David Geier ousted from autism commission

24 May

O’Malley ousts David Geier from autism commission is an article at the Baltimore Sun.

Appointee, who works at father’s practice that offers controversial autism treatment, charged with practicing without a license

Gov. Martin O’Malley removed David A. Geier from Maryland’s Commission on Autism on Friday, telling his one-time appointee in a letter that “you do not at the present time qualify to serve.”

O’Malley told Geier, who has only a bachelor’s degree, that he does not qualify under Maryland law to serve as a “diagnostician,” the title he held on the advisory commission. The governor also cited charges brought against him this week by the Maryland Board of Physicians.

More at the Baltimore Sun, including:

“I regret that you were not willing to withdraw from the Commission and that this action is therefore necessary,” the governor said.

Yes. He was asked to leave. He didn’t. Now he’s being told.

David Geier is part of the father/son team which has promoted the “Lupron protocol” as a therapy for autism. The idea was incredible (as in, not credible) from the start. Their practice appears to have been using false diagnoses of precocious puberty in order to apply Lupron, a drug which shuts down sex hormone production.

Personally, I find it very strange that David Geier was placed on the autism commission to begin with. He clearly lacks expertise or connection to the community (other than financially, of course). This is before one factors in the facts that his entire model of autism is wrong from the word go.

AutismOne, potentially the largest parent-convention promoting the bad science of the Geiers and others starts on the 25th (the day after this post goes live). Mark and David Geier are scheduled to speak. One could hope that AutismOne would pull these speakers. Instead, 2 days ago, they posted a new interview. Complete with the message:

“These top researchers are at the forefront of helping to treat the “Tough Cases”. The symptomology of Precoscious Puberty and its safe treatment for ASD.”

“Top Researcher”

“At the forefront”

“symptomology of precocious puberty”

This is a team that has been charged with serious ethical violations, including the misdiangosis of the “symptomology of precocious puberty”. This is a team which has failed time and again to produce quality research.

But, this is a team which promotes the vaccines-cause-autism hypothesis.

Safety of disable children apparently comes second to ideology for Autism One.

Sorry to have dropped my usual rather dry reporting, but this is just plain wrong. But, these are the people who gave Andrew Wakefield an award after he was found guilty of multiple ethics violations. What can we expect?

Advertisements

37 Responses to “David Geier ousted from autism commission”

  1. Stuart Duncan May 24, 2011 at 15:48 #

    It’s unbelievable how far some people go to believe in a cure, or the vaccine link. They could find out that these people are serial killers that have bodies in their basement and AutismOne and their followers would still praise them… making up stories upon stories of conspiracy theories to explain away anything that could jeopardize their sainthood.
    It’s sickening.

    It’s fine if you think Autism needs curing, it’s fine if you believe vaccines or anything else has a link to to Autism. But seriously, when people commit fraud, lie, cheat, steal and even HURT CHILDREN… you must stop supporting them.

  2. Prometheus May 25, 2011 at 18:45 #

    I have to wonder what it says about David Geier that he not only took a position as “diagnostician” on the Maryland Commission on Autism (given that he lack any qualifications), he also, when politely asked, refused to resign when it was made appallingly apparent to the English-speaking world that he was not qualified to be on the commission.

    In fact, he sounds a bit like his father, who continues to peddle his “expert testimony” despite the fact that he’s been repeatedly laughed out of court.

    Maybe it’s a genetic lack of insight?

    Prometheus

  3. Liz Ditz May 25, 2011 at 20:02 #

    Sully, you wrote

    “This is before one factors in the facts that his entire model of autism is wrong from the word go.

    Even stronger: fractally wrong or not even wrong

  4. robinp May 29, 2011 at 08:34 #

    “AoA are wrong”
    + “GR are wrong”
    + “ARI are wrong”
    + “etc are wrong”
    = “Therefore we/FDA/CDC/APA/Offit/BMA/GMC have never been wrong!”

    The mindset of this blog is not even sad.

  5. David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. May 29, 2011 at 09:43 #

    *yawn*

  6. Julian Frost May 30, 2011 at 07:53 #

    Lovely strawman, robinp. Did you make it all by yourself?

