Dr. Mark R. Geier ... May God protect this brave doctor
Ilena Rose
full swing ... disbarred attorney Probert is posting other Rag-tag
Posse websites such as the ever humble "OracKnows" ... David H.
Gorski's.
Quackwatch regularly wages War on those doctors, oft with far better
credentials and experience than Barrett or the other quackbusters ...
and twisted what they believe ... much like Probert is doing on Usenet
for them now.
Here are other viewpoints on the work of Dr. Geier ...
http://www.answers.com/topic/mark-geier
Mark Geier
Mark R. Geier, MD, PhD, (b. 1948, Washington, D.C.) is a medical
doctor based in Silver Spring, Maryland, who also holds a doctorate in
genetics and is board-certified in medical genetics and forensic
medicine. He was a researcher at the National Institutes of Health for
ten years and previously was a professor at Johns Hopkins University.
He has studied vaccines for more than 30 years and has published over
50 peer-reviewed papers on vaccine safety, efficacy, contamination and
policy. In 1970, while at the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Geier
co-authored a paper published in Nature reporting the first sucessful
genetic engineering experiment in which bacteriophage Lambda which
carried the galactose operon was used to correct the inability of
cells in tissue culture from a patient with galactosemia to metabolise
the milk sugar galactose. This work received world-wide aclaim in the
scientific press and in the news media and resulted in a personal call
of congratulation from then President Richard Nixon. In 1973 Dr. Geier
was an author of another paper in the Nature which reported the
spleen, which was thought to be mostly vestigual in humans, in fact
played a critical role in immunity by maintaining intact antigen
allowing for a more robust immune response which was especially
important the vaccination process. Dr Geier was a co-author on a paper
in the New England Journal of Medicine which futher discussed and
extended the observations on the critical role that the spleen plays
in response to vaccines and other immune challenges. In 1973, Dr.
Geier after having been part of the group that discovered that there
was widespread bacterial virus contamination in US vaccines, presented
a paper "A model system for the evaluation of the fate of phage in
contaminated vaccines: Physiologic disposition of bacteriophage in
mice." at the Proceedings of the Workshop of Problems of Phage
Contamination FDA. In 1978 Dr. Geier published a study "Endotoxins in
commercial vaccine." in Applied and Environmental Microbiology which
found high levels of endotoxin in commercial vaccines especailly in
whole cell Diptheria, Tetanus, Pertussis (DTP) vaccine. Following this
paper, Dr. Geier worked for many years to help convince the public
health authorities to switch from whole cell DTP to the much safer
DTaP which contained a highly purified form of Pertussis vaccine. In
1991 the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of
Sciences,(IOM) invited Dr. Geier to address them on the toxins
contained in DTP vaccine and the expected time frame over which they
could be expected to work. Dr. Geier presented evidence to the IOM
that the expected time of vulnerability was seven days. In 1993 the
IOM published that the evidence was compatible whole Pertussis vaccine
causing permanent brain damage in otherwise apparently health children
if the first symptoms of neurological damage occurred in the first
seven days following the vaccination. The US began to switch to the
far safer DTaP in 1993 and as of 2002 the US no longer used any whole
cell DTP vaccine.
Career
Dr. Geier wrote the article, The True Story of Pertussis Vaccination:
A Sordid Legacy? which won the first annual Stanley W. Jackson award
for the best paper published in the Journal of the History of Medicine
and Allied Sciences during the period of 2000 to 2002. He has authored
over 90 publications.
Geier has made several presentations to the Institute of Medicine
(IOM) on the adverse effects of vaccinations. He and his son, David
Geier, are the only independent researchers ever to have been
permitted to study the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) database of the
Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
Geier has testified before the US House of Representatives Committee
on Government Reform Investigating Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic,
to critique the Hviid study, conducted in Denmark on autism and
thimerosal exposure, and he has also addressed the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) Advisory Committee regarding vaccine safety. He
has testified as an expert witness in about 100 cases before the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of
Federal Claims. Dr. Geier and his son have been invited to speak to
many state houses who were or are considering state wide bans on
Thimerosal containing vaccines.
Geier has published several scientific reports, with his son David
Geier, showing a relation between mercury exposure during infancy and
the onset of neurodevelopmental disorders. Geier has suggested his
research shows a direct causal link between Thimerosal containing
vaccines (TCVs) and the onset of neurological disorders, including
autism.
Controversial studies
Geier and his son have published six studies on the possible link
between autistic spectrum disorders and TCVs. In their first study,
they compared the number of complaints associated with TCVs,
administered between 1992 and 2000, to the number of complaints
resulting from a thimerosal-free vaccine administered between 1997 and
2000. The children who received greater amounts of ethylmercury from
TCVs were more likely to have a complaint filed with the Vaccine
Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Further studies by the Geiers
yielded similar results.
US health agencies have uniformly rejected the conclusions of the
Geiers' studies, and one of the Geiers' articles was the subject of
heavy criticism by the American Academy of Pediatrics On the other
hand, Mercury in Medicine Taking Unnecessary Risks, a report prepared
by the staff of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness,
Committee on Government Reform United States House of Representatives
Chaired by Dan Burton published in the Congression Register in May of
2003 stated: However, the Committee upon a thorough review of the
scientific literature and internal documents from government and
industry did find evidence that thimerosal did pose a risk. Thimerosal
used as a preservative in vaccines is likely related to the autism
epidemic. This epidemic in all probability may have been prevented or
curtailed had the FDA not been asleep at the switch regarding the lack
of safety data regarding injected thimerosal and the sharp rise of
infant exposure to this known neurotoxin. Our public health agencies’
failure to act is indicative of institutional malfeasance for
self-protection and misplaced protectionism of the pharmaceutical
industry.” [1]. Geier says public health officials are "just trying to
cover it up."
Limited access to Vaccine Safety Datalink records
On February 17, 2004, a panel of medical experts was assembled by the
Institute of Medicine (IOM), an arm of the National Academy of
Sciences. The panel recommended the CDC ease its restrictions on
outside scientists seeking access to its strictly confidential Vaccine
Safety Datalink, containing over seven million records including
reports of suspected adverse reactions to vaccines.
The Geiers have been granted access to this data [2], but the National
Immunization Program found that "In summary, during the first visit
the researchers conducted unapproved analysis on their datasets and on
the second visit attempted to carry out unapproved analyses but did
not complete this attempt. This analysis, had it been completed, could
have increased the risk of a confidentiality breach. Before leaving,
the researchers renamed files for removal which were not allowed to be
removed. Had it gone undetected, this would have constituted a breach
of the rules about confidentiality."[3]
Chelation research
Geier has also published studies which, he says, indicate children
diagnosed with autism excrete more mercury upon chelation than control
subjects. Many of these children are reported as having tests showing
amounts of mercury excreted several times the normal levels. Chelation
therapy is conventionally used only to treat heavy metal poisoning,
and carries the risk of overly reducing the levels of beneficial
metals in the body, such as calcium. In 2004 Dr. Geier and his son
published a paper in Medical Hypotheses, a non-peer-reviewed journal,
on the potential importance of lowering testosterone as part of the
treatment of autism spectum disorders and other disorders which they
claim involve mercury toxicity.
An advocate for vaccine safety
Geier has supported efforts by Representatives Dave Weldon, MD, Dan
Burton, and Carolyn Maloney, to pass legislation introduced in early
2005 to ban the use of mercury based preservatives (i.e., thimerosal)
in vaccines in the United States. Although mercury preservatives have
been removed or reduced from some vaccines in the US, several vaccines
and most US influenza vaccines still contain the full dose of
Thimerosal. Geier said in an interview that the link between
thimerosal and autism was clear.
An NBC crew filmed a presentation by the Geiers before the network's
Autism: The Hidden Epidemic?[4] series in February, 2005, but the
producers chose not to use the material.
Credibility as expert witness questioned
Geier and his son David also serve regularly as expert witnesses for
parents seeking compensation from the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program for vaccine injuries to their children. Geier has
been criticized over his qualifications in these hearings, wherein one
Special Master labeled him "a professional witness" who "clearly lacks
the expertise" required. [5] Critics of the vaccine injury
compensation system question the stringency of the requirements, which
they contend effectively preclude fair presentation in the hearings of
testimony from their experts.
On at least ten separate occasions, the Special Master ruled that
Geier lacked the necessary qualifications or board-certification to
offer an expert opinion. Litigants pressing vaccine injury claims have
a dual challenge, since relatively few experts in relevant fields
think thimerosal causes autism, and even fewer work in specialties
required by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
However, on November 25, 2003, Special Master French praised Geier’s
credentials and vast experience and said Dr. Geier "ranks high among
those who have studied vaccine issues through the medical literature
on vaccines, databases, studies, articles and information on vaccine
safety and efficacy in vaccine policy. The tenor of his testimony in
this case addressed the importance of statistical databases in
providing statistical reliability and validity in interpreting the
epidemiology and issues relating to autism and various vaccines...Dr.
Geier has recently proposed a data-sharing process that would improve
the reliability of present statistical data that would include the
present VAERS statistical database. It would be helpful in
interpreting the epidemiology and issues relating to the autism
controversy." [6]
Background
Education:
1970 - B.S. George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
1970-1971 - Graduate Student; Department of Human Genetics and
Development, Columbia University, New York, New York
1973 - Ph.D. Genetics, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
1978 - M.D. George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
Work Experience:
1969-1970 - Research (Student) at the National Institutes for Health,
Bethesda, MD
1970-1971 - NIH Traineeship at Columbia University, Department of
Human Genetics and Development, New York, NY
1971-1973 - Research Geneticist, Laboratory of General and Comparative
Biochemistry, National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), National
Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland
1973-1974 - Staff Fellow, Laboratory of General and Comparative
Biochemistry, NIMH, NIH, Bethesda, MD
1974-1978 - On Professional Staff Laboratory of General and
Comparative Biochemistry NIMH, NIH, Bethesda, MD
1978-1979 - Intern and Fellow, Department of Obstetrics and
Gynecology, the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
1979-1982 - Assistant Professor, Department of Gynecology and
Obstetrics, the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
1980-1982 - Guest worker Laboratory of General and Comparative
Biochemistry, NIMH, NIH, Bethesda, MD
1981-1984 - Assistant Research Professor, Psychiatry Department,
Uniformed School of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD
1988-1994 - Director of Genetics of Maryland Medical Laboratory, Inc.
