Talk:Mark Geier

Biography?

Does anyone have any more information about Mark Geier as a person and scientist? We're sorely lacking details that are normally present in a biography: family, education and training (what schools, when?), even date of birth. Instead, much of this article consists of details that ought to be (or are already duplicated) in the articles Thimerosal, Andrew Wakefield, and MMR vaccine. Perhaps Mark Geier needs to focus more on Mark Geier. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, insofar as the need for further biographical info goes; a request has been forwarded to Geiers' associates. The thimerosal article is quite unstable currently, there is little crossover with the Wakefield article (as it pertains non TCV issues) and while some duplication is to be expected, removal of all redundancy may skew the integrity and accuracy of the Mark Geier article. The expansion of the passage about one clearly upset 'master' appears overblown, so information on the background and qualifications of this individual also needs to be gleaned. Ombudsman 03:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Although I agree that the thimerosal article is being extensively reviewed and edited right now, I don't think that this article should properly serve as a holding pen for that information. If you're concerned it will be lost, copy it to the talk page there, and discuss it in its proper context.

With respect to the Wakefield statements, they certainly need editing from a POV standpoint. Andrew Wakefield's work has faced harsh criticism for conflicts of interest and small sample size; saying that US agencies are "stall[ing]] corroboration" of his research is rather misleading. I thought it was best to avoid as much as possible the whole Wakefield controversy, and attempt to describe the cost/benefit tradeoff of chelation therapy.

I don't think it's helpful to report that Geier was interviewed by NBC but didn't appear on television. Makers of documentaries often perform extensive interviews and record a great deal of footage that they don't actually air. NBC did air a debate between some other experts over the pontential role of vaccines in autism, so it's not that Geier's position was suppressed by the network. (I'm not sure that not appearing in a television special is notable in and of itself.) I left the beginning of that paragraph in place, because I thought it provided a useful context and rationale for Geier's work.

Was Geier the one who actually mined the CDC data for potential vaccine reactions? If so, then perhaps the information should stay here. Otherwise, I would suggest it belongs over in vaccine in a discussion on side effects.

With respect to the Special Master, there were actually several who rejected Geier as an expert witness. The anon provided a link citing the other cases. The one who wrote the specific order in the link is Laura Millman. She has served as a Special Master since 1991 (the decision linked above dates to 2003), and has had a law degree since 1976.

I would ask you not to engage in blanket reversion of edits. Hopefully an excellent article can be forged through constructive discussion on this talk page. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 04:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps doing away with the NBC context is wise, but that begs the question of what is really going on here. Blanket deletions and insertion of POV is the standard operating procedure for the media and US health agencies, and it would be a shame if that were not addressed.

As for the criticism of Wakefield's purported financial interest in a certain study, little attention has been given to the irrationality of the timelines inferred by the smear campaigners, his timely and proper disclosures about the secondary study, and the egregious double standard on such conflicts. The very serious conflicts of interest for the IOM report and Danish epidemiological study (to point out the tip of the iceberg) are given a free pass by the media, scientific establishment and pro-vaccine campaigners.

Yes, the Geiers crunched the numbers, but they had to force the raw data out of the gov't via FOIA. It wasn't hard for them to detect the apparent fraud in the VAERS study: whereas an initial draft detected the correlation, after the lead author was hired by Glaxo, it was sanitized to meet industry criteria, just like the EPA gave a pass to the foregone conclusions requested by the energy industry with regard to mercury pollution. Scientific American just published an editorial bemoaning the way government agencies are giving industry a free pass on scientific input into decisions. Remember, US government agencies have impeded independent clinical research, making their manipulation of epidemiological reports all the more suspect. Are you aware yet of Wakefield's comments on the recent Japanese epidemiological studies?