  7. robinp May 30, 2011 at 09:12 #

    Lovely strawman, robinp. Did you make it all by yourself?

    Thanks for the appreciation. But is there any chance you could point to some of the straw there?
    Meanwhile it didn’t surprise me that the validity of the general point (rather than possibilities about the pedantic precision) would escape at least one fellow-commenter here.

  8. Julian Frost May 30, 2011 at 10:11 #

    The strawman, robinp, is in your belief that because we think that all the things you are listed are wrong, we must ipso facto believe we/FDA/CDC/APA/Offit/BMA/GMC have “never been wrong” (your words). Why do you assume we think that?

  9. robinp May 30, 2011 at 10:33 #

    Julian, I didn’t express a belief to that effect, I merely trotted out that cute formula in all its simplisticness. I invited you to point out some of the straw you allege to exist there. You haven’t done so. You can’t seriously expect me to prove a negative. Oh, hang on, this is lbrb so of course you can expect me to prove a negative!

  10. Julian Frost May 30, 2011 at 12:33 #

    robinp:

    I merely trotted out that cute formula in all its simplisticness. I invited you to point out some of the straw you allege to exist there. You haven’t done so.

    You ended your comment with The mindset of this blog is not even sad. It is abundantly clear you believe “that cute formula”. And if you don’t understand that “you believe X is wrong, ipso facto X’s opponents are right” is a straw man, then you’re not particularly astute.

  11. robinp May 30, 2011 at 13:09 #

    You ended your comment with The mindset of this blog is not even sad.

    Indeed. So what? I was having a joke (plus…).

    It is abundantly clear you believe “that cute formula”.

    On the contrary it is abundantly clear that you can’t tell the difference between knowledge proven beyond reasonable doubt and your mere presumption presumed despite more than reasonable doubt. (I even described it as “simplistic” fss!). Which is in accordance with what I said above, that The mindset of this blog is not even sad. QED.

  12. robinp May 30, 2011 at 13:12 #

    Oh, and I’m still waiting to be told any of the straws in question….

  13. robinp May 30, 2011 at 13:25 #

    Clarification – By straws I mean instances of exceptions to this blog making out that:
    “AoA are wrong” or “GR are wrong” or “ARI are wrong” or “etc are wrong”
    or, most especially,
    “we/FDA/CDC/APA/Offit/BMA/GMC have never been wrong”.

    I didn’t mean the fallacy of my “cute formula” which was bleeping obviously a mere generalised simplification and non-sequitur. EXCEPT (pardon the caps) that while illogical, it does appear to nevertheless be a valid characterisation of what unconsciously passes for reasoning in this not-even-sad place. Or perhaps you can cite to me one or more straws that breaks that camel’s back?

  14. Julian Frost May 30, 2011 at 14:36 #

    robinp:

    my “cute formula”…while illogical, it does appear to nevertheless be a valid characterisation of what unconsciously passes for reasoning in this not-even-sad place.

    A Straw Man is a misrepresentation of your opponents’ viewpoints. Your simplistic formula misrepresents our viewpoints. It’s a Straw Man.

  15. stanley seigler May 30, 2011 at 18:12 #

    [robinp say] it does appear to nevertheless be a valid characterisation of what unconsciously passes for “reasoning” in this not-even-sad place.

    COMMENT
    quotes my add…a thought on reasoning…

    stanley seigler

    a thought:
    http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney
    CLIP
    In other words, when we think we’re reasoning, we may instead be rationalizing. Or to use an analogy offered by University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt: We may think we’re being scientists, but we’re actually being lawyers (PDF). Our “reasoning” is a means to a predetermined end—winning our “case”—and is shot through with biases. They include “confirmation bias,” in which we give greater heed to evidence and arguments that bolster our beliefs, and “disconfirmation bias,” in which we expend disproportionate energy trying to debunk or refute views and arguments that we find uncongenial.

  16. Chris May 30, 2011 at 19:20 #

    robinp, what does your cute formula have to do with David Geier?

    He has been charged with the very serious crime of practicing medicine without a license. Because of this he was asked to resign his seat on the autism commission. Since he was refused, the governor essentially fired him from that post.

    If you feel that Mr. Geier has real expertise in autism (education, research papers, etc), then please present the evidence.

  17. Kev May 30, 2011 at 19:26 #

    Thanks for the appreciation. But is there any chance you could point to some of the straw there?

    Sure –

    Therefore we/FDA/CDC/APA/Offit/BMA/GMC have never been wrong!

    Who says that?

  18. robinp May 30, 2011 at 19:46 #

    Oh well, it was hardly unpredictable that all sorts of muddle-increasing replies would come back from this place of all places.

    Firstly, yes a straw man IS a misrepresentation of the others’ position, BUT….
    (did you notice that BUT there……?)
    in this case I was obviously presenting an obviously rather silly, as I said myself, simplistic, simplification (as part of a trite little ditty). And not an argument that such erudite maybe logicians as here would be expected to dream of expounding themselves.

    And (continuing that but), as I said above (but in one ear and out the etc), there is (and this IS my argument) there IS (a) a proposed approximately justified generalisation there, and (b) as Stanley usefully explains above, what a person thinks is their reasoning and what it actually is can be two distinct things.

    So what the real demonstration of straw would be is to show (by citation) one or more exceptions refuting those blank cheeky generalisations I have penned above. Like instances of when the lbrb home team have agreed they were wrong or AoA/GR/etc were right about something.

    As I said already, I can’t be expected to prove a negative (except here, sure).

    Examples eagerly awaited, Cheers.

    • Kev May 30, 2011 at 19:56 #

      No RobinP.

      You gave a specific example. Your specific example was incorrect. Have the good grace to admit it or stop trolling and go off somewhere else. Thats not a suggestion by the way.

  19. robinp May 30, 2011 at 21:44 #

    The Geiers have produced some excellent work (recently) and also produced some very poor (earlier). But nothing like as abysmal as some of what has come out of the most “distinguished” sources such as CDC, FDA, APA, MIND, etc. Details of all this will be presented later in the proper places.

    Chris wrote:

    “He has been charged with the very serious crime of practicing medicine without a license.”

    But this overlooks the fundamental distinction between the two meanings of the word “crime”. On the one hand breaches of timeless and placeless principles of morality/ethics (murdering Sullivan before s/he has time to recant comes to mind for some reason). On the other hand breaches of the mere laws made by mere men who assert themselves as being something more.

    In the latter category are a great many “crimes” committed by those who defied the orders of the Nazis, and the “criminal” words and deeds of many biology professors which resulted in their becoming persecuted by Lysenkoist pseudoscience “experts” and being consigned to Siberian salt-mines.

    There’s a key mega-mistake that pervades lbrb, which is the assumption that “authorities” are valid indicators of truth. In some fields at some times this assumption can be justified. But in the fields of autism causation and mercury toxicity the reverse would be more accurate currently. We really do have a Lysenkoist situation where the charlatans are running the show and persecuting the genuine experts. In fact when genuine experts reign over a field, they find no need for the sort of fascist persecution that we are seeing in so much of medicine (of which Wakefield is just one example pour encourager les autres never to stick their necks out).

    Again, full details to show this will have to wait for some other time and place. Hopefully quite soon.

    So D Geier has been charged with the “serious crime” of not having what the authoritarian “authorities” consider to be the required authorisation. Please rest assured that any such “crime” (even if genuinely bad) is utterly, utterly trivial compared to the gigantic real, massively injurious crimes against universal morality of massive medical fraud committed by some of your Holy Gods Above. Again, details will be spelled out in due time and place.

  20. robinp May 30, 2011 at 22:02 #

    I note that Kev now resorts to the cheap t-word and appears to have missed the key point I made right back in my first reply at
    May 30th, 2011
    09:12:35.
    “Meanwhile it didn’t surprise me that the validity of the general point (rather than possibilities about the pedantic precision) would escape at least one fellow-commenter here.”