Baltimore, MD
1989-1994 - Member of the Substance Abuse and Doping Committee and the
Sports Medicine and Science Committee of the United States Bobsled and
Skeleton Federation (Olympic Committee)
Board Certification:
1987 - American Board of Medical Genetics
1993 - Associate Founding Member of the American College of Medical
Genetics
1996 - Board Certified by the American Board of Forensic Examiners
1996 - Diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Medicine
Other Positions:
1980-2003 - Laboratory Director, Molecular Medicine, MD
1980-Present - Co-director of Genetic Consultants, Bethesda, MD
1981-Present - Director of Institute of Immuno-Oncology and Genetics,
MD
1986-Present - President of Genetic Counseling and Research, Inc., T/A
The Genetic Center, Baltimore, MD
1997-Present - President of Genetic Counseling and Research, Inc. T/A
The Ultrasound Institute of Baltimore
1997-Present - President of the Genetic Centers of America
2001 - Host of one hour weekly medical talk show “The Dr. Mark Geier
Show” on KFNX in Phoenix, Arizona, WALE in Provident, Rhode Island,
and on the World Wide Web.
Journal Peer-Reviewer:
Annals of Internal Medicine
Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology
Environmental Health Perspectives
Expert Review of Vaccines
Expert Opinion on Emerging Drugs
Vaccine
Major Presentations:
Addressed United States’ State Department, Foreign Service Institute
(Washington, DC) on Contemporary Genetics
Addressed the Institute of Medicine of the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences (Washington, DC) on Vaccine Safety & Vaccine Policy Issues
Addressed the Government Reform Committee of the United States’ House
of Representatives (Washington, DC) on Vaccine Safety Issues
Addressed the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccine Advisory
Committee (Silver Spring, MD) on Vaccine Safety Issues
See also
Controversies in autism
Vaccination critics
References
JPandS.org (pdf) - 'Thimerosal in Childhood Vaccines, Neurodevelopment
Disorders and Heart Disease in the United States', Mark and David
Geier, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, vol 8, no 1,
Spring, 2003
JPandS.org (pdf) - 'A Case-Control Study of Mercury Burden in Children
with Autistic Spectrum Disorders', Jeff Bradstreet, MD, David A.
Geier, BA, Jerold J. Kartzinel, MD, James B. Adams, PhD, Mark R.
Geier, MD, PhD Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, vol 8, no
3, Summer, 2003
MedSciMonit.com (pdf) - 'A two-phased population epidemiological study
of the safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a follow up
analysis', David A. Geier and Mark R. Geier, Med Sci Monit, vol 11, no
4, April 1, 2005
External links
IOM.edu - 'Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism', US
Institute of Medicine (May 17, 2004)
MomsAgainstMercury.org - 'A Shot in the Dark: Doctors Question Flu
Shot Statistics', Kelly O'Meara (2004)
MomsOnAMissionForAutism.org - Letter from Congressman Dave Weldon,
M.D., to the CDC
UniversityOfHealth.net - 'Institute of Medicine Report Stuns
Scientific Community and Parents: Report Says No Evidence Mercury In
Vaccines Related To Epidemic Levels of Autism' (May 20, 2004)
.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Ilena Rose
Dr. Mark R. Geier, M.D., Ph.D. is a geneticist and President of the
Genetic Centers of America, which for the past 23 years has offered
clinical prenatal genetics services to the Northern Virginia,
Washington, D.C., and Baltimore areas. Dr. Geier has worked in the
fields of molecular and cell biology and genetic engineering at the
National Institutes of Health for ten years. Dr. Geier has also been a
professor at The Johns Hopkins University Hospital.
David A. Geier is president of MedCon, Inc. He graduated with honors
from UMBC with a B.A. in Biology and a minor in History. He has been a
researcher scientist at the National Institutes of Health. Presently,
he is a graduate student in biochemistry at the George Washington
University, and has co-authored over 30 peer-reviewed
scientific/medical publications on vaccine safety, efficacy, and
policy. He has addressed numerous professional meetings, and most
recently co-addressed the Institute of Medicine of the United States’
National Academy of Sciences on vaccines.
In this interview, Mark & David discuss their work with treating heavy
metal toxicity by first treating abnormally high testosterone levels
(responsible for precocious puberty) with Lupron (prior to chelation).
They've found that testosterone actually binds to mercury, increasing
its toxicity and keeping it in the body. This offers compelling reason
for why more boys have autism than girls.
Peter Moran
<Ilena> wrote in message news:ir7l3291kmfel6u1k...@4ax.com...
> The Quackwatch Rag-tag Posse Smear Campaign against Dr. Geier is in
> full swing ... disbarred attorney Probert is posting other Rag-tag
> Posse websites such as the ever humble "OracKnows" ... David H.
> Gorski's.
>
> Quackwatch regularly wages War on those doctors, oft with far better
> credentials and experience than Barrett or the other quackbusters ...
> and twisted what they believe ... much like Probert is doing on Usenet
> for them now.
This is petty and juvenile stuff. Those of us complaining about the poor
quality of Geier's "scientific" publications have stated quite specifically
what is wrong with them. .
Peter Moran.
Ilena Rose
Dr. Geier has been a target of the dubious and unlicensed Barrett for
years ...
That's why I posted the opinion of non Pharma shills here for others
to decide themselves ...
Peter Moran
<Ilena> wrote in message news:gtil32larjsicute6...@4ax.com...
> Obviously Moron ... your opinions are just that ... your opinions ...
>
> Dr. Geier has been a target of the dubious and unlicensed Barrett for
> years ...
>
> That's why I posted the opinion of non Pharma shills here for others
> to decide themselves ...
I am happy with that , too. Let them decide between schoolground
name-calling and an attempt at reasoned debate.
Peter Moran
Max C.
name-calling and just stick to the facts. You can point out that it's
just Peter Moran's opinion without calling him names. It only cheapens
your post, IMHO. I personally believe those of us in the "alternative
circles" shouldn't need to resort to such measures. I believe there's
plenty of evidence out there to support many of our views. Just post
your data and let it stand on its own merits. Support it with
clarifications if you must, just don't lower yourself to name-calling.
Your post is much appreciated. It had a lot of information I didn't
already know. It would certainly appear the Dr. Geier is more
qualified to give opinions on most of the topics here than anyone in
this group. He seems to haev quite a resume.
Max.
Ilena Rose
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org
Ilena Rose
lesser contributions ... please read:
http://www.vran.org/docs/d-geier-legacy.pdf
Opens pdf of "True Story of Pertussis Vaccination: A Sordid Legacy?"
by Mark and David Geier
.
Ilena Rose
According to Mark Geier, M.D., Ph.D "The 2003 Physicians' Desk
Reference [PDR] still shows childhood vaccines in the United States
containing thimerosal, including diphtheria, tetanus and acellular
pertussis. DTaP, manufactured by Aventis Pasteur, contains 25[mu]g [25
micrograms] of mercury, Hemophilus influenzae b (Hib) vaccine
manufactured by Wyeth contains 25[mu]g of mercury and pediatric
Hepatitis B vaccine, manufactured by Merck, contains 12.5[mu]g of
mercury." Though it was reported by Kelly O樽eara, who is an
investigative reporter for Insight Magazine, that Len Lavenda, a
spokesman for Avenus Pasteur, denied the continued use of mercury,
despite the continued use in the white package slips still shipped
with the vaccines, parents around the world can be assured that their
children are still getting the above amounts in their vaccination
shots.
Dr. Geier said, 的t is possible that children in the U.S. in 2003 may
be exposed to levels of mercury from thimerosal contained in childhood
vaccines that are at higher levels than at any time in the past.
Possible total childhood mercury in 2003 is more than 300[mu]g." For
US citizens these numbers are in doubt, for the rest of the world they
are not!
Mercury poisoning and autism have nearly identical symptoms:
self-injurious behavior, social withdrawal, lack of eye contact,
lack of facial expression, hypersensitivity to noise
and touch, and repetitive behaviors.
Stephanie Cave, MD
Skeptic
"Max C." <max...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144708566....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I think you'd be better received if you were to leave out the
> name-calling and just stick to the facts.
Ilena has only opinions, not facts.
Ilena Rose
http://www.healthsentinel.com/org_news.php?id=015&title=Thimerosal+ne...
Roman Bystrianyk, "Thimerosal neurotoxicity and protection with
N-Acetylcysteine supplementation", Health Sentinel, January 3, 2005,
In the 1930s, Eli Lily developed Thimerosal as a preservative and it
was widely used in vaccines. Until the removal of Thimerosal, which
contains 49.9% ethyl mercury by weight, from most pediatric vaccines
in
2001, the source of the largest human exposure to mercury in the US
was
in children under 18 months of age undergoing routine childhood
immunization schedules. Before 2001, a child may have received a
cumulative dose of over 200 痢/kg (micrograms per kilogram) in the
first 18 months of life.
Although Thimerosal has been removed from most childhood vaccines, it
is still present in the flu vaccine, which is given to pregnant women,
the elderly, and children. Also, many vaccines given to children in
developing countries still contain Thimerosal.
In the 2005 issue of NeuroToxicology, the authors of a study examine
the toxicity of Thimerosal within the body including neurons. They
examine the neurotoxic mechanisms, how the body detoxifies mercury,
and
the use of N-Acetylcysteine, or NAC for short, in facilitating the
detoxification pathway within the body.
Glutathione, a tripeptide composed of cysteine, glutamate, and
glycine,
is manufactured in the liver and also in the brain. Normally, the
concentrations of glutathione in the cells are quite high providing
for
detoxification of a variety of heavy metals including mercury.
However,
when this essential antioxidant is depleted the excess mercury can
bind
to internal cellular proteins leading to toxic damage. Studies have
shown that, "low micromolar concentrations of Thimerosal induced DNA
strand breaks, caspase-3 activation, membrane damage and cell death."
Although the brain can produce glutathione, it can only manufacture
this from its immediate precursor cysteine. The liver, on the other
hand, is able through a long series of biochemical steps to create
glutathione from methionine. Methionine is an essential amino acid
that
supplies the body with sulfur and methyl groups. The liver uses a
number of enzyme systems along with various B vitamins to produce
glutathione. The liver then exports the glutathione to the blood that
then is broken down to cystine. Cystine crosses the blood-brain
barrier
to be used by the brain to make glutathione. Thus, the brain is
reliant
on the liver to manufacture chemicals to keep it free from toxins.
The brain contains neurons and other cells called astrocytes.
Astrocytes use the cystine that crosses the blood-brain barrier to
make
glutathione. The astrocytes then export the glutathione to the space
between the cells where it is broken down to cysteine. The neurons
take
up the cysteine and manufacture glutathione. This complex series of
biochemical events is what is necessary to keep the brain free from
heavy metal damage.
The authors first examined the level of Thimerosal that would cause
toxic damage to cells. They found that the higher the concentration of
Thimerosal the greater the number of cells that were killed although
the nerve cell response occurred with only a 3 hour exposure, whereas
the other cell line required a 48 hour exposure demonstrating that
nerve cells are more sensitive to Thimerosal toxicity. "In both cell
lines, a progressive increase in cytotoxicity (decrease in viability)
was observed when Thimerosal dose was progressively doubled from 2.5
痠ol/L [micromoles per liter] to 5, 10, and 20 痠ol/L. Viability was
reduced more than 50% in both cell lines with exposure to 10 痠ol/L
Thimerosal and less than 10% of cells survived a dose of 20 痠ol/L."
The authors then pretreated cells with NAC before adding a dose of 15
痠ol/L Thimerosal. They found that, "Thimerosal alone induced more
than a 6-fold decrease in viability", and that NAC, "provided
significant protection against cell death". The authors note,
"Thimerosal induces oxidative stress and apoptosis by activating
mitochondrial cell death pathways. A subsequent study using cultured
human neuron and fibroblast cell lines similarly showed that low
micromolar concentrations of Thimerosal induced DNA strand breaks,
caspase-3 activation, membrane damage and cell death."
The authors conclude that, "numerous clinical studies have
demonstrated the efficacy of NAC in increasing intracellular
glutathione levels and reducing oxidative stress in humans. Since
cytotoxicity with both ethyl- and methyl- mercury have been shown to
be
mediated by glutathione depletion, dietary supplements that increase
intracellular glutathione could be envisioned as an effective
intervention to reduce previous or anticipated exposure to mercury.
This approach would be especially valuable in the elderly and in
pregnant women receiving Rho D immunoglobulin shots, and individuals
who regularly consume mercury-containing fish."
SOURCE: NeuroToxicology, Vol. 26, 2005, pp. 1-8
Ilena Rose
Cute ... but of course ... it's just your opinion.
Here's mine.
www.BreastImplantAwarness.org/DisinfoAgents.htm#Skeptic
Skeptic
<Ilena> wrote in message news:d80m32hrqo95f82rf...@4ax.com...
> >Ilena has only opinions, not facts.
>
>
> Cute ...
That at least makes one of us.
Hey, have you read that article you bashed yet? Or still avoiding
discussing it?
Jan Drew
"Peter Moran" <pmo...@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:443ac20e$0$20113$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> <Ilena> wrote in message
> news:ir7l3291kmfel6u1k...@4ax.com...
>> The Quackwatch Rag-tag Posse Smear Campaign against Dr. Geier is in
>> full swing ... disbarred attorney Probert is posting other Rag-tag
>> Posse websites such as the ever humble "OracKnows" ... David H.
>> Gorski's.
>>
>> Quackwatch regularly wages War on those doctors, oft with far better
>> credentials and experience than Barrett or the other quackbusters ...
>> and twisted what they believe ... much like Probert is doing on Usenet
>> for them now.
>
> This is petty and juvenile stuff. Those of us complaining about the poor
> quality of Geier's "scientific" publications have stated quite
> specifically what is wrong with them. .
>
> Peter Moran.
Says Peter Moran who can see no wrong doing, when it is right in front of
his eyes.
The below is neither petty nor juvenile.
Vakker
dog. You must understand that these people don't have honest differences of
opinion but just don't care about finding out the truth which they know
already but have accepted the devil's shilling to lie and deceive
purposefully and made their peace with hell and evil.
"Max C." <max...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144708566....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Mark Probert
> I think you'd be better received if you were to leave out the
> name-calling and just stick to the facts. You can point out that it's
> just Peter Moran's opinion without calling him names. It only cheapens
> your post, IMHO. I personally believe those of us in the "alternative
> circles" shouldn't need to resort to such measures. I believe there's
> plenty of evidence out there to support many of our views. Just post
> your data and let it stand on its own merits. Support it with
> clarifications if you must, just don't lower yourself to name-calling.
>
> Your post is much appreciated. It had a lot of information I didn't
> already know. It would certainly appear the Dr. Geier is more
> qualified to give opinions on most of the topics here than anyone in
> this group. He seems to haev quite a resume.
He also has a dubious track record:
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
October 9, 2003
JEANINE WEISS and JOSEPH WEISS, Parents of CHRISTOPHER WEISS, Petitioners,
v.
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent
No. 03-190V
ORDER
After receiving petitioners' expert Dr. Mark Robin Geier's two
affidavits, the undersigned issues this preliminary ruling. The evidence
in the medical records contemporaneous with the events at issue in this
case show that Christopher Weiss did not have an acute encephalopathy on
January 25, 2000, which was the 15th day after he received MMR vaccine
on January 10, 2000. The records state that he had had fever on the
night of the 24th, cried a lot, had a temperature of 101°, or otherwise
less than l00.2°, and was teething. On physical examination, Christopher
was alert and in no acute distress. His temperature was 100.7° and he
had several new teeth. His left tympanic membrane was red with excessive
fluid. The doctor diagnosed Christopher with left otitis media. He had
several tiny white spots at the bottom of his jaw (gingiva) and was
prescribed Amoxicillin.
Three days later, Christopher saw the doctor again. He was still alert,
but irritable with a blister on his tongue. He refused to eat or drink,
had very red gums, but no fever. His left tympanic membrane was better,
the white spots were gone, and he had three new teeth. His temperature
was 99.1°.
Petitioners' amended petition includes an allegation of a Table
encephalopathy. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-14, as modified by 42 CFR §
100.3(b)(2), states:
(i) An acute encephalopathy is one that is sufficiently severe so as to
require hospitalization (whether or not hospitalization occurred).
(A) For children less than 18 months of age who present without an
associated seizure event, an acute encephalopathy is indicated by a
significantly decreased level of consciousness lasting for at least 24
hours.
Section I00.3(b)(2)(i)(D) states:
A "significantly decreased level of consciousness" is indicated by the
presence of at least one of the following clinical signs for at least 24
hours or greater....:
(1) Decreased or absent response to environment (responds, if at all,
only to loud voice or painful stimuli);
(2) Decreased or absent eye contact (does not fix gaze upon family
members or other individuals); or
(3) Inconsistent or absent responses to external stimuli (does not
recognize familiar people or things).
Section 100.3(b)(2)(i)(E) states:
The following clinical features alone, or in combination, do not
demonstrate an acute encephalopathy or a significant change in either
mental status or level of consciousness as described above: Sleepiness,
irritability (fussiness), high-pitched and unusual screaming, persistent
inconsolable crying, and bulging fontanelle....
Christopher's mother states in her affidavit and in the amended petition
that on the night of January 24, 2000, Christopher became very ill and
developed a fever. ¶ 3 of Mrs. Weiss' affidavit. She states that, on
January 25, 2000, at the doctor's office, Christopher was not his normal
happy, cheerful self. He was extremely sick and miserable. She concedes
he was awake. ¶ 4 of Mrs. Weiss' affidavit.
Dr. Geier, who is a geneticist and an obstetrician, is not qualified to
give a neurological diagnosis. (NOTE 1) Nonetheless, he has opined in
his first affidavit, that Christopher had an acute encephalopathy
beginning on the night of January 24, 2000, 14 days after receipt of his
MMR vaccination based on the information in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Mrs.
Weiss' affidavit. In his supplemental affidavit #1, he discusses in
depth how MMR can cause acute encephalopathy and encephalitis. Those
portions of his supplemental affidavit #1 discussing acute
encephalopathy and encephalitis are hereby STRICKEN from the record as
irrelevant since Christopher had neither an acute encephalopathy nor
encephalitis. A child who is alert and in no acute distress does not
have an acute encephalopathy or encephalitis. See Duncan v. Secretary of
HHS, No. 90-3809V, 1997 WL 7529 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 6, 1997)
(without holding a hearing, special master dismissed case asserting
measles encephalopathy because petitioner's affidavit contradicted
contemporaneous medical records as to onset of symptoms and physician's
report in support of petitioner was insufficient). See also, Bunting v.
Secretary of HHS, 931 F.2d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("the conclusions
of a medical expert are not binding on the decisionmaker....");
Sternberger v. US, 401 F.2d 1012, 1016-17 (Fed. Cl. 1968) ("Even
uncontradicted opinion testimony is not conclusive if it is
intrinsically unpersuasive.").
NOTE 1: It is doubtful that Dr. Geier fulfills the American Medical
Association (AMA) guidelines for expert witnesses: H.265-994 Expert
Witness Testimony: (3)(a) "Existing policy regarding the competency of
expert witnesses ... (BOT Rep. SS A-89) is reaffirmed, as follows: The
AMA believes that the minimum statutory requirements for qualification
as an expert witness should reflect the following: (i) that the witness
be required to have comparable education, training, and occupational
experience in the same field as the defendant; (ii) that the
occupational experience include active medical practice or teaching
experience in the same field as the defendant; and (iii) that the active
medical practice or teaching experience must have been within five years
of the date of the occurrence giving rise to the claim." American
Medical Association, Policy Compendium (1999). In addition, the AMA
"Code of Medical Ethics" states at 9.07 Medical Testimony: "Medical
experts should have recent and substantive experience in the area in
which they testify and should limit testimony to their sphere of medical
expertise.... The medical witness must not become an advocate or a
partisan in the legal proceeding." AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial
Affairs, "Code of Medical Ethics" (2002-2003 edition). Dr. Geier's
expertise, training, and experience is in genetics and obstetrics. He is
however a professional witness in areas for which he has no training,
expertise, and experience. Petitioners must seriously consider whether
they want to proceed with a witness whose opinion on neurological
diagnosis is unacceptable to the undersigned. When we reach the end of
this case and the question of expert fees arises, there will be serious
doubt whether Dr. Geier should be compensated for his time devoted to
diagnosing an acute encephalopathy where none exists, and discussing (in
his first supplemental affidavit) the MMR reactions of acute
encephalopathy and encephalitis when neither is relevant in this case
because Christopher, who was alert and in no acute distress on the 15th
day after his MMR vaccination (when Dr. Geier opines his acute
encephalopathy began on the 14th day, less than 24 hours earlier), could
not possibly have had a Table acute encephalopathy or encephalitis.
Moreover, three days later, he was also alert and in no acute distress.
He was, however, miserable on January 25th with left otitis media, a
fever, and new teeth, and on January 28th with a blister on his tongue
and very red gums (with three new teeth).
In other vaccine cases, Dr. Geier's testimony has similarly been
accorded no weight: Thompson v. Secretary of HHS, No. 99-0436, 2003 WL
221439672 (Fed. CI. Spec. Mstr. May 23, 2003); Bruesewitz v. Secretary
of HHS, No. 95-0266, 2002 WL 31965744 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 20,
2002); Raj v. Secretary of HHS, No. 96-0294V, 2001 WL 963984, *12 (Fed.
CI. Spec. Mstr. July 31, 2001); Haim v. Secretary of HHS, No. 90-1031V,
1993 WL 346392 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 27, 1993) ("Dr Geier's
testimony is not reliable, or grounded in scientific methodology and
procedure. His testimony is merely subjective belief and unsupported
speculation."); Marascalco v. Secretary of HHS, No. 90-1571V, 1993 WL
277095 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 9, 1993) (where the special master
described Dr. Geier's testimony as intellectually dishonest); Einspahr
v. Secretary of HHS, No. 90-923V, 1992 WL 336396 (CI. Ct. Spec. Mstr.
Oct. 28, 1992), aff'd, 17 F.3d 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Aldridge v.
Secretary of HHS, No. 90-2475V, 1992 WL 153770 (CI. Ct. Spec. Mstr. June
11, 1992); Ormechea v. Secretary of HHS, No. 90-1683V, 1992 WL 151816
(Cl. Ct. Spec. Mstr. June 10, 1992) ("Because Dr. Geier has made a
profession of testifying in matters to which his professional background
(obstetrics, genetics) is unrelated, his testimony is of limited value
to the court."); Daly v. Secretary of HHS, No. 90-590V, 1991 WL 15473
(Cl. Ct. Spec. Mstr. July 26, 1991) ("The court is inclined not to allow
Dr. Geier to testify before it on issues of Table injuries. Dr. Geier
clearly lacks the expertise to evaluate the symptomatology of the Table
injuries and render an opinion thereon.").
Petitioners may proceed in this case on their alternate allegations, a
Table measles infection and causation in fact autism from either MMR or
thimerosal-containing vaccines. Their allegation of a Table
encephalopathy is hereby DISMISSED for failure to prove a prima facie
case of an acute encephalopathy occurring within 5-15 days of
Christopher's MMR vaccination.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Oct. 9 2003
Laura D. Millman Special Master
Max C.
> Ilena has only opinions, not facts.
I don't understand why you would call all of the information on Geier
in her original post in this thread her opinion. It seems to me she
just pasted it in from somewhere else so people could easilt find it.
I find that helpful since I don't really know that much about the Geier
group. Until this post, all I had heard about him was from the
pro-medical gang in this group. Since there are 2 sides to every
story, I found llena's post an interesting read.
I've never studied autism in depth, but it *is* a subject of interest
to me since I grew up with an autistic classmate. I know that the
medical side has little to offer the autistic, but I am starting to
find more and more about what the alternative side has to offer. From
one of the parents of an autistic child I know, they've gotten positive
results from the alternative therapies they've tried, though I don't
know a lot about the specifics of the therapies.
Max.
Ilena Rose
Your attempts to harm the credibility of Dr. Geier continue years of
legal and other harassment to this doctor from the quackwatch
guerrillas.
Your calling attention to those questioning Dr. Geier's credentials,
only shines the light back on your own disbarment ... and all the
many, many cases quackwatch Stephen Barrett has waged and lost.
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/sandraprobert.htm
You claim to only defend yourself from usenet attacks ... yet that too
is false. You wage the same wars against the same targets that
discredited Barrett and the dubious NCAHF have waged for years ...
people who never knew you existed and certainly never attacked you.
Ilena Rose
Background
Education:
Clinton
Mark Probert wrote:
>
> NOTE 1: It is doubtful that Dr. Geier fulfills the American Medical
> Association (AMA) guidelines for expert witnesses: H.265-994 Expert
> Witness Testimony: (3)(a) "Existing policy regarding the competency of
> expert witnesses ... (BOT Rep. SS A-89) is reaffirmed, as follows: The
> AMA believes that the minimum statutory requirements for qualification
> as an expert witness should reflect the following: (i) that the witness
> be required to have comparable education, training, and occupational
> experience in the same field as the defendant; (ii) that the
> occupational experience include active medical practice or teaching
> experience in the same field as the defendant; and (iii) that the active
> medical practice or teaching experience must have been within five years
> of the date of the occurrence giving rise to the claim." American
> Medical Association, Policy Compendium (1999). In addition, the AMA
> "Code of Medical Ethics" states at 9.07 Medical Testimony: "Medical
> experts should have recent and substantive experience in the area in
> which they testify and should limit testimony to their sphere of medical
> expertise.... The medical witness must not become an advocate or a
Oh, so uummm...., what does the AMA say about the qualifications of
Barret as an expert witness? By the way I don't know the facts of this
case although I'm am sure Grier is respected in his field but I have to
laugh when the AMA and ADA set "rules" on standards of care, ethical
behavior, rules for
testimony etc, since they never hold themselves legally responsable
for any of what they say in court. Why should a slick trade
organization
who act as the "agent apparent" for the good old dental and medical
boys
clubs have any authority whatsoever. I'm sure if the AMA had its way
the only doctor who could testify would be the who treated the case.
Anywayt, while the above "rules" appear to be reasonable, When the AMA
defends its positions in court , then I'll listen to what "it" says a
little harder.
Ilena Rose
by blogs and rag-tag posse members like Probert about Dr. Geier and Lupon
...
I've been reading up on it ...
What is being presented misrepresents the affects ... the affects are
entirely reversible apparently and testosterone levels rise back up.
I also found some women discussing using Lupron with Interstitial Cystitis
... I'm going to read more on this horribly painful condition. Many of my
women in my support group suffer from IC.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000380.htm
Synthetic drugs like Lupron or Zoladex that mimic the function of LHRH
(luteinizing hormone releasing hormone) are being used increasingly to treat
advanced prostate cancer. These medications suppress testostorone
production. The procedure is often called chemical castration, because it
has the same result as surgical removal of the testes, although it is
reversible, unlike surgery. The drugs must be given by injection, usually
every 3 months. Possible side effects include nausea and vomiting, hot
flashes, anemia, lethargy, osteoporosis, reduced sexual desire, and erectile
dysfunction (impotence).
Other medications used for hormonal therapy include androgen-blocking agents
(such as flutamide) which prevent testosterone from attaching to prostate
cells. Possible side effects include erectile dysfunction, loss of sexual
desire, liver problems, diarrhea, and enlarged breasts.
Skeptic
data. She can't, as she can't read and understand any real studies. She's
proven this countless number of times.
"Max C." <max...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144765753....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Ilena Rose
I've been posted others opinions ... mainly to counter the smear
campaign being waged against him.
Silly boy ...
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org
Jan Drew
"Skeptic" <bcs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:LsY_f.890654$x96.455360@attbi_s72...
> Ilena posts other people's opinions and her own. She never presents any
> data.
What a LIE!
[ ]
Skeptic
<Ilena> wrote in message news:u3to32lf4edqbr41d...@4ax.com...
> Skeptic ... you make me laugh!
>
> I've been posted others opinions ... mainly to counter the smear
> campaign being waged against him.
Oh, you're a nice little defender. However, nothing in my post was about
"him" whoever "him" may be. It was about the posts you create which are
completely lacking in terms of original thought. You give the same old
opinion over and over again, you ignore good articles that counter that
opinion - in fact, you bash them while not reading them and then refuse to
discuss them here when asked. Those are the characteristics of an internet
troll - someone who goes around promoting their own website and refusing to
intelligently debate a topic finding it easier to just keep snipping the
questions asked and just re-promote the web site. You're a bottom feeder.
Skeptic
"Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:t31%f.65119$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Skeptic" <bcs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:LsY_f.890654$x96.455360@attbi_s72...
>> Ilena posts other people's opinions and her own. She never presents any
>> data.
>
> What a LIE!
I'm sorry Jan... seems like your post ended there. Was there more coming or
did the remnant of your brain just let out a fart?
Mark Probert
> Mark Probert wrote:
>> NOTE 1: It is doubtful that Dr. Geier fulfills the American Medical
>> Association (AMA) guidelines for expert witnesses: H.265-994 Expert
>> Witness Testimony: (3)(a) "Existing policy regarding the competency of
>> expert witnesses ... (BOT Rep. SS A-89) is reaffirmed, as follows: The
>> AMA believes that the minimum statutory requirements for qualification
>> as an expert witness should reflect the following: (i) that the witness
>> be required to have comparable education, training, and occupational
>> experience in the same field as the defendant; (ii) that the
>> occupational experience include active medical practice or teaching
>> experience in the same field as the defendant; and (iii) that the active
>> medical practice or teaching experience must have been within five years
>> of the date of the occurrence giving rise to the claim." American
>> Medical Association, Policy Compendium (1999). In addition, the AMA
>> "Code of Medical Ethics" states at 9.07 Medical Testimony: "Medical
>> experts should have recent and substantive experience in the area in
>> which they testify and should limit testimony to their sphere of medical
>> expertise.... The medical witness must not become an advocate or a
>
>
> Oh, so uummm...., what does the AMA say about the qualifications of
> Barret as an expert witness? By the way I don't know the facts of this
> case although I'm am sure Grier is respected in his field
Do not be so sure. He is now patenting the use of Chemical Castration as
a way to enhance the effects of chelation. His recent study published in
the AAPS rag has been decimated as a valid study for numerous reasons,
e.g. using improper datasets, lousy math, etc.
but I have to
> laugh when the AMA and ADA set "rules" on standards of care, ethical
> behavior, rules for
> testimony etc, since they never hold themselves legally responsable
> for any of what they say in court. Why should a slick trade
> organization
> who act as the "agent apparent" for the good old dental and medical
> boys
> clubs have any authority whatsoever. I'm sure if the AMA had its way
> the only doctor who could testify would be the who treated the case.
> Anywayt, while the above "rules" appear to be reasonable, When the AMA
> defends its positions in court , then I'll listen to what "it" says a
> little harder.
Fine. In the meantime, Geier has been rejected as an expert witness more
times than Barrett. In AltThink, that should make Barrett more credible
than Geier.
Oh, and read this:
http://briandeer.com/wakefield/dtp-garth.htm
Where Geier conducts "research" and makes a "mistake" of using 240
instead of 20...12 times the number...
Only an utter moron would think that this is an accident. No credible
researcher would make an error on such a fundamental number.
Ilena Rose
>However, nothing in my post was about
"him" whoever "him" may be.
LOL ...t his thread is about brave Dr Geier ... and as always, you are
so lost in your silliness, you follow me around spouting your
nonsense!
If anyone wants to read about my work ...
Skeptic
<Ilena> wrote in message news:1d1q32dttem3kiddb...@4ax.com...
> Skeptic the Stalker admits:
>
>
>>However, nothing in my post was about
> "him" whoever "him" may be.
>
> LOL ...t his thread is about brave Dr Geier ... and as always, you are
> so lost in your silliness, you follow me around spouting your
> nonsense!
I make it clear to those reading that you are an unreliable source of
information. I don't give a rat's ass about this guy Geier. Don't know
him, don't care. I do care about the culture of misinformation you create.
For those new here, or those not clear what's going on here, since Ilena
always snips anything she can't counter (thus, most of the posts), Ilena a
few weeks back posted a link to a study that concluded that breast implants
did not increase the risk of breast cancer.
She labelled it as "junk science".
I hadn't read the study so I figured to respond intelligently, I should read
it. I'm typically very critical of many studies and skeptical of many of
the conclusions drawn (thus, "skeptic"). The study I actually found to be
rather well done. It had a reasonable control population, well explained in
the text. It had great length of followup - often lacking in cancer
studies. It had a very large study population, essential for drawing
believable conclusions. Overall, it was a well designed study with
reasonable conclusions.
So I asked Ilena why she thought it was "junk science".
She directed me to internet web sites and PDF files about studies in
general, none about this study.
I asked for HER OWN OPINION as to why it was junk. She has been avoiding
answering that question for weeks. She has not retracted her statement yet
she refuses to back it up.
If anyone thinks that they can trust that sort of internet poster as a
source of any reasonable information, they are greatly deluded.
I continue to invite her to engage in a discussion on the topic so we can
debate it like adults, but I gather she has probably never read the study.
Well, I saved it on my hard drive should she ever decide to play nice.
She can't be trusted as a source of information.
Ilena Rose
People are welcome to read my work and decide for themselves:
www.mercola.com/2001/jun/6/breast_implants.htm
Breast Implants: America's Silent Epidemic
by Ilena Rosenthal
Daily my phone rings and my email overflows with urgent and painful
calls from women just awakening from the ether of their breast
implants. Although their first surgeries may have been decades ago,
they are finally emerging from the web of deceit that their plastic
surgeons and the silicone manufacturers have woven through the media
for years in a brilliant, expensive public relations coup of enormous
proportions.
Now reality has struck as they join scores of thousands of ill and
disfigured women in learning the hidden truth - their cherished breast
implants may cost them their insurance, their health, their beauty,
their vitality, their families, their careers, and too often, even
their lives.
Everything I have ever done or thought or studied for 47 years brought
me to November, 1995 when I created a Newsgroup
(alt.support.breast-implant) on the Internet to provide an
International Forum to discuss this perplexing issue and create a
place for the women to connect with each other. I had no idea of the
depth, breadth, or width of the Pandora's Box I was opening.
Five years later, after unknown thousands of communications from
women, doctors, loved ones, attorneys, supporters and tormentors
alike, I admit I am no longer without bias. I now know that a huge
fraud has and continues to be committed on women, and the background
on this issue reads like a non-fiction espionage bestseller.
No stranger to plastic surgery (first nose bob during my Dallas high
school years) I do not now, nor have I ever had implants. There, but
for the grace of God go I. A few million of our sisters have made that
choice for a variety of reasons.
However, two common denominators remain the same -- they were always
assured they were "safe" and the "risks minimal," and eerily, they
have come up against a medical establishment unwilling and unable to
cure their illnesses.
In 1992, after 30 years of unimpeded marketing, the FDA finally banned
silicone gel implants for most women. Because of the lobbying of the
manufacturers and plastic surgeons -- who flew in around 400 women to
lobby Washington DC on their behalf -- women post-mastectomy were and
are still allowed to get these unproven, highly risky medical devices.
Even though early studies were resurrected, long hidden by the
manufacturers, proving they knew that their implants would break,
immune reactions would occur, the gel would migrate, and even more
disturbing, could cross the placenta and affect the unborn fetuses,
almost never did this information make it to the women it could have
protected.
They also hired visible spokesdoctors to misled the public into
believing that implant rupture -- a devastating medical event -- was
"only 4-6%." They also claimed to examine and find "no association"
between implants and a myriad of painful and debilitating autoimmune
diseases suffered in disproportionate percentages.
In fact, the Executive Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine,
Dr. Marcia Angell, chose to publish two very flawed, small and short
studies funded by those who stood the most to gain by the results. She
then promoted and defended these studies as if they were gospel in her
pro-manufacturer book, Science on Trial, and flooded the media with
this corporate science while branding a scarlet "Junk Scientist" on
any doctor who dared to dispute the "experts."
This PR campaign includes labeling the women "crazies" and their
leaders and supporters "fear mongers" and "wackos" so desperate are
they to destroy the credibility of any of us who dared to speak out on
the dangers. The result is that for years, women have been lulled into
a false belief, that they had a 95% chance of being rupture free. The
contrary is true.
Alarming, indisputable evidence was released in October 2000, when the
FDA published a landmark study of implanted women, many still without
symptoms. This objective work revealed that 69% of these women had at
least one ruptured implant, most without any knowledge of it, although
implanted a median time of less than 17 years.
Other studies had already revealed over a 90% chance of rupture within
20 years.
Hardly, the "lifetime" product they were promised.
The cover up continues to fall apart . . .
Dr. David Feigal, director of the Center for Devices and Radiological
Health at the FDA, said it so clearly, "When it happens to you, the
rupture rate is 100 percent." By January 2000, over 127,000 women had
written the FDA about the serious complications from their silicone
gel implants.
The tragedy is that still today, they are unable to get good medical
care as the majority of doctors refuse to believe the connection. Even
worse, doctors don't have a clue what to do to heal these assaulted
immune systems and rid women's bodies of the dozens of dangerous
ingredients found in implants such as platinum, silica, formaldehyde,
plasticizers and organic solvents.
Implant formulations were frequently changed -- shells and gel thicker
then thinner then thicker again -- and "new and improved" was marketed
so often, it appears silicone merchants believed their own hype.
In the 80's, as "the" answer to capsular contracture, over 100,000
women received gel implants with polyurethane foam glued to them. Not
only did the foam disintegrate, often within just weeks of
implantation, but it broke down into TDA, a known carcinogen, decades
ago removed from hair dyes.
These women are amongst the most ill, and even when these dangerous
implants were hurriedly taken off the market in 1991, no recall or
even courtesy call was made to warn the implanted women.
The most recent implant disaster was exported to Europe, where well
over 5,000 women, mainly in Britain, were implanted with soy oil
filled implants, unlovingly known as "tofu titties." The American
protocol for this product required this new round of female "lab rats"
to be past childbearing age, but somewhere on it's way across the
Atlantic, this requirement was dropped.
Health advocates and cautious scientists were warning of the serious
potential dangers but were ignored and the "experts" made fortunes
implanting them even in very young women. Their bubble burst as
shocking reports and the rancid soy oil leaked out in Spring of 2000,
and all the women were advised to have them removed as quickly as
possible.
The damage to many had already been done. Now, like the millions with
failed gel implants, they are faced with yet another difficult
decision, should they replace them with saline filled implants? Is
Saline the Solution?
From her wheelchair, Jackie Strange, the former Deputy Postmaster
General of the United States spoke of the destruction of her life at
hearings by the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of
Sciences in Washington, DC.
Infections, peripheral neuropathy, and a myriad of autoimmune diseases
struck in both rapid and slow succession following her implantation
with saline filled, silicone implants. Concurrently, the manufacturers
and plastic surgeons were creating a multi-media blitz touting saline
implants from billboards, glossy magazines and TV. With ads
reminiscent of "You've come a long way, baby," young women were
featured praising their implants and plastic surgeons did the Talk
Show circuit assuring women that saline was "natural" and leakage
benign.
In Spring, 2000, in spite of over 50,000 reports of serious adverse
reactions from water-filled implants, the FDA made the fateful
decision to give their highly valued stamp of "safety approval" on two
brands of saline implants, declaring them "safe enough." How can this
be?
The manufacturers own studies show that within just the first 3 years,
nearly 40% of post-mastectomy patients had to have additional
surgeries with these implants.
The complication rate for these women is around 80% in just 4 years
time. After cancer, invasive surgery to remove the tumors, often
radiation and / or chemotherapy, the body is simply not strong enough
to handle this foreign invader.
Even for women wanting implants just for augmentation to boost their
self-esteem, the complication rates are staggering. Glamour Magazine,
in their November 2000 issue published a full page photo revealing a
saline filled implant, entirely black with aspergillus niger and other
fungi.
Breast Cancer and Implants - No Easy Answers
Nearly 200,000 American women -- our sisters, mothers, teachers,
lovers, daughters, friends -- will be diagnosed with breast cancer
this year. Cancer and implant survivor, retired Professor of Health
Education, Henrietta Farber, recently summarized the feelings of many
who know, "The cancer was challenging.
The implants almost killed me." While the manufacturers press releases
rage "The Case Against Implants Collapses," and try to close this ugly
chapter in medical history, the women, now united, have a plan of
their own. With the health of women and their offspring at stake,
Martha Murdock, Co-Founder of the National Silicone Implant Foundation
in Dallas, with four generations of her family affected by silicone
toxicity, says it best, "It's not over 'til we win."
Risks of Breast Implants
1. Implants can rupture during mammography.
2. Implants make routine self exams and mammography more difficult.
More views are necessary, meaning additional radiation each time.
3. Implant rupture can go undetected for years and silicone is known
to migrate through the lymph system and has been found in the brains,
spinal fluid, ovaries, livers, and other organs of implanted women.
4. Implants are not lifetime devices, and may need to be replaced
(even without systemic problems) more than once a decade.
5. At any time infections are possible, including fungal and
antibiotic resistant bacterial infestations.
6. Loss of breast sensation, especially around the nipple area is
reported, as well as hyper-senstivity to touch.
7. Capsular contracture can be very uncomfortable, to the point of
severe pain and deformation.
8. Many women have experienced severe necrosis and other forms of
breast tissue loss.
9. Many women have experienced serious autoimmune diseases post
implantation including: rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma, multiple
sclerosis, Sjøgrens Syndrome (severe dry mouth, eyes, etc.), and
lupus.
Those women with pre-existing compromised immune systems are now
warned to avoid implants.
10. Disproportional numbers of implanted women have reported
neurological and cognitive complications, as well as endocrine
disruption including hysterectomies, miscarriage.
11. Children born of implanted women have experienced the same
autoimmune conditions and have been seriously inadequately studied.
12. Breast implants often negatively affect the ability to produce
milk for breast-feeding.
13. Health insurance carriers are routinely denying coverage for
implanted (and explanted) women.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ilena Rosenthal is the author of Breast Implants: The Myths, the
Facts, the Women. Ms. Rosenthal has been connecting, supporting and
educating women harmed by breast implants for over 9 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Health for Longevity Magazine November/December 2000, Volume 22,
Number 6 pages 41-42
Max C.
> Do not be so sure. He is now patenting the use of Chemical Castration as
> a way to enhance the effects of chelation. His recent study published in
> the AAPS rag has been decimated as a valid study for numerous reasons,
> e.g. using improper datasets, lousy math, etc.
I asked you this question in another thread, but maybe you didn't see
it.
"In the treatment of precocious puberty, does it render the boys
sterile? If not, would it be a safe assumption that the difference
would be dosage amount? If so, how does the recommended dosage by the
Geier group compare with that of the treatment of precocious puberty?
I have yet to see recommended dosage levels. Could you post links to
doses for both the Geier group's treatment and precocious puberty
treatment? "
> Fine. In the meantime, Geier has been rejected as an expert witness more
> times than Barrett. In AltThink, that should make Barrett more credible
> than Geier.
Where could one find a list of expert witness rejections for a given
person?
> Oh, and read this:
>
> http://briandeer.com/wakefield/dtp-garth.htm
>
> Where Geier conducts "research" and makes a "mistake" of using 240
> instead of 20...12 times the number...
>
> Only an utter moron would think that this is an accident. No credible
> researcher would make an error on such a fundamental number.
That *does* look bad. Has the appeal trial already taken place? I
noticed this was discussing a trial in 1988 and the appeal was made in
1990. Surely this has been resolved by now. What was the outcome?
There must be links to follow up on this. It's old news, apparently.
Max.
Mark Probert
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
>> Do not be so sure. He is now patenting the use of Chemical Castration as
>> a way to enhance the effects of chelation. His recent study published in
>> the AAPS rag has been decimated as a valid study for numerous reasons,
>> e.g. using improper datasets, lousy math, etc.
>
> I asked you this question in another thread, but maybe you didn't see
> it.
>
> "In the treatment of precocious puberty, does it render the boys
> sterile? If not, would it be a safe assumption that the difference
> would be dosage amount? If so, how does the recommended dosage by the
> Geier group compare with that of the treatment of precocious puberty?
> I have yet to see recommended dosage levels. Could you post links to
> doses for both the Geier group's treatment and precocious puberty
> treatment? "
You are jumping over the fact that there is no medical/scientific basis
for using Lupron as sold by the Geiers.
http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/83/autism-testosterone-lupron-playing-with-fire
First, justify the use and then we can discuss dosage.
>> Fine. In the meantime, Geier has been rejected as an expert witness more
>> times than Barrett. In AltThink, that should make Barrett more credible
>> than Geier.
>
> Where could one find a list of expert witness rejections for a given
> person?
AFAIK, there is no handy-dandy, one stop shopping URL for that. An
expert witness can be search in the Federal System through PACER, and
then you can read all of the citations to see what happened.
However, the professional Barrett haters surely do know every time he
has not been accepted as an expert. I am sure that they have the records
handy.
>> Oh, and read this:
>>
>> http://briandeer.com/wakefield/dtp-garth.htm
>>
>> Where Geier conducts "research" and makes a "mistake" of using 240
>> instead of 20...12 times the number...
>>
>> Only an utter moron would think that this is an accident. No credible
>> researcher would make an error on such a fundamental number.
>
> That *does* look bad. Has the appeal trial already taken place?
I do not know, and it is not germane to the points made, the sloppy (I
am being charitable) use of numbers.
I
> noticed this was discussing a trial in 1988 and the appeal was made in
> 1990. Surely this has been resolved by now. What was the outcome?
> There must be links to follow up on this. It's old news, apparently.
Sloppiness is never old news. Geier continues to do sloppy research
using improper datasets and playing fast and lose with statistical
analysis.
Jan Drew
>
> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:t31%f.65119$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Skeptic" <bcs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:LsY_f.890654$x96.455360@attbi_s72...
>>> Ilena posts other people's opinions and her own. She never presents any
>>> data.
>>
>> What a LIE!
>
> I'm sorry Jan... seems like your post ended there.
Do you have a vision problem?
IIena certain DOES present data.
OTOH, I have seen NONE from you.....
Just disruption, arguing and insulting
Was there more coming or
> did the remnant of your brain just let out a fart?
Point made.....
Jan Drew
It appears Mark can not answer your questions.
Very little doubt, he saw it.
Under the thread:
The Geiers try to patent chemical castration as an austism treatment
You asked the question in post number 26.
Post # 27..Mark addressed your post #2...NOT 26.
Nuff said.
Jan Drew
"Mark Probert" <markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:9ze%f.21$fO...@fe11.lga...
> Max C. wrote:
>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>
>>> Do not be so sure. He is now patenting the use of Chemical Castration as
>>> a way to enhance the effects of chelation. His recent study published in
>>> the AAPS rag has been decimated as a valid study for numerous reasons,
>>> e.g. using improper datasets, lousy math, etc.
>>
>> I asked you this question in another thread, but maybe you didn't see
>> it.
>>
>> "In the treatment of precocious puberty, does it render the boys
>> sterile? If not, would it be a safe assumption that the difference
>> would be dosage amount? If so, how does the recommended dosage by the
>> Geier group compare with that of the treatment of precocious puberty?
>> I have yet to see recommended dosage levels. Could you post links to
>> doses for both the Geier group's treatment and precocious puberty
>> treatment? "
>
> You are jumping over the fact that there is no medical/scientific basis
> for using Lupron as sold by the Geiers.
>
> http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/83/autism-testosterone-lupron-playing-with-fire
>
> First, justify the use and then we can discuss dosage.
NO, I don't think so....
Max asked you under another thread...
AND
YOU ingored his questions...
In FACT, his post was # 15 (I was incorrect in another post)
Tues, Apr 11, 2006 10:06 am
Max wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
> Lupron has ONE medical use, i.e. treatment of precocious puberty in boys,
> and one other use: CHEMICAL CASTRATION of sex offenders.
In the treatment of precocious puberty, does it render the boys
sterile? If not, would it be a safe assumption that the difference
would be dosage amount? If so, how does the recommended dosage by the
Geier group compare with that of the treatment of precocious puberty?
I have yet to see recommended dosage levels. Could you post links to
doses for both the Geier group's treatment and precocious puberty
treatment?
You not only failed to answer him..
In FACT, you asked him a question in post # 17.
Tues. Apr 11, 2006 5:11 pm
Max C. wrote:
> Peter Moran wrote:
>> PM Actually the the study on the first hair cuts of autistic children
>> was performed because Haley himself and Safeminds expected it to show
>> larger quantities of mercury in the hair of autistic children. I have
>> documentation of this expectation somewhere.
> I'm not familiar with this study. Is it available online to read
> somewhere? I'd like to see how long after thimerosal injections the hair
> was tested. If it was soon after (1 and 6 months... depending on the
> length of the child's hair) and little or no mercury was found in the
> hair, that would be a good indication that mercury elimination was not
> working properly.
Why would you assume that? Do you know all the means by which the body
eliminates mercury?
>> The theory that they cannot excrete mercury was produced in retrospect to
>> try and explain this awkward fact.
> It's interesting that it was in retrospect. Your mention of it yesterday
> was the first I'd heard of it, and my initial thought was that the
> expectation was backwards. I'm no scientist. Why did I suspect an
> elimination problem and they didn't?
>> This other study seems to show that autistic children can eliminate
>> mercury in the hair. This is actually what you would expect. It is not
>> an excretory process, it is simple physicochemistry, as would be the
>> inevitable elimination in the urine and sweat. Are you aware of any
>> direct evidence that autistic children cannot eliminate mercury? This
>> is hypothesis number two of the sequence of unproven and unlikely ones.
> Just because it's unproven doesn't automatically make it unlikely. I had
> come to think of you as more open minded than that.
With all of the studies done on mercury and kiddies, the fact that it is
unproven suggests that there is nothing to the claim. One would think
that the phenomena would have manifested itself by now.
So..it was YOU who jumped right over his questions!
But...YOU still can NOT answer the questions...
Speaking of playing fast and loose...NOT lose [as is your habit to use this
word incorrectly]
In the Matter of Mark Probert (Admitted as Mark S. Probert), a
Suspended Attorney, Respondent.
Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.
92-02731
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT
183 A.D.2d 282; 590 N.Y.S.2d 747
November 9, 1992, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [***1]
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Grievance Committee for the
Tenth Judicial District. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on
February 15, 1978, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court in the Second Judicial Department, under the name Mark S.
Probert.
DISPOSITION: Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline
upon the respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is
granted; and it is further,
HEADNOTES: Attorney and Client - Disciplinary Proceedings
Respondent attorney, who is charged with 22 counts of failing to
cooperate with investigations of alleged misconduct by the Grievance
Committee, and who has failed to answer or appear, is disbarred.
COUNSEL:
Frank A. Finnerty, Jr., Westbury (Muriel L. Gennosa of counsel), for
petitioner.
JUDGES: Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ.,
concur.
Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline upon the
respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is granted; and
it is further,
Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately,
the respondent, Mark Probert, is disbarred and his name is stricken
from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent shall continue to comply with this Court's
rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned
attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,
Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary [***2] Law § 90, the respondent,
Mark Probert, is commanded to continue to desist and refrain (1) from
practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or
employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or
counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission
or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to
the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4)
from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and
counselor-at-law.
OPINIONBY: Per Curiam.
OPINION: [*282]
[**747] By decision and order of this Court dated September 29,
1989, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law until the
further order of this Court based upon his failure to cooperate with
the Grievance Committee. By further order of this Court dated June 4,
1992, the Grievance Committee was authorized to institute and
prosecute a disciplinary proceeding [*283] against the respondent
and the Honorable Moses M. Weinstein was appointed as Special Referee.
[**748] A notice of petition and petition was personally served upon
the respondent on July 2, 1992. No answer was forthcoming. The
petitioner now moves to hold the [***3] respondent in default. The
motion was personally served upon the respondent on August 14, 1992.
The respondent has failed to submit any papers in response to the
default motion.
The charges involve 22 counts of the respondent's failure to cooperate
with the Grievance Committee in its investigations into complaints of
professional misconduct.
The charges, if established, would require the imposition of a
disciplinary sanction against the respondent. Since the respondent has
chosen not to appear or answer in these proceedings, the charges must
be deemed established. The petitioner's motion to hold the respondent
in default and impose discipline is, therefore, granted. Accordingly,
the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of
attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately
sunnydisposition
> >I think you'd be better received if you were to leave out the
> > name-calling and just stick to the facts.
>
Seems like Dr Geier has a difficult history when it comes to his math.
Not sure I'd rely on any stats this guy has to offer:
Max C.
> You are jumping over the fact that there is no medical/scientific basis
> for using Lupron as sold by the Geiers.
No I'm not. I'm jumping *TO* the fact that you have stated he will be
castrating these children. If it's not true, you shouldn't have said
it.
> http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/83/autism-testosterone-lupron-playing-with-fire
>
> First, justify the use and then we can discuss dosage.
No, *YOU* are the one making claims he's going to chemically castrate
these children. The burdon of proof is on you. My guess is that your
claims are not true and that you're jumping to extremes.
> AFAIK, there is no handy-dandy, one stop shopping URL for that. An
> expert witness can be search in the Federal System through PACER, and
> then you can read all of the citations to see what happened.
>
> However, the professional Barrett haters surely do know every time he
> has not been accepted as an expert. I am sure that they have the records
> handy.
Well, I'm not a professional Barrett hater, so I wouldn't have those
numbers... but you made a claim that Barrett hadn't been turned down as
many times as Geier. I'm just curious how you came to that conclusion.
> > That *does* look bad. Has the appeal trial already taken place?
>
> I do not know, and it is not germane to the points made, the sloppy (I
> am being charitable) use of numbers.
It's one point in the midst of a very large trial. If the appeal
verdict stayed the same as the original verdict, then your whole rant
is practically moot. To me, a bigger embarassment for Geier would be
to lose the appeal because of his sloppiness. Since the hounds that
dug up this original mistake didn't harp on the appeal trial, I'm
guessing the verdict must have stood.
> I
> > noticed this was discussing a trial in 1988 and the appeal was made in
> > 1990. Surely this has been resolved by now. What was the outcome?
> > There must be links to follow up on this. It's old news, apparently.
>
> Sloppiness is never old news. Geier continues to do sloppy research
> using improper datasets and playing fast and lose with statistical
> analysis.
In your opinion. Others have the same opinion of Barrett. That
doesn't make either opinion correct.
Max.
Mark Probert
'taint the only example of Geier being innumerate:
http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/03/math-slop-autism-and-mercury.html
and his comparison with the Shattuck investigation which showed that
using school data, as the Geiers, et al, do, is utterly bogus:
http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/04/good-vs-bad-in-math-of-autism-studies.html
Of course, the recent Geier (rhymes with liar) crappola is further
tainted by the fact that the developers of the two datasets they relied
on say that the datasets are not designed to be used as the Geiers do.
Mark Probert
> Mark Probert wrote:
>> You are jumping over the fact that there is no medical/scientific basis
>> for using Lupron as sold by the Geiers.
>
> No I'm not. I'm jumping *TO* the fact that you have stated he will be
> castrating these children. If it's not true, you shouldn't have said
> it.
What do you think Lupron does?
http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/01/castration/
http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/09/05/lupron/print.html
Mark Probert
> Mark Probert wrote:
>> You are jumping over the fact that there is no medical/scientific basis
>> for using Lupron as sold by the Geiers.
>
> No I'm not. I'm jumping *TO* the fact that you have stated he will be
> castrating these children. If it's not true, you shouldn't have said
> it.
What do you think it does?
http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/01/castration/
http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/09/05/lupron/print.html
for just two examples.
>> http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/83/autism-testosterone-lupron-playing-with-fire
>>
>> First, justify the use and then we can discuss dosage.
>
> No, *YOU* are the one making claims he's going to chemically castrate
> these children. The burdon of proof is on you. My guess is that your
> claims are not true and that you're jumping to extremes.
No, the burden of proof is on the Geiers who claim that this treatment
is warranted in the first place. That burden is exclusively theirs, as
the consequences of the treatment are quite devastating to the child.
>> AFAIK, there is no handy-dandy, one stop shopping URL for that. An
>> expert witness can be search in the Federal System through PACER, and
>> then you can read all of the citations to see what happened.
>>
>> However, the professional Barrett haters surely do know every time he
>> has not been accepted as an expert. I am sure that they have the records
>> handy.
>
> Well, I'm not a professional Barrett hater,
so far...
so I wouldn't have those
> numbers... but you made a claim that Barrett hadn't been turned down as
> many times as Geier. I'm just curious how you came to that conclusion.
By reading the posts of the professional Barrett haters. I invite them
to jump in and post the statistics, or cases, of where his testimony was
not permitted to be made a part of the records.
I truly would like to see a numerical comparison.