Speaking of double standards, who are these 'masters' to condemn a medical doctor with a Ph.D. in genetics for his qualifications, of all things, when their own scientific qualifications for judging the Geiers is probably quite limited? Ombudsman 00:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is getting a bit unwieldy, so I'm breaking up my response to the above comment into sections. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Special Master

I'll address that last question first. First, reread the linked reference [1]. Geier was testifying as a medical expert who was introducing a diagnosis of vaccine-induced acute encephalopathy in a patient. To the best of my knowledge, Geier was not the attending physician and did not see the patient until well after the events took place; he was giving an opinion based on information in the case file and medical history.

The PhD in genetics is a red herring. It involves biological and not medical training, and would only be relevant to the matter in question if Geier was diagnosing a gene-linked disorder like Huntington's disease. His MD training is actually more on point, but Geier was an obstetrician and not a paediatric neurologist. By testifying that a particular patient suffered an acute encephalopathy, Geier was making a neurological diagnosis that he probably wasn't qualified to make. Geier further failed to meet the AMA's Code of Ethics standards for an expert witness in this case.

If Geier had wanted to testify about vaccine effects in general, or to the point that a reaction to vaccination may in some cases lead to acute encephalopathy, then as a published researcher in the field he would likely be qualified to do so. He was not qualified to make an neurological diagnosis after the fact for a specific patient, and the Special Master called him on it. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV insertion by media, government?

I'm not clear on what you're saying about blanket deletions and POV with respect to the NBC piece. Geier's viewpoint was presented in the NBC series, just not by Geier. My understanding is that it got a very thorough airing. If you believe there is a systematic suppression in the media of anti-big pharma sentiment, I would have to disagree. The media loves to scare people, legitimately or otherwise. If there was even a hint of suppression and scandal, I would expect it to be plastered all over the news. It's good for ratings and circulation to stick it to drug companies and the government. If anything, it means that bad science gets more than its fair share of airtime in the interest of 'balance'—you need look no further than that absurd Fox piece on how the Apollo moon landings were faked. Although I agree with you that insertion of POV is the modus operandi of the media, I would suggest that their tendency is to side with the underdog lone crusader—not with the CDC, FDA, or any other part of the government.

Which important clinical research have government agencies impeded? You're going to have to be more specific on that. If you're referring specifically to Geier's work with VAERS data, I gather that there were serious concerns about him mishandling confidential patient information. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield

I think we might be getting a bit off track with respect to Andrew Wakefield. I think the key question about him here is, what mention should he have in this article? Remember, we're writing an article about Mark Geier. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

David Geier's occupation

David Geier isn't a lawyer; I am removing that assertion from the lead paragraph. To the best of my knowledge he isn't a member of any bar and he has no law degree. He is president of MedCon, a company which employs lawyers. MedCon draws part of its income from filing vaccine injury lawsuits, which may well be worth noting—but that doesn't make David Geier a lawyer. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 12:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chelation therapy

Chelation therapy is used by mainstream practitioners as a treatment for lead poisoning; I've removed the comment about "alternative practitioners" for that reason. What is controversial is the use of chelation agents in patients that do not have a very high body burden of heavy metals. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see your point, but I think maybe we could and should include both points: mainstream practitioners use it for certain very specific disorders; some alternative practitioners believe it, controversially, to be effective treatment for a much wider variety of conditions and disorders. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I actually had a heck of a time finding the work Geier did with chelation; there isn't anything apparent in PubMed. So far I've found one paper in an unindexed journal that has him as the last author (PDF is linked below):

• Bradstreet J., Geier D.A., Kartzinel J.J., Adams J.B., Geier M.R., A case-control study of mercury burden in children with autistic spectrum disorders, J Am Physicians Surg, Volume: 8, (2003), pp. 76-79)

It's a pretty small study—not a lot of cases were examined. Has he published any further work on chelation? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Detailed criticism

The American Academy of Pediatrics rebuttal was six pages long and listed fifteen specific flaws that they perceived in the Geier's work, as well as comments about the general misuse of VAERS data. Whether you agree with their points or not, the AAP's criticism is definitely "detailed". "Emphatic" and "scathing" might also be acceptable adjectives, but "detailed" strikes me as the most neutral. Removing the adjective implies that the AAP just didn't like the study and issued a one-page press release or something. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 23:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I read the AAP "rebuttal" and it only convinced me of Geier's merit, so adjectives that come to my mind are "weak," "pathetic," or "counterproductive to the critical mind." We could perhaps compromise on "lengthy," but I proposed avoiding an adjective altogether. --Leifern 00:03, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

The compromise wording seems reasonable. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 01:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

NY Times Article

Copied from article main page:

The children who received greater amounts of mercury were more likely to have a complaint filed with the Vaccine Adverse Event

Reporting System (VAERS). Further studies by the Geiers yielded similar results.[1]

The link after this statement is pointing to a NYT article. This particular article has caused some controversy (and public rebuttals). But nonetheless, it doesn't "work" with the text.

The link to the article would be more appropriate after this line:

Nevertheless, Dr. Geier says public health officials are "just trying to cover it up."

However, if the NYT piece is going to be used as a source for the Geier article I feel it would be more "honest" to mention that it has received negative attention for it's unbalanced presentation. Becca77 11:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

See also

Ombudsman reinserted some deleted irrelevant "see also" links[2]. Links such as to the 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference are completely illogical if the relationship between Mark Geier and this conference is not stated. This is not the first time Ombudsman has listed numerous of his favoured articles in the "see also" section simply to push a POV. JFW | T@lk 14:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit apparently designed to make entire article marked as changed so as to hide reinsertion of those links reverted. Michael Ralston 13:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually the original paper on the spleen was in Nature and Dr. Geier was the first author. A short follow up was published in the New england Journal on which Dr. Geier was the second author.

New Paragraph

If Neurodiversity is to continue to contribute to this article it is only fair that the readers know what their position is on autism research, treatment, etc. They somehow want to prevent the diagnosis and treatment of severely autistic children most of whom never speak, who often are violent and who without treatment will almost certainly need life time care. (IP user)

First, the paragraph is irrelevant to the article. There's already an article on neurodiversity if anyone cares to look. Second, "Neurodiversity" is a movement, not a Wikipedia contributor. Clearly, Neurodiversity advocates contribute to Wikipedia, just as curebie advocates do. Third, I was not aware that "they" want to prevent a diagnosis. Neurodiversity advocates clearly oppose unproven and dangerous treatments. There's no evidence that they oppose clearly effective clinically proven treatments. They are divided on semi-experimental treatments such as ABA. Fourth, about 50% of Kanner autistics attain "good or very good" speech. I'm not sure where you get your data from. Data on PDD-NOS (the most common type of ASD) is not available. It's not clear that violence among autistics is more common than in the general population. Whether autistics need a "lifetime of care" (and it's not clear what IP User means in regards to this) has not been shown to be dependent on "treatment". Neurodivergent 17:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the paragraph explaining what neurodiversity is was irrelevant to the article to being with, and has grown to contain too much information about neurodiversity, Kathleen Seidel, and the other activities of neurodiversity activists. These should be in separate articles if needed. I propose the paragraph should be removed, and perhaps replaced with a short phrase that states Kathleen is a neurodiversity advocate/activist. Readers can check what neurodiversity is by clicking on the link. The neurodiversity article has a section on criticism of neurodiversity. Neurodivergent 22:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I should clarify that I am in no way associated with Neurodiversity.com. I'm just a reader of that blog. But my username might confuse IP User. Neurodivergent 22:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that the IP address of a frequent contributor (and "Ip user"?) resolves to Silver Spring, MD, home of the Geiers. To what degree is this a vanity article? - DaveSeidel 22:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

IP User is likely David or Mark Geier, but I did not feel like outing him. Some edits are probably vanity edits, even though the article was started by Obudsman. It's unclear how appropriate it is for someone to edit the article about themselves. It could even lead to inclusion of information that is unpublished "original research". The paragraph added by IP User about "Neurodiversity" (or Kathleen perhaps) was intended to deflect attention from embarrasing information. Neurodivergent 23:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As there have been no objections to my proposal to delete the irrelevant pragraph, I'll just go ahead and delete it. Neurodivergent 23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

8-2-06 I have attempted to edit this article to remove things that are totally inaccurate and I have tried to update the article while not removing any of the negative editorial things which various people have added to this article. I should point out that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a blog. I have never seen such contoversial things put in an encyclopedia before. Dr. Mark Geier

Articles about controversial persons will naturally document controversial claims. See, for example, the George W Bush article, which is a featured article candidate. Deleting content while adding other content will not get you anywhere, BTW. Neurodivergent 18:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not the article that you keep saying has been removed has been published Horm Res 2006;66:182-188. Look it up if you wish on pubmed and the Hormone research web site. Also our patent has nothing to do with testosterone sheets and everything to do with what we published in Hormone research. Try reading it if you can. Also you have no knowledge of what we are currently doing at the VSD. We are there regularly. Try contacting the National Immunization Program of the CDC. They no loger exist as i have said. The rules of this are to publish the truth. Dr. Mark Geier

Dr. Geier, your contributions to the article are appreciated. Please be aware, however, that it may be very difficult for someone so intimately related to this article's topic to write entirely neutrally. It is for this reason that editors are strongly discouraged from writing their own biographies, though your participation on the article talk page – as you have been doing – is welcomed.

Please don't engage in an edit war over the content of this – or any – Wikipedia article. First and most importantly, it will not resolve any issues over disputed content. Second, it may result in a suspension of editing privileges. (this message cc'd to User talk:69.138.245.111) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have read the relevant articles and the two patent applications and am available to discuss this article's NPOV if need be. I appreciate that Dr. Geier has left information critical to him in the article but we do need that all rules are followed here. I'm not sure that his edits constitute writing his own biography. I think that it falls under what the linked page refers to as correcting factually inaccurate information or updating information. I understand this is a bit of a sticky situation, but hopefully together we can keep the article honest. It must be frustrating to see incorrect information about you prominently displayed but be withheld from correcting it. InvictaHOG 02:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that Hormone Research has republished the article with a corrected byline. This article should mention that. However, the fact that the article was pulled and the byline corrected is notable and should be documented. Neurodivergent 14:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, nowhere that I'm aware of has Hormone Research indicated that they made a mistake in the byline. In fact, the byline was changed to something that does not include "George Washington University" at all. So the paragraph that indicates Hormone Research made a mistake should be changed. I'm aware that Mark Geier claims the originally submitted byline was "Graduate Student, ... George Washington University" and that Hormone Research conducted an investigation. While Hormone Research has not released the results of their investigation AFAIK, it is clear that they determined it was not appropriate to include GWU in the byline, as the research is totally unrelated to that institution. Additionally, it appears that David Geier is only technically a student there. Neurodivergent 14:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's contrast Mark Geier's statement above:

"Also our patent has nothing to do with testosterone sheets and everything to do with what we published in Hormone research"

and the new "conflicts of interest" statement in the Hormone Research article:

"Neither Dr. Mark Geier nor David Geier has any conflict of interest regarding anything related to this paper."

That's pretty interesting. Too bad Wikipedia cannot reference itself. No matter, I understand Kathleen's most revealing finding is yet to come. Neurodivergent 21:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Publishing the truth

Dr. Geier wrote above:

"The rules of this are to publish the truth." Dr. Mark Geier

I would certainly hope that we attempt to publish the truth, but the rules here are that we publish verifiable facts from reliable sources. They must be third party sources, so if you can provide those sources (not your own, that would constitute original research), we'd be happy to consider incorporating the information in the article, including to correct inaccuracies.

BTW, please remember to sign your comments with four tildes. -- Fyslee 11:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Dr. Mark Geier 8/8/06

The last section of the article:

Kathleen Seidel has made additional allegations regarding the likelihood that the diagnosis of "precocious purberty" has been validly applied [11], an apparent shift of terms from "precocious puberty" to "hyperandrogenicity" [12], and misrepresentation of cited work [13].

is inappropriate since, (1) Kathleen Seidel is not a physician, (2) she has no knowledge of what I have diagnosed my patients to have nor what they should be diagnosed to have and (3) if she does it is in violation of Federal guidlines on patient confidentiality and (4) it is not even clear what work she thinks I have mis-cited, and (5) she is also not a scientist or physician and therefore her opinion on all of these things belong to her and not in a "neutral" piece on a living person as described by the policy of the encyclopedia. Thanks for considering my comment.

To Dr. Geier,

Please begin to use Wikipedia practice when making comments:

• Sign your comments with four tildes.
• Use the appropriate number of colons to properly indent your comments in a thread. -- Fyslee 05:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Mark Geier's comment could be considered in regard to the allegation that the diagnosis of "precocious puberty" is unlikely to be valid. Kathleen makes a good argument as to why it's unlikely to be valid. But it's true that the claim might not be deemed verifiable unless there were an article by a pediatric endocrinologist confirming the opinion. The other allegations are verifiable and are well documented, however. For example, the shift from "precocious puberty" to "hyperandrogenicity" is clear from presentations by the Geiers. Neurodivergent 16:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty incredible that, after decades renting himself to attorneys to attack vaccines, going way outside any plausible qualifications, sometimes giving ludicrous false testimony (eg "I must have missed a zero"), using a kichen lab and bogus ethical approval to experiment on children, Mark Geier should complain about Kathleen's credentials. She's doing a great job. 86.129.110.60 19:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What's funny is the complaint about her not having the medical qualifications to determine if a diagnosis is applicable. Well, clearly neither does he. Neurodivergent 15:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't find this kind of discussion helpful. This seems more appropriate for private e-mail, etc. Any discussion about his findings or his intentions should be backed by sources, not by innuendo. Same goes for original research on his part. InvictaHOG 17:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent anonymous edits

There have been some very heavy edits happening recently from the anonymous user 69.138.225.97, and it looks like they may be coming from someone close to the subject of this article. Just a heads-up for those monitoring things here. -- Tim D 07:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have left a message for Dr. Geier here. He has edited previously using a similar IP. -- Fyslee 09:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reverted a few of the recent edits because I feel that they compromise some of the neutral presentation of the article. Obviously, there's probably some good information in what was added, though referencing will be required. I invite the anonymous IP, whether Mark Geier or not, to join the discussion here before readding the information. InvictaHOG 14:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing Justice2day is Dr. Geier's registered name? I'm a bit uncomfortable with him re-writing a good portion of this article. I would recommend collecting references and letting a third-party source objectively analyze and integrate them. -- Tim D 02:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I feel better at the moment since he's avoided the criticism sections and simply added more info on his papers, etc. InvictaHOG 03:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have placed a request for identification. Until he identifies himself, we need not extend any special privileges or considerations. Uncollaborative editing (IOW not discussing edits on the Talk page, especially major ones) should not be tolerated, so just revert anything that looks suspicious. -- Fyslee 14:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that given the overall controversy surrounding Dr. Geier, that's a good thing to do. Major revisions should be collaborative, so Dr. Geier if you're reading this, I would suggest just sharing your new studies, etc. as references here in the talk page. Other more objective editors can then integrate them. That's generally how things work in biographical articles of living people anyway. For general Wikipedia policy, see WP:BLP and WP:AB. -- Tim D 14:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears his behavior becomes even more suspicious. He has or does edit using the following user names:

• 69.138.245.111
• 69.138.225.97
• Justice2day
• Seidel,K

If he really doesn't intend to use the first two IPs anymore and sticks to using Justice2day, fine, but the last one is a very serious matter, as it is a misuse of Kathleen Seidel's name. She is webmaster for neurodiversity.com. -- Fyslee 21:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Fyslee. Kathleen Seidel is my wife, and she certainly did not make those changes. In fact, she doesn't even have a Wikipedia username. I agree, this a serious matter -- what are the administrative options for dealing with impersonation (if you know)? -- DaveSeidel 22:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

An admin could examine the checkuser status. Right now his use of multiple user names violates this:

"Avoiding scrutiny from other editors"

"Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail. Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors can't detect patterns in your contributions. While it may be legitimate to do this from time to time (for example, by creating a special account to make edits that might serve to identify you in real life), it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions."

I think this needs to be investigated immediately. I have to run, so maybe Dave and others should contact some admins to get them to investigate. The use of another persons name is an aggavating factor that should not be countenanced.

If Geier ever wants to take advantage of the BLP rights conferred upon editors who contribute to their own articles, he should make a user account with his own name and stand forth as himself. He should also cease to use the other accounts. -- Fyslee 05:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be appalling if Mark Geier really created a Kathleen Seidel sockpuppet, for the explicit purpose of deleting content in the article he finds embarrasing. It's kind of childish too. But it's funny also that User:Leifern afterwards went and reverted to the blanking out done by User:Seidel,K. It's like they would like that content to go away -- no kidding. Neurodivergent 16:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reported the incident here: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Justice2day -- DaveSeidel 01:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

References

Speaking of references.....this article is in desperate need of help. I have added the references code, so now it is possible to turn all links and the existing notes into proper references. One can look at other articles to see how it's done. More information here: WP:FOOT. -- Fyslee 19:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Lead

The lead section needs attention. There is no mention of controversies, and the lead should include short mention of all the significant subjects in the article:

"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article." Source: WP:LEAD

-- Fyslee 14:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of ethics violations

An anonymous editor deleted the "Allegations of ethics violations" section. While I don't like it when people delete things without explanation, I do think that the section in question was a little iffy in terms of being suitable for the article. Perhaps a shorter section with an external link would be better... -- Tim D 01:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous editor who blanked out that section is User:24.15.236.23. There have been prior attempts to blank out some sections by the Geier household and User:Leifern. If there are problems with the section, those can be discussed here, or the sections could be reworded. Blanking out will achieve nothing. I for one think the content in those sections is both verifiable and notable. The fact that it's embarrasing to the subject of the article is irrelevant. Neurodivergent 16:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, User:24.15.236.23 has blanked out the Lenny Schafer article without explanation as well. I'd characterize this kind of activity as drive-by censorship. And it's unfortunately becoming more and more common in Wikipedia, and it seems to be generally carried out by certain interest groups about whom embarrasing information exists. See Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Censorship. Neurodivergent 16:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally understood what the underlying intention was and I was going through the section to maybe clean up formatting and such. The problem is that the article had been looking extremely not neutral, and even with valid points, the tone could turn readers off. Some could read it more as a article about a personal crusade by Kathleen Seidel than anything else. -- Tim D 16:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Quantumerik

Just for the record, User:Quantumerik tried to add the following original research and personal attack into the article:

"These similarities, according to Dr. Mark Geier, are more than coincidental; they are the result of a replication of the Verstraeten study, using the same data sets. This study replication was mandated by a congressional committee. Kathleen Seidel, because of her biased views concerning neurodiversity and a rejection of all medical research of autism, fails to include this information and should therefore be censored."

Another editor rightly removed it shortly after that. I wonder, does Quantumerik think readers are stupid? Even if the Geiers used the same data (and Dr. DeStefano of the CDC does not believe they even had access to the same data) are we to believe this automatically would cause dozens of English phrases to match in the two manuscripts in basically the same order of appearance? That is NOT replication of a study. Dr. DeStefano, BTW, is the one who first complained about the similarities. Neurodivergent 22:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You can easily find out who this person is. Here's their profile. More [3]. Check out these and look at the cached versions. More [4], and more [5]. It is the site administrator, Quantum Erik Nanstiel [6]. More about him [7][8] [9] [10]. -- Fyslee 19:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting...he's in my neck of the woods -- Tim D 02:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent anonymous edits from User:24.15.236.23 appear to be from Quantumerik as well, as the IP address resolves to Hoffman Estates, IL, home of Erik Nanstiel and of the organization he heads. Assuming this is true, one wonders why he has the need to "hide" behind an anonymous login, unless, as suggested above, he thinks we are stupid. Is it time for a sockpuppet complaint yet? -- DaveSeidel 13:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think that's necessary yet. The person could also be someone who is just connected to Mr. Nanstiel in some way -- Tim D 16:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Clinical studies on the role of mercury and androgens in autism

The entry for Mark Geier has been several times updated with factual information in this section regarding a new scientific/medical publication. The article was published in Medical Hypotheses, and the article is presently listed on PubMed (Medline). The information provided in the entry was accurate. Despite this fact, it is obvious that some with a potential political agenda have deleted this information. This type of action has happended multiple times on the entry for Mark Geier, and as a result it seems that the entry for Mark Geier is nothing more than weblog for those whose who disagree with Mark Geier. Furthermore, it is apparent that the Kathleen Seidel of Neurodiversity has been directly refuted and discredited in her claims of non-hormonal problems in autistic disorders, and regarding her claims that anti-hormonal treatments in autistic disorders do not produce clinically significant improvements in autistic disorders. Additionally, it should be noted regarding the new scientific/medical publication that the authors are both Ph.D.s and M.D.s and have affilitations with significant academic institutions including the University of Virginia and Tulane University, and hence far outweight any claims may be Kathleen Seidel of Neurodiversity who has no medical training and is simply claims to be the parent of an autistic child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHEA-S (talk • contribs) 08:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The additions would be fine if the publications were from heavier journals! Doesn't matter if PubMed indexes something...the fact is that Medical Hypotheses is there basically for publishing hypotheses, in order to put them out in the open so that others can test them emirically. Personally, if I found a series of objective studies that showed anything related to this, I would be open to them; there's no "political agenda" on my end. -- Tim D 15:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to Fyslee [who stated with the removal of my new additions for Mark Geier Wikipedia entry, "rmv vanity one case study preceded by speculations, not yet published in journal of speculations, by doctors who will profit from this advertisement") and TimD who questions the journal and the researchers, Ombudsman from Wikipedia specifically sent to me in the discussion section for my user name that both of your claims were inapproriate. He stated, "The research described in your edit appears to have merit" and he also stated regarding Fyslee's comments that he had, "mistakenly misrepresented as vanity" the additional information added to Mark Geier's Wikipedia entry. Furthermore, once again, I call attention to the fact that a significant porition of the information posted on Mark Geier's Wikipedia entry cites speculations from Kathleen Seidel of Neurodiversity [a known political activist, with a posted political agenda that, "Autism is as much a part of humanity as is the capacity to dream."], who as I stated previously has no expertise, training, or knowledge in medical practice or scientific research, but yet, my addition, which is an accurate direct reflection of published research from a medical/scientific journal (indexed on PubMed [Medline]) by authors (with Ph.D.s and M.D.s) from significant academic institutions including the University of Virginia and Tulane University keeps being removed. This situations is completely against the purpose of Wikipedia to provide factual information in its entries, and helps one to draw the conclusion that the entry for Mark Geier in Wikipedia is being run as a weblog for those who disagree with Mark Geier's opinions. I might state further, that in reviewing the history for the entry for Mark Geier, that previous editors, including Mark Geier himself, had tried to remove what they believed was information (most especially, material that cited Kathleen Seidel as its source) that was posted on the Mark Geier Wikipedia entry, that was characterized as offensive and without merrit, but each time such information was re-posted on the entry for Mark Geier.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DHEA-S (talk • contribs) 14:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't question the journal or the researchers - just the weight given to any study published in that particular journal (which is what it is and does serve a purpose). Those who are familiar with Medical Hypotheses will understand my concern about an article from there being cited on level with other peer-reviewed journals. You can't justify it based on the institutions of the authors or their degrees or the fact that it was indexed in PubMed. None of those mean anything when the true merit of a study is grounded solely in the study itself. I'd suggest that we discuss that instead... -- Tim D 07:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies to DHEA-S for my edit summary. I didn't see that there was discussion here. My concerns are that this is advertising by those who stand to profit from a patent, as well as their clinical practices. Such additions are not allowed here. The information should be presented on this talk page first, and then discuss it with the other editors, and let editors who have no financial interest add an approved version to the article. It needs the PubMed reference.

This is just a one case report of an autistic child, preceded by a lot of opinion by the authors that is not the study itself. If this is included, it should be labeled as a one case study, and all the opinion left out.

Another matter. Continually reverting is not the proper way to edit here. DHEA-S is already in violation of the WP:3RR rule and can be blocked.

Don't be fooled by Ombudsman's user name, he's not an admin here. -- Fyslee 20:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to comment to Fyslee, you have also edited information multiple times on the Mark Geier entry you are in violation of the the WP:3RR rule and can also be blocked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DHEA-S (talk • contribs) 21:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Very interesting. This is a verbatim excerpt of some text that was posted to this page and then immediately removed by 69.138.225.97, who is known to be Mark Geier. From this I presume that DHEA-S is yet another sock puppet for Mark Geier. I will add it to my ongoing sock puppet complaint at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Justice2day. I have no comment on the content, but I would suggest that Geier might increase his credibility as an editor is he would simply post under his own name and refrain from transparent diversionary and obfuscatory tactics (such as referring to himself in the third person). -- DaveSeidel 21:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I rarely read this trash but I will comment this one time. I have not made any of the changes you say. If I ever do make any changes be assured I will sign my own name. I grow tired of this slander.

Dr. Mark R. Geier— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.225.97 (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Another post from 69.138.225.97. If the other edits by this user are not you, then who are you sharing your IP address with? -- DaveSeidel 03:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

While I'm in the frame of mind, I just need to bring this up: I think that the criticisms section needs a lot of work. Personally, I'm not comfortable with it and it sounds like a persuasive speech rather than something from an encyclopedia. Wouldn't it be best to report the meat of what's going on and leave the ugly details to an external link? It just looks and sounds messy as it is, and I cringe from time to time because name-dropping and excessive details can quickly pull down the perceived objectivity of anything. No offense of course! There just seems to be a thin line that needs to be treaded. -- Tim D 08:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

DHEA-S text

Just for the record, this is the text DHEA-S wanted to add:

"Independently of Mark Geier and David Geier, and in direct contradiction to claims by Kathleen Seidel of Neurodiversity on the lack of hormonal abnormalities in autistic disorders and the non-usefulness of anti-androgen therapy in autistic disorders, James Jeffrey Bradstreet (International Child Development Resource Center), Scott Smith (International Child Development Resource Center), Doreen Granpeesheh (Center for Autism Related Disorders), Jane M. El-Dahr (Tulane University Health Sciences Center, Departments of Pediatrics and Medicine, Section of Pediatric Allergy, Immunology and Rheumatology) and Daniel Rossignol (University of Virginia, Department of Family Medicine) have published a Medical Hypotheses article, "Spironolactone Might be a Desirable Immunologic and Hormonal Intervention in Autism Spectrum Disorders" [11] and according to the article three of the authors have filed a patent for the use of Spironolactone in the treatment of autistic disorders."

Clearly, the phrase that reads "in direct contradiction to claims by Kathleen Seidel of Neurodiversity" just can't be part of Wikipedia. It's a personal attack of sorts, of course, but it's also uncitable. Nowhere that I recall has Kathleen stated there is a lack of hormonal abnormalities in autistic disorders, nor even that anti-androgen therapy is useless. Furthermore, the phrase that reads "of Neurodiversity" gives the impression that Kathleen belongs to an organization named Neurodiversity. There's no such thing. The phrase should be "Kathleen Seidel of neurodiversity.com" or something to that effect. The citation provided says "Spironolactone might be a desirable immunologic and hormonal intervention in ASD". I fail to see how this speculation supports DHEA-S's contention. Never mind that the journal is Medical Hypothesis, or that the senior author, Jeff Bradstreet, is someone who has suggested exorcism is a treatment option for ASD and that Secretin is still a valuable autism treatment. As to suspicion of sockpuppetry, the admins should look into that, although I don't believe they were helpful the last time around. Neurodivergent 16:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)