  21. Chris May 30, 2011 at 23:01 #

    You have just invoked Nazis to exonerate Mr. Geier practicing medicine without a license. That Godwin makes you worthy of being ignored.

  22. Sharon May 30, 2011 at 23:04 #

    robinup sys “Details of all this will be presented later in proper places”. Says it all really. Pathetically predictable. Go away and come back when these details have been presented in “proper places”. We wont hold our breath while waiitng.

  23. Julian Frost May 31, 2011 at 06:28 #

    robinp:

    full details to show this will have to wait for some other time and place. Hopefully quite soon.

    I call this the Billy Bunter Gambit. Seriously, do you really believe this will convince us? For years (literally!), a commenter here by the name of SmarterThanYou claimed that evidence that would prove the anti-vaxxers right would be coming out “within six months”. It never did.

  24. robinp May 31, 2011 at 10:48 #

    “Seriously, do you really believe this will convince us?”

    Seriously, do I believe anything could convince the faithful little congregation here? I was just stating the situation and too bad if it doesn’t at this time and place constitute the required response.

    BUT meanwhile, yet again, the faithful here focus on any old excuse for criticism while ignoring that point about the double meaning of “crimes” which does not really need any more documentation to make clear. And ditto about the false assumption that if the “authorities” say something then it must be true. Most of what thinks itself to be sound reasoning here in reality amounts to little more than circular “reasoning” starting out from “Our preferred authorities are by definition correct” and ending up with conclusions that “therefore what our preferred authorities say is indeed correct”.

  25. robinp May 31, 2011 at 10:53 #

    The responses I am getting on this site are becoming so predictable in their shallowness and lack of interest in advancing knowledge and understanding that I’m forced to conclude that I should go instead to other places more deserving of my time. Cheers.

    • Kev May 31, 2011 at 11:13 #

      [rolleyes]

  26. RAJ May 31, 2011 at 11:28 #

    Just when the vaccine theory was considered dead, a report like this suddenly turns up:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21623535

    • Kev May 31, 2011 at 11:49 #

      Come on RAJ, have you actually read that paper? It cites a paper from 1884, a press release as evidence autism was rare in the 90’s, the Geiers etc.

    • Kev May 31, 2011 at 11:53 #

      I also see the author is a SafeMinds member. Surprise surprise.

  27. robinp May 31, 2011 at 12:35 #

    Oh well. I was just thinking that vaccine paper was one thing myself and the lbrb home team could agree on….though, mind you….

    It cites a paper from 1884,

    Indeed, how can anything be worth believing from before the CDC, FDA and APA had even been founded?

    a press release as evidence autism was rare in the 90’s,

    Indeed, why should we credit anything a journalist writes if it isn’t at least published in the BMA’s drug-advert-filled trade rag?

    the Geiers etc.

    Indeed, when two unregulated Geiers mesh together who’s to know what might result?

    I also see the author is a SafeMinds member.

    ….rather than a signed-in paid-out member of a credible nice big decently profitable corporation or univerporation.

    So indeed agreed, on all those eminently scientific criteria of credibility!

  28. Kev May 31, 2011 at 12:53 #

    robinp – your posts are devoid of any substance. If you want a debate, then debate properly. Cite your reasons. A wild Big Pharma Are Evil type conspiracy theory is both boring and predictable.

    Do you have anything to bring to the table besides ranting? If not, I’ll give you your second warning. You only get three by the way.

  29. Sharon May 31, 2011 at 13:20 #

    robinup, I thought you were leaving. Dont let the door hit you on the arse on the way out.

  30. robinp May 31, 2011 at 14:30 #

    Sharon –
    “If you can keep your head when all about you
    Are losing theirs….”

    ;~]]

    • Kev May 31, 2011 at 14:38 #

      robinp – last chance.

  31. observer May 31, 2011 at 18:13 #

    This is a junk journal, and the abstract is written in such an ignorant, slovenly way it’s amazing that even they published it.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Autism Blog – David Geier ousted from autism commission « Left … | My Autism Site | All About Autism - May 24, 2011

    […] Read this article: Autism Blog – David Geier ousted from autism commission « Left … […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: