me, then hit the ‘colophon’ link at the top of every page.

  49. anonimouse February 28, 2007 at 18:57 #

    Seth,

    Can you point me to the copious number of publishings that Dr. Bradstreet has done in reputable medical journals?

    Exactly.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Left Brain/Right Brain » David Kirby’s Causation Trail - February 22, 2007

    […] Seems like Lenny hasn’t been keeping up with the news in that regard. […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: