Archive | Geier RSS feed for this section

Controversial autism doctor Mark Geier loses licenses in Missouri, Illinois

4 Nov

Mark Geier has been discussed a great deal here on Left Brain/Right Brain. Including very recently on the topic of this article. Much of that discussion has recently centered on his belief that not only is autism caused by mercury, but that mercury somehow is bound to testosterone and that by reducing the amount of testosterone in the body one can reduce the amount of mercury and, thus in his flawed model, treat autism. Mr. Geier’s clinical practice was found to have been flawed as well and he lost his license to practice medicine in his home state of Maryland. He was licensed in multiple other states as well, including Missouri and Illinois. With the loss of his license in Maryland, other states have followed in license actions.

The St. Louis Post Dispatch reports: ” Controversial autism doctor Mark Geier loses licenses in Missouri, Illinois”.

Todd W. Of Harpocrates Speaks writes about this in “Mark Geier on his Last Leg” where he notes that Mark Geier is still licensed in Hawai’i only.

Todd W. keeps a map of states where Mark Geier has lost his license.

By Matt Carey

Mark and David Geier, holed up in Missouri?

5 Oct

There is really no fun in writing about people whose lack of ethical standards harm disabled children. Seriously, it is painful. I know at least one autism blogger who quit in no small part because it was just too hard to keep writing about these topics.

And here in one week, both Andrew Wakefield and the Geiers (Mark and David) come back up in the news. A recent story in the St. Louis Post Dispatch discusses the Geiers: Controversial autism doctor loses license elsewhere, but can still practice in Missouri, Illinois

Mark Geier is an M.D. and was licensed in multiple states (I’ve lost count of how many and which ones). His home base is Maryland. His license was suspended there and many other states have followed suit. David Geier holds no medical credentials and is charged with practicing medicine without a license in Maryland.

As noted above, most, but not all, states have followed suit with suspending Mark Geier’s license.

The St. Louis Post Dispatch writes (reminding me of which states Mr. Geier has been licensed):

Dr. Mark Geier has opened eight autism treatment clinics called ASD Centers across the country but is only allowed to practice at two of them — in St. Peters and Springfield, Ill.

Missouri and Illinois are among the last states to seek discipline against Geier, whose hormone therapy for children with autism has been called dangerous, abusive and exploitive by various medical boards.

In the last two years, his medical license has been revoked or suspended in California, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, Texas, Virginia and Washington.

Missouri, Illinois and Hawaii have filed complaints against Geier based on other states’ actions, but his license remains active in all three states. A disciplinary hearing in Geier’s case is set for Oct. 19 before the Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts in Jefferson City

The Geier hypothesis is that mercury binds with testosterone in the brain, making it difficult to chelate. They prescribe Lupron to reduce testosterone. The idea would be laughable if it weren’t being used on humans (or any animal for that matter).

Briefly–the Geier’s cited a paper showing that in hot benzene,
(more details in Miscellaneous Mercury Nonsense), mercuric chloride and testosterone can be induced to form chemical complexes.

I had hopes that the Geiers had moved away from this idea, but they stand by it:

David Geier said Wednesday that “many peer-reviewed scientific studies” have been published that support the theory. All of the research articles cited on the ASD Centers’ website are co-authored by Mark or David Geier.

The fact that the Geiers were able to get papers published in third rate journals doesn’t make their ideas true. Or even feasible.

Mr. David Geier did not attend medical school. Neither did I but I will offer him this small bit of medical advice: Among other logical problems with your idea, the human brain is not the same thing as a beaker of hot benzene.

Point two: even if your idea held any merit, Lupron lowers the level of testosterone in the blood, it doesn’t break up these mythical mercury-testosterone complexes.

The Geiers are demonstrating a major problem with the medical license system in the U.S.. It took years to bring the Geiers to hearing. Now that Mark Geier has lost his license in his home state, he has moved to other “safe havens” to continue business? How is this right.

I recall a number of med students and premeds I knew while in college and grad school. The hoops they had to jump through to get their degrees and get licensed and start working seemed enormous. Now we see why: it’s so hard to stop someone from practicing.

Mark Geier’s license suspended in Florida, revoked in Indiana

22 Aug

Dr. Mark Geier is well known within the alternative-medicine and vaccine-causation segments of the autism communities. As a practitioner, Dr. Geier is probably best known for therapies purporting to treat autism through approaches claiming to work on removing mercury. The idea that mercury is involved in autism etiology is a failed hypothesis on it’s own. But Dr. Geier’s treatment ideas included a frankly incredible notion that mercury is bound in the body by testosterone, so, he hypothesized, by reducing the body’s production of this hormone, one could better remove the mercury. To reduce testosterone, Dr. Geier proposed (and prescribed) drugs such as Lupron. It is not a bad idea–it is a series of bad idea. Very bad ideas.

These ideas are so poor in concept that it is difficult to get insurance companies to pay for Lupron for reducing mercury in the body. In an apparent move to avoid this difficulty, Dr. Geier diagnosed autistic children with precocious puberty. Dr. Geier’s methods were lacking and due to this and other factors, Dr. Geier’s license came under suspension in his home state of Maryland.

Dr. Geier was licensed in many states. When a doctor faces disciplinary action in his home state, he is supposed to report those actions to other states where he holds a license. As Catherina reports in Bad month for the Geiers: Mark R. Geier’s medical license suspended in Florida, Dr. Geier appears to have failed to inform Florida in a timely manner. The full decision is linked on the Just the Vax site, and also can be found here.

Todd W. of Harpocrates Speaks further notes that Dr. Geier’s license had been revoked–not suspended, revoked–in Indiana. In Mark “Castrate ‘Em” Geier’s License Suspended – Part 7 Todd W. notes:

Indiana also made a further step, going beyond mere suspension to actually revoking his license in that state. The revocation comes because he failed to appear before the board regarding his suspension, thereby defaulting on any appeal to their decision. The final order, dated July 5, 2012 further imposed a $5 fee and a fine of $3,000.

Further reading about the “Lupron Protocol” can be found at, where Kathleen Seidel’s thorough reporting was the first to expose many of the questionable practices.

If I understand correctly, Dr. Geier remains licensed in both Illinois, Missouri and Hawai’i. However, he faces more charges in his home state of Maryland.

Missouri notes the fact that Dr. Geier has faced license suspension in other states. His license is up for renewal there Jan 31, 2013. In Illinois, his license is active, with a notation that he has not been “ever disciplined”. His license comes up for renewal there July 30, 2014. His Hawai’i license is “current, valid and in good standing” and valid through 01/31/2014.

by Matt Carey

(note, the last paragraph was added shortly after this article was published)

David Geier ordered to pay $10,000 for practicing medicine without a license

13 Aug

David Geier is the son in a father-son team which ran a clinic purporting to treat autism through such unproven and biologically implausible methods as chelation and lupron.  In addition, the team produced questionable quality research promoting the link between autism and vaccines.  While Mark Geier holds an M.D., David Geier holds no degree nor other qualifications in medicine.

The Maryland State Board of Physicians charged Mr. Geier with practicing medicine without a license and, recently, the board found him guilty and fined him $10,000. Mr. Geier has the right to appleal. More details can be found in the Board’s order.

by Matt Carey

Lupron, soon to be a patented autism treatment?

1 Jun

Lurpon and similar drugs are used to reduce the production of sex hormones in the human body. These drugs are used to treat prostate cancer, uterine fibroids and precocious puberty. In the autism community, Lupron came to prominence as an alternative medical treatment for autism. The theory, put forth by father and son team Mark and David Geier, was that mercury in the brain was bound to testosterone, making it impossible to remove by chelation. By reducing the amount of mercury

The Geiers filed a patent for their idea. Here is the abstract for that patent application:

The present invention relates to methods of treating a subject diagnosed with autism or an autism spectrum disorder, lowering the level of mercury in a subject determined to contain a high level of mercury, methods of lowering the level of mercury in a child diagnosed with autism, lowering the level of at least one androgen in a subject diagnosed with autism, lowering the level of mercury and the level of at least one androgen in a subject diagnosed with autism and methods of assessing the risk of whether a child is susceptible of developing autism.

And their first claim (claims are the heart of a patent and claim one is the most important):

1. A method of lowering the level of mercury in a subject suffering from mercury toxicity, the method comprising the steps of:

a) administering to said subject a pharmaceutically effective amount of at least one luteinizing hormone releasing hormone composition; and
b) repeating step a) as necessary to lower the level of mercury in said subject.

Yes, it was all about mercury.

Well there’s good news and bad news on this front. Good news is that the patent office saw through the mercury angle. Bad news is that the patent application is still alive.

The original patent application had 109 claims. The first claim for the original application is above.

Here’s the new claim 1 (in case you want to skip the long paragraph of legalese, note that mercury is not mentioned):

1. A method of treating a subject suffering from autism, the method comprising the step of: a) administering to the subject a pharmaceutically effective amount of at least one luteinizing hormone releasing hormone composition to treat the autism, wherein the at least one luteinizing hormone releasing hormone composition is administered in a sufficient amount and over a sufficient period of time to control clinical symptoms of autism to a desired level, and wherein when the subject is younger than 18 years and said luteinizing hormone releasing hormone composition comprises leuprolide acetate, and the subject is administered a dosage of the composition of at least about 20 ug/kg per day for at least 28 days or said leuprolide acetate dosage is administered via a slow release formulation that releases said leuprolide acetate daily dosage over a 28 day period, and wherein when the subject is 18 years old or older than 18 years said luteinizing hormone releasing hormone composition comprises leuprolide acetate, and the subject is administered a dosage of leuprolide acetate of at least about 0.3 mg per day for at least 28 days or said leuprolide acetate dosage is administered via a slow release formulation that releases said leuprolide acetate daily dosage over a 28 day period.

Yes, claim 1 is very different. In fact, the patent application now has only 30 claims. None of which mention mercury. It’s a good guess that the patent examiner rejected a lot of claims.

The rest of the patent still has a great deal of mercury discussion. Patent examiners don’t usually require changes to the body of the patent, just the claims. The body included this statement:

It is known in the art that mercuric chloride binds and forms a complex with testosterone in vitro and possibly in subjects (See, Cooper et al., “The Crystal Structure and Absolute Configuration of the 2:1 Complex between Tesosterone and Mercuric Chloride,” Acta Crystallogr B., 1968, 15:24(7):935-41).

This was their “sheets of mercury and testisterone” theory. They showed that in the literature there is evidence of mercury binding to testosterone. Trouble for their theory is that the paper cited involves mixing mercury with testosterone in a beaker of hot benzene. The idea that this same process happens in the human brain was an amazing stretch of logic.

One of the many incredible leaps if logic in their story.

I don’t think either the Geiers or the patent examiner have spent much time at all on the body of the patent. Here’s a typo that’s propagated through multiple iterations of the patent over many years:

Today, humans are exposed to mercury from a variety of different sources, including dental amalgams, certain industries such as battery, thermometer and barometer manufacturing, ingestion of certain foods such as fish and shellfish, environmental pollution resulting from the use of fossil foods, prescription medicines, and from vaccinations and other biologicals, such as Rho immune globulin, containing thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative.

Emphasis mine

Somewhere over the years they might have picked up on “fossil foods”, one would think.

The bottom line is that the Geier lupron protocol patent application is still alive, albeit in a much reduced form. If I recall correctly the manufacturer of lupron had a stake in the patent as originally submitted but they have transferred their stake to the Geiers. Apparently the company decided to get out of the lupron-for-disabled-children business.

The Geiers are left with the patent and whatever future royalties it would bring. Which I doubt will be much. It would be interesting to see how many of there talks fail to mention their financial stake, though. Are they informing parents and the doctors they are pitching this idea that they stand to make money off this?

Also of interest are the case histories included in the patent. At least one child had no indications that lupron was required. This is exactly the sort of practice that resulted in Mark Geier’s license suspended.

Lupron and similar drugs are powerful medicine. They have legitimate uses. When dealing with children it only seems prudent to work with a pediatric endocrinologist. One has to ask why the Geiers don’t refer children to the appropriate specialist. The sad answer is that pediatric endocrinologists probably would reject the diagnoses given by the Geiers.

The Geier story on testosterone shifts again

19 Apr

When Mark and David Geier first proposed using Lupron on autistic children, it was supposedly to help remove mercury from the brain. Their theory was that mercury and testosterone bound together in the brain and that this prevented chelators from being able to remove the mercury. They first approached the Rev. Lisa Sykes, whose son was one of their patients, with the idea. You can hear her discuss that encounter here.

The blurb for that video was:

The Reverend Lisa Sykes is the mother of a recovering autistic boy (Wesley) and an ordained minister, currently serving as Pastor for the Christ United Methodist Church in Richmond, Virginia. In this interview, Rev. Sykes discusses how she came to having her son treated using the Geiers’ “lupron” protocol to more effectively remove heavy metals by first lowering Wesley’s abnormally high testosterone levels.

In the video, Rev. Sykes quotes David Geier (Mark Geier’s non-doctor son and partner in his clinic and research) in the video as saying:

“Do you know, we’ve figured something out!”

“We think we can get rid of the mercury by lowering the testosterone”

As the Geiers and the Rev. Sykes have been major proponents of the failed mercury causation idea, this is not surprising.

The science behind the idea was bad. To the point of laughable, if it weren’t for the danger posed to disabled children.

Mr. Geier has since had his license to practice medicine suspended, in large part due his “Lupron protocol” and the way he misdiagnosed children with “precocious puberty” in order to prescribe Lupron.

The Geiers and Rev. Sykes have a new paper out: “An evaluation of the role and treatment of elevated male hormones in autism spectrum disorders.”

The word “mercury” doesn’t appear in the main body of the paper at all. Just in a citation to one of the Geier team early papers. But they do conclude:

Anti-androgen therapy should be considered as an effective means to significantly help improve clinical features of patients diagnosed with an ASD.

The paper was published in Acta Neurobiol Exp, a journal by the Neuroscience Society. The journal has an editor who is a proponent of the idea that vaccines cause autism and has a history of publishing low quality papers promoting the idea.

Frankly, I see this as an attempt by the Geiers to create a defense for their previous actions, those which resulted in Mark Geier’s license suspension. By distancing themselves from both the purported chelation idea and the precocious puberty idea they can create a justification for why they treated disabled children with a drug for which there was no clinically indicated need.

Suspension of Mark Geier is upheld

19 Apr

Mark Geier is a name well known in the autism world of alternative medicine as well as a major source of papers purporting to link autism to mercury. He had a medical practice, was licensed in multple states, presented repeatedly at autism parent alt-med conventions, and served as a witness for the vaccine court.

Mr. Geier’s license to practice medicine was suspended last year. Since then he has tried a few avenues to get his ability to practice reinstated, at least while he is pursuing appeals. The Maryland State Board of Physicians has denied his request and issued a (second) cease and desist order informing him to stop practicing medicine.

Mr. Geier and his son, David Geier, took a theory from Prof. Simon Baron-Cohen: the “extreme male brain” concept of autism. Where Prof. Baron-Cohen focused on the effects of fetal testosterone levels on brain development, the Geier team somehow arrived at the idea that autistics have mercury bound in to testosterone in their brains. One can read an analysis of this theory at A Photon in the Darkness, Miscellaneous Mercury Nonsense. As you can imagine from the title of that article, the autism/mercury/testosterone idea was an obviously bad idea from the start.

Unfortunately, the Geiers took this bad idea from theory to practice. They further hypothesized that these mercury/testosterone sheets prevented chelators from removing the mercury. So, they futher hypothesied, by reducing the amount of testosterone in the body, the mercury bound in these supposed mercury/testosterone sheets would be released allowing chelators to remove the mercury. Why lower levels of testosterone would lead to these supposed mercury/testosterone complexes breaking down is not well explained. Which is another way of saying it doesn’t make sense.

It is worth noting that these sheets, or matrices as the Geiers dubbed them, of mercury and testosterone do exist. In laboratories. After boiling mercury compounds in beakers of benzene. As Prometheus wrote back in 2006:

This is not a condition even remotely similar to anything found in living tissue – of any vertebrate species. In other words, it isn’t likely to happen in autistic children unless you dissolve them in hot benzene.

Basically every link in their logic chain was bad. But this did not stop the Geiers from applying Lupron as a treatment. The drugs for reducing testosterone production (such as Lupron) are expensive. Insurance doesn’t pay for Lupron to reduce testosterone levels in disabled children so that non-existent mercury/testosterone sheets will break down by some unexplained mechanism so that chelators can remove the mercury which is not really linked to autism. Probably because of the insurance angle, the Geier’s prescribed Lupron and similar drugs not for the supposed ability to help the chelating process, but to treat precocious puberty. Early onset of puberty.

According to the Maryland Board, based on records and testimony from patient’s parents, the Geiers failed to do the basic work involved in diagnosing precocious puberty and, in some cases, diagnosed precocious puberty in children who were old enough to be going through puberty.

Sound complicated? They were diagnosing precocious puberty without the proper tests in children who didn’t have it in order to prescribe drugs to reduce testosterone levels so that mercury/testosterone sheets which don’t exist in their brains will break down and allow a chelator to remove the mercury which doesn’t cause autism.

Lupron is not a mild drug. It reduces sex hormones and delays puberty. Children are supposed to go through puberty at a given time in their lives and delaying it comes at a cost. In addition the drug itself has side effects. From the recent decision upholding the suspension of Mr. Geier’s license:

Lupron treatment carries a very high risk of skin abscesses and infections, and it is contraindicated in patients with a history of seizures. Dr. Geier nevertheless prescribed it for Patient B, who had a history or uncontrolled seizures. Nor did Dr. Geier perform all of the necessary diagnostic procedures before prescribing Lupron. Nor did Dr. Geier physically examine Patient B until almost three years after he began prescribing for him. See Proposed Decision at 33, 37-38. This is only one example of the truly risky behavior that Dr. Geier engaged in with these patients.

Mr. Geier’s license to practice medicine was suspended last year by the Maryland Board of Medical Practice. He tried to defend himself in a series of actions since, with this action being the final word.

The Board “entirely agrees” with the a previous decision that allowing Mr. Geier to continue to practice medicine while awaiting the determination of formal charges raises the likelihood of serious harm to public health and safety:

The ALJ concluded that “allowing [Dr. Geier] to continue practicing medicine while formal charges are pending raises a substantial liltelihood of risk of serious harm to the public health, safety, or welfare.” The Board entirely agrees. For Dr. Geier to practice medicine at this time would constitute a danger to the patient community.(3)

The footnote (3) in the above statement was already quoted in this artice–look above to the paragraph on “Lupron treatment carries a very high risk…”

The Board repeated this position in their conclusion:

“I conclude that for all these reasons, the Patients’ health, safety or welfare was at risk of serious harm.. Further, the existence of all these problems throughout all the Records raises a substantial likelihood that the risk of serious harm to the Patients was also posed to many other children with autism treated by the Respondent. I find that this meets the necessary standard for summary suspension of the Respondent’s license: allowing him to continue practicing medicine while formal charges are pending raises a substantial likelihood of risk of serious harm to the public health, safety, or welfare,”

One very troubling argument made by Mr. Geier was that he was not required to have an Institutional Review Board for his research. One of the charges against Mr. Geier involved an IRB he instituted–where he, his son, his wife, a patient’s mother and other interested parties were members of the IRB. The Board did not address whether such a board was required, but did dismiss the charge based on the lack of evidence put forth by the State. More discussion on the IRB can be found at in the article An Elusive Institute.

The Respondent argued both that he was not required by federal law to have an Internal Review Board and, that even if he was bound by such a requirement, the State failed to produce any evidence that his board operated in a flawed manner. The State did not dispute this argument in its response to the Motion. I agree with the Respondent that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to survive a motion for judgment on the allegations related to an Internal Review Board. See COMAR C’ Md. Rule 2-519. I will recommend that this portion of the Motion be granted and further recommend that paragraphs 157 through 162 of the Order for Summary Suspension be dismissed.

The thought that somene (Mr. Geier in this case) believes that research could be performed on anyone, not just disabled children, without the protection of an IRB is frightening.

In what is to this reader the most ironic statement by Mr. Geier in this action:

Finally, Dr. Geier accuses the ALJ of establishing a new and unwarranted standard for the medical care of children with autism. Again, Dr. Geier fails to acknowledge that the ALJ relied to some extent on the testimony of his own expert witnesses, and on his own sworn statement, to make her findings regarding the standard of care and the deficiencies in Dr. Geier’s practice.

Yes. Dr. Geier accuses the ALJ of establishing a “new and unwarranted standard for the medical care of children with autism.” Mr. Geier, who while he may not have been the first to promote chelation for autism has been one of the primary proponents, Mr. Geier is part of the team who invented the idea of Lupron as a part of a chelation protocol. A “new and unwarranted standard for medical care of children with autism”.

In addition to this decision, and the cease and desist order, Mr. Geier’s licenses to practice have been suspended in California, New Jersey, Indiana, Florida, Ohio, Washington and Virgina.

The Maryland Board accepted James Adams (a materials scientist) as an expert on chelation, at the behest of Mr. Geier. The opinions offered by Mr. Adams differ from those of medical toxicologists (a group of physicians trained and in practice to treat poisoning):

The Respondent [Geier] testified in his sworn statement that he orders chelation therapy for hispatients on “various” schedules “every other day or a few days on and a few days off for a couple of months – three months.” State’s Ex, 8 at 34. Yet, the Respondent’s expert on chelation, Dr. Adams, testified credibly that patients need an even longer break between rounds of chelation: three days of chelation followed by eleven days off. Dr. Adams also testified that chelation therapy should only be initiated after a patient is given a short “challenge” dose of chelation to ensure that the patient actually needs the therapy. If administered to a patient who does not need it, chelation poses serious risks of injury to the brain and other organs. It is imperative, therefore, that a physician only administer chelation on a limited basis to the patients who actually need it. The Respondent not only skipped the challenge step necessary to ensure chelation was even necessary, but then went full force into chelation therapy on an intensive schedule (with an experimental drug.not FDA-approved for that purpose) without appropriate rest breaks. In several cases, moreover, the Respondent failed to regularly monitor the effects of chelation, and in two cases he prescribed it for patients that he knew he could not monitor.

The concept of a “challenge test” for diagnosing mercury intoxication is covered by the American College of Medical Toxicologists in American College of Medical Toxicology Position Statement on Post-Chelator Challenge Urinary Metal Testing. Who concluded:

“It is, therefore, the position of the American College of Medical Toxicology that post-challenge urinary metal testing has not been scientifically validated, has no demonstrated benefit, and may be harmful when applied in the assessment and treatment of patients in whom there is concern for metal poisoning.

I hope that the Maryland Board looks into this issue of challenge testing before ruling again on such issues.

Mr. Geier is scheduled to give a talk at a large annual autism-parent convention. Last year, after the first action suspending his license, he was reportedly given a standing ovation at this convention. This reader is at a loss to understand why.


15 Mar

The Coalition for Mercury Free Drugs (CoMeD) is an organization run by Mark and David Geiers. This is the father/son team which has promoted some of the most questionable research trying to link autism (and more) to mercury, especially in vaccines. They are also notorious for their “lupron protocol”, a therapy where a strong drug is used to reduce sex hormones in a bid to remove heavy metals from the body (if this doesn’t make sense to you, don’t worry about your understanding. It doesn’t make any sense).

CoMeD petitioned the secretary of health and human services (Kathleen Sebelius) to stop all use of thimerosal containing vaccines. The original petition was denied, and, now, Their appeal was dismissed.

We recognize plaintiffs’ genuine concern about thimerosal-preserved vaccines. But plaintiffs are not required to receive thimerosal-preserved vaccines; they can readily obtain thimerosal-free vaccines. They do not have standing to challenge FDA’s decision to allow other people to receive thimerosal-preserved vaccines. Plaintiffs may, of course, advocate that the Legislative and Executive Branches ban all thimerosal-preserved vaccines. But because plaintiffs are suffering no cognizable injury as a result of FDA’s decision to allow thimerosal-preserved vaccines, their lawsuit is not a proper subject for the Judiciary. We affirm the judgment of the District Court.

The decision ended simply: “We affirm the District Court’s judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ suit for lack of standing.”

Mark Geier: Cease and Desist

26 Feb

From the Baltimore Sun: ‘Cease and desist’ order issued against autism doctor

Dr. Mark R. Geier, a Rockville doctor accused of improperly treating children with autism, has been ordered by the state Board of Physicians to stop practicing medicine while his license is suspended.

The doctor’s license was suspended in April after the board concluded his hormone and chelation therapy endangered the children in his care. But the board in a new “cease and desist” order this week accused the doctor of refilling prescriptions for at least three patients in violation of the suspension.

The doctor has appealed the suspension of his license. His lawyer declined to comment on the newest claims.

Is Mark Geier finished as an expert witness in the vaccine court?

10 Dec

Dr. Mark Geier is a name which has come up frequently in the autism/vaccine discussion, and in alternative medical therapies (such as Lupron) of autism. Dr. Geier has been an expert witness for petitioners in the vaccine court for about two decades. He has been criticized by the court for almost as long. Dr. Geier has recently had his medical license suspended.

Mark Geier and his son David have worked for the Petitioners Steering Committee (the lawyers handling the plaintiffs’ cases in the Autism Omnibus). But their relationship seems a bit strained. They filed suit asking for $600,000 in payment. The Geiers have had previous requests for fees drastically reduced or denied, including one where they expected the Court to cover $20,000 as their costs (and hourly rate, including while sitting on planes) to attend conferences in Italy and France. The court called this “a complete abdication of billing judgment.”

In a recent court decision, Dr. Geier has been criticized again. Thoroughly. But this very strong statement from the special master makes it clear that Dr. Geier’s future as an expert witness or consultant will be very restricted:

I will not likely be inclined to compensate attorneys in any future opinions for consultant work performed by Mark Geier after the publication date of this opinion.

The decision focused on expenses the Petitioner’s Steering Committee (PSC) charged in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding for Mark Geier, his son David Geier and their colleagues. Much of these charges resulted from a study they published, Thimerosal exposure in infants and neurodevelopmental disorders: An assessment of computerized medical records in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. Epiwonk (a former professional epidemiologist for the CDC) discussed the paper in New Study on Thimerosal and Neurodevelopmental Disorders: I. Scientific Fraud or Just Playing with Data?

The study noted in the acknowledgements that the study was funded by the PSC:

This study received funding from the Autism Petitioners’ Steering Committee of the no-fault National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).

The Geier/Young team billed the PSC, and the PSC billed the vaccine injury trust fund vaccine court. As you can read, they just weren’t successful.

The Geiers tried some fancy footwork to get the Young-Geier study paid for by our tax dollars.  Including an apparent attempt to get the non-doctor David Geier compensated by charging work at their company, “medcon”, rather than naming David Geier as the recipient.

Bottom line–the PSC asked for $440k to compensate the people who worked on the Young-Geier study.  They got $33k, and a strong statement that Geier will be unlikely to be compensated by the program in the future.

If you are curious about the value of the study itself, there is a whole section of the decision titled “The Young-Geier article itself did not add any value to the petitioners’ causation case.”

In their application, the PSC sought a total of $7,202,653 for interim fees and costs. with $1.35M for costs, primarily expert witness costs (note that the Geiers did not actually serve as witnesses, so they are part of the “costs”)

Out of $1,350,000 in costs one might ask how much of this was for the Young-Geier study?

As noted above, this Decision on Remand concerns the PSC’s claim for compensation for amounts paid, or to be paid, to four experts/consultants: Dr. Mark Geier, David Geier, Dr. Heather Young and Dr. Robert Hirsch. Conceptually, this claim can be broken into two parts. First, petitioners seek $447,004.02 to compensate all four of those individuals for work on an original medical article that was published in 2008. Second, petitioners seek $197,823.94 more for miscellaneous additional services provided by Mark Geier and David Geier between 2003 and 2008.

$447K. One third of the total. A large number of expert witnesses actually produced reports and testified, but the Geier team was to receive 1/3 of the total. If you take a high rate of $500/hour, this works out to 22 full time man weeks. For a study where they didn’t have to collect data, just analyze it. I find it difficult to believe this study took 22 weeks (or more, as the $500/hour is a very high estimate).

The Geiers were not slated to get the majority of the money. Heather Young, an associate professor at George Washington University, was to get the lion’s share. About a quarter of a million dollars:

Petitioners would receive $248,636.91 to compensate Dr. Young, $157,407.11 for the two Geiers, and $41,000 for Dr. Hirsch

Unless GWU pays their associate professors much more than is common, this represents well over one year’s pay for Prof. Young.

Thankfully HHS (respondent) argued against this request:

Respondent argues strenuously, in response, that it would be wholly unreasonable for the Program to provide compensation to these individuals for their efforts concerning the article.

Is it reasonable to charge for studies created for litigation? Are they of high value to the case?

I note that the Supreme Court has expressed the view that medical studies produced expressly for litigation purposes should be viewed with skepticism.


The views of these courts, then, reinforce the concern that if a lawyer involved in a Vaccine Act case chooses specific experts and pays them to carry out a study, the potential is great for bias in the study, toward the outcome that would assist the clients of the lawyer paying for the study. Thus, it is arguable that, as the respondent contends, it would be poor public policy, in general, for special masters to award public funds for such original studies.


Rather, I conclude that under all the specific circumstances of this case, it would not be reasonable for me to compensate the named individuals for the production of this particular article.

The PSC argued that the paper was not “litigation driven”.  The SM didn’t accept the argument:

As to the former point, I am simply not persuaded by the suggestion that the article was not litigation-driven….The mere fact that the PSC lawyers contributed or promised monetary support for another article co-authored by the Geiers, concerning the topic of whether thimerosal-containing vaccines can cause autism, is itself strong evidence that the article was litigation-driven.

Further, the very fact that the petitioners are now seeking Vaccine Act funds for the cost of producing the article is a very strong indication that the article was litigation-driven.

If that wasn’t enough, the PSC argument backfired in another way:

If the article was produced “completely apart from [Dr. Geier’s] involvement in this [Vaccine Act] litigation,” and would have been produced even absent that litigation, that would seem to contradict the petitioners’ claim that paying the cost of producing the article was a necessary and reasonable cost of the Vaccine Act litigation.

How was the Young-Geier study used in the Omnibus? Was it persuasive? Answer: it wasn’t really used and it wasn’t persuasive.

The HHS/DOJ’s experts were critical of the Young-Geier study:

Perhaps the strongest factor leading to my result here is my conclusion that the Young-Geier article itself did not add any value to the petitioners’ causation presentation in this case. Two epidemiologic experts, both of them testifying for respondent, testified at the trial in this case concerning the merits of the Young-Geier article, and both testified that the article was deeply flawed.

Even the PSC’s own experts were not impressed by the Geiers in general:

And, very significantly, none of the petitioners’ five medical experts who testified at the trial offered any testimony in support of the validity of the Young-Geier article. It is especially striking that among petitioners’ experts was an expert who has excellent credentials in epidemiology, Dr. Sander Greenland. Dr. Greenland in fact testified negatively about the Geiers’ prior epidemiologic articles concerning the vaccine-autism controversy, describing those studies as“deficient in methodology.”

Prof. Greenland didn’t speak to the Young-Geier article directly, just their methods in other studies.  But the special master points out that this appears to be a trick on the part of the PSC to avoid having to defend the Young-Geier study on cross examination:

Yet they [the PSC] put Dr. Greenland on the witness stand in this King case on May 12, 2008 (Tr. 69-135), did not ask him about the article, and did not reveal the existence of the article to the special masters and respondent until May 16 (see fn. 6 above), thus ensuring that no one could ask Dr. Greenland about the Young-Geier article. From these circumstances, the most reasonable inference is that petitioners’ counsel deliberately intended to avoid any questioning of Dr. Greenland, their epidemiologic expert, about the Young-Geier article.

The special master concludes that the study did not add any value to the PSC’s case and “no rational hypothetical paying client” would have agreed to pay for the production of such a “flawed study”:

In short, the Young-Geier study itself was severely criticized by respondent’s experts, who articulated persuasive reasons for that criticism. In my own analysis, the Young-Geier study also appears flawed. And the other special masters who reviewed that article reached the same conclusion. Clearly, no rational “hypothetical paying client” of the PSC would have agreed to pay for the production of such a flawed study. Thus, the fact that the Young-Geier article did not add any value to the petitioners’ causation presentation in this case is a very strong reason why I should decline to compensate the PSC for the cost of producing the article.

The Special Master notes that given the long history of the Geiers in the vaccine program, it would be unreasonable to expect the program to pay for the cost of the study:

A review of prior legal opinions discussing the Geiers casts strong doubt on the reasonableness of compensating the cost of an article co-authored by them.

The Special Master then goes into detail of those decisions , with an entire section  of the decision dedicated to “Vaccine Act opinions concerning the general credibility of Dr. Geier as an expert witness” including subsections “Criticisms of Dr. Geier for offering testimony outside his area of medical specialty” and “Opinions questioning Dr. Geier’s honesty, candor, or veracity” and “Opinions declining compensation or substantially reducing compensation for Dr. Geier’s services”

If you get the time, read through those. They are highly critical. A condensed version of 20 years of highly critical comments about the actions of the Geiers in the vaccine program (mostly Mark Geier):

Criticism of the Geiers is not limited to their activities in the Vaccine Court. In “Judicial opinions outside of the Vaccine Act” they quote decisions stating “federal appellate court concluded that Dr. Geier gave erroneous testimony” and “state court found Dr. Geier’s testimony to be “unsubstantiated” and unpersuasive” and “federal court was “unimpressed with the qualifications, veracity, and bonafides” and, lastly, “federal judge stated that he was “unconvinced” that Dr. Geier was qualified to offer testimony concerning certain vaccine safety issues.”

The Special Master went into detail about previous flawed studies by the Geiers on vaccines and autism.  He also notes that the assertion that Dr. Geier is qualified as an epidemiologist is not supported:

Thus, Dr. Geier does not appear to have had any formal academic training or degrees or medical faculty experience in epidemiology, and his medical experience has been chiefly in genetics rather than epidemiology. Thus, it is unclear why he was named a “Fellow” of the American College of Epidemiology, and it is doubtful whether he should be considered an expert in epidemiology. I conclude that the petitioners have failed to shoulder their burden of demonstrating that Dr. Geier should be considered an expert in epidemiology.


Further, a number of judges and special masters have also examined Dr. Geier’s credentials, and have specifically concluded that Dr. Geier should not be considered an expert in epidemiology.

He awards fees, as a consultant not expert, for Mark Geier’s other efforts on the Omnibus:

Accordingly, I awarded $33,130.35 (147.246 hours times $225 per hour) for the services of Dr. Geier.

No mention of payment for David Geier or Heather Young.

The Special Master makes it clear that even this amount was grudgingly awarded. Given that *in the past* it was reasonable to hire Mark Geier as a consultant:

I note that it is not an easy judgment whether to award any funds for the services of Dr. Mark Geier in this case. On balance, I conclude that, in light of the cases awarding funds to Dr. Geier as a consultant (see p. 33 above), it was not unreasonable in this instance (several years ago) for the PSC to employ Dr. Geier for consultant services.

But, after 20 years, the vaccine program may have had enough of Mark Geier:

I will not likely be inclined to compensate attorneys in any future opinions for consultant work performed by Mark Geier after the publication date of this opinion.

(emphasis added)

If the court won’t pay his fees, the career of Mark Geier as an expert for vaccine injury cases is over. His son David is not likely to be taking his place, as he has not been considered even viable as a consultant by the special masters. As noted above, Mark Geier’s license to practice medicine has been suspended (in multiple states). David Geier was charged with practicing medicine without a license. One has to wonder if or how the Geiers will re-emerge on the autism/vaccine scene.