>>> That *does* look bad. Has the appeal trial already taken place?
>> I do not know, and it is not germane to the points made, the sloppy (I
>> am being charitable) use of numbers.
>
> It's one point in the midst of a very large trial. If the appeal
> verdict stayed the same as the original verdict, then your whole rant
> is practically moot.
Nope. Not at all. The point is that Geier was, at best, sloppy, and, at
worst, intentionally misleading. What happens afterwards is irrelevant
to that point.
Note that because of his "error" the case had to go back and be re-tried
at substantial expense to his employers, i.e. the plaintiff's attorneys,
the defendants (mean evil pharmaceutical companies that deserve to be
made to waste their ill gotten gains, and, of course, the taxpayers, who
pay for the congested courts.
To me, a bigger embarassment for Geier would be
> to lose the appeal because of his sloppiness.
True.
Since the hounds that
> dug up this original mistake didn't harp on the appeal trial, I'm
> guessing the verdict must have stood.
The case was sent back for retrial. Whatever happened there is immaterial.
>> I
>>> noticed this was discussing a trial in 1988 and the appeal was made in
>>> 1990. Surely this has been resolved by now. What was the outcome?
>>> There must be links to follow up on this. It's old news, apparently.
>>
>> Sloppiness is never old news. Geier continues to do sloppy research
>> using improper datasets and playing fast and lose with statistical
>> analysis.
>
> In your opinion.
My opinion based on understanding the poor math he recently used, and
the improper use of datasets not designed to be used the way he did.
Others have the same opinion of Barrett. That
> doesn't make either opinion correct.
Not all opinions are created equal. Mine are based on facts that are not
refuted.
> Max.
>
Jan Drew
> Max C. wrote:
>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>> You are jumping over the fact that there is no medical/scientific basis
>>> for using Lupron as sold by the Geiers.
>>
>> No I'm not. I'm jumping *TO* the fact that you have stated he will be
>> castrating these children. If it's not true, you shouldn't have said
>> it.
>
> What do you think it does?
>
> http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/01/castration/
>
> http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/09/05/lupron/print.html
>
> for just two examples.
>
>>> http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/83/autism-testosterone-lupron-playing-with-fire
>>>
>>> First, justify the use and then we can discuss dosage.
>>
>> No, *YOU* are the one making claims he's going to chemically castrate
>> these children. The burdon of proof is on you. My guess is that your
>> claims are not true and that you're jumping to extremes.
>
> No, the burden of proof is on the Geiers who claim that this treatment is
> warranted in the first place. That burden is exclusively theirs, as the
> consequences of the treatment are quite devastating to the child.
No, *YOU* are the one making claims he's going to chemically castrate
these children. The burdon of proof is on you. My guess is that your
claims are not true and that you're jumping to extremes
The burden of proof is on MARK PROBERT ....WHO SAID
*****HE'S GOING TO CHEMICALLY CASTRATE THESE CHILDREN*****
Now....PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!
>
>> Max.
>>
Jan Drew
"sunnydisposition" <thet...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1144946604....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
Jan Drew
> sunnydisposition wrote:
>> Skeptic wrote:
>>> "Max C." <max...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1144708566....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> I think you'd be better received if you were to leave out the
>>>> name-calling and just stick to the facts.
>>> Ilena has only opinions, not facts.
>>
>> Seems like Dr Geier has a difficult history when it comes to his math.
>> Not sure I'd rely on any stats this guy has to offer:
>>
>>
>
> 'taint the only example of Geier being innumerate:
>
>
> and his comparison with the Shattuck investigation which showed that using
> school data, as the Geiers, et al, do, is utterly bogus:
>
>
> Of course, the recent Geier (rhymes with liar) crappola is further tainted
> by the fact that the developers of the two datasets they relied on say
> that the datasets are not designed to be used as the Geiers do.
In the Matter of Mark Probert (Admitted as Mark S. Probert), a
92-02731
November 9, 1992, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [***1]
COUNSEL:
OPINIONBY: Per Curiam.
OPINION: [*282]
attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately.
Source:
NY UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, ATTORNEY REGIST. UNIT
Currency Status:
ARCHIVE RECORD
NAME & PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION
Name:
MARK PROBERT
Date Of Birth:
11/XX/1946
Gender:
MALE
Address:
1698 WEBSTER AVE
MERRICK, NY 11566
County:
NASSAU
Phone:
EMPLOYER INFORMATION
Employer:
MARK S PROBERT ESQ
Organization:
PERSON
LICENSING INFORMATION
Licensing Agency:
NY STATE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION
License/Certification Type:
ATTORNEY
License Number:
1253889
Issue Date:
00/00/1978
License Status:
DISBARRED
License State:
NY
>
Max C.
> What do you think it does?
>
> http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/01/castration/
>
> http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/09/05/lupron/print.html
>
> for just two examples.
It's interesting that you'll give me any answer except the one I am
asking for. Why won't you say if theraputic doses cause the chemical
castration you're claiming?
See, here's the thing... the biggest difference I've seen between you
and me is that *I* believe people are intelligent and capable of making
informed decisions on their own. You seem to believe that people are
stupid and should have others making their health decisions for them.
If *I* were the parent of an autistic child and came across Geier's
work, I'd study it. I would ask questions. I would want to know what
leads him to believe that this therapy will work. What evidence does
he have that specific hormones have the mercury bound up? Could his
procedure cause chemical castration as you claim? I would research his
answers to those questions and decide for myself if the risk was worth
the possible reward. You seem to think that if it hasn't been proven,
it isn't possible. Of course such a position is absurd. If all people
thought that way, the human race would never progress. Progress
depends on doing things that have never been done before.
I am not posting in this thread to defend Dr. Geier. I'm here to make
sure you keep things real. From what I've seen, your claim that he is
going to castrate these kids with his therapy is just a line of pro-med
crap. That's evidenced by the fact that you won't answer a simple
question. Obviously he CAN'T perform this therapy on unwilling
patients. If parents research his work and feel that it will be
beneficial to their children, it's THEIR CHOICE to make.
> No, the burden of proof is on the Geiers who claim that this treatment
> is warranted in the first place. That burden is exclusively theirs, as
> the consequences of the treatment are quite devastating to the child.
Again, you claim the treatment is devestating... apparently without
knowing anything except the worst case scenarios of Lupron. You don't
even seem to know the dosage to be used. It's interesting that you
could be so opinionated about something for which you know so little.
You really need to back yourself up on that, which you have yet to do.
> By reading the posts of the professional Barrett haters. I invite them
> to jump in and post the statistics, or cases, of where his testimony was
> not permitted to be made a part of the records.
>
> I truly would like to see a numerical comparison.
I see. So 1 - you DON'T know for sure if the Geier's Lupron treatment
will actually castrate the children and 2 - you DON'T know which person
has been turned down more times as expert witnesses. 3 - you refuse to
show support for either statement. It's starting to look like this
entire thread is just a bunch of hot air.
> Nope. Not at all. The point is that Geier was, at best, sloppy, and, at
> worst, intentionally misleading. What happens afterwards is irrelevant
> to that point.
As I said, the math was one point amidst a large trial. If you're
going to refuse to look at the rest of the data in the trial and focus
on one thing that may not have even changed the outcome of the verdict
on appeal, then it looks like you're the closed minded one. I believe
that will be apparent to anyone reading this thread.
> Note that because of his "error" the case had to go back and be re-tried
> at substantial expense to his employers, i.e. the plaintiff's attorneys,
> the defendants (mean evil pharmaceutical companies that deserve to be
> made to waste their ill gotten gains, and, of course, the taxpayers, who
> pay for the congested courts.
They have deep pockets. I doubt they even realized a penny fell out of
them.
> To me, a bigger embarassment for Geier would be
> > to lose the appeal because of his sloppiness.
>
> True.
>
> Since the hounds that
> > dug up this original mistake didn't harp on the appeal trial, I'm
> > guessing the verdict must have stood.
>
> The case was sent back for retrial. Whatever happened there is immaterial.
To you, because you are closed minded and refuse to look at all the
evidence. I see that as a serious character flaw. If the verdict was
the same as the original trial based on the rest of the evidence, then
to me the rest of the evidence must have significant value. Otherwise
the verdict would be different.
> My opinion based on understanding the poor math he recently used, and
> the improper use of datasets not designed to be used the way he did.
>
> Others have the same opinion of Barrett. That
> > doesn't make either opinion correct.
>
> Not all opinions are created equal. Mine are based on facts that are not
> refuted.
I hear your keyboard clicking but all I see is blah, blah, blah.
Max.
Mark Probert
No, I have posted URLs showing that Lupron, the drug that they are using
in the treatment they are patenting (to ensure that they get a slice of
the exorbitant fees) is used to chemically castrate males.
> The burden of proof is on MARK PROBERT ....WHO SAID
>
> *****HE'S GOING TO CHEMICALLY CASTRATE THESE CHILDREN*****
>
> Now....PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!
I have already proven that the drug is used for chemical castration.
When it is used, it decreases testosterone output, thus castrating the
male.
And, Jan, I will never shut up to stop such evil.
Mark Probert
> Mark Probert wrote:
>> What do you think it does?
>>
>> http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/01/castration/
>>
>> http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/09/05/lupron/print.html
>>
>> for just two examples.
>
> It's interesting that you'll give me any answer except the one I am
> asking for. Why won't you say if theraputic doses cause the chemical
> castration you're claiming?
I thought you did not need such a fundamental answer as you read the
articles on Neurodiversity and followed all the links, as I did. I
apologize for assuming that you bothered to try to understand this.
Lupron's function is to reduce/eliminate the production of testosterone.
That is what chemical castrating does.
> See, here's the thing... the biggest difference I've seen between you
> and me is that *I* believe people are intelligent and capable of making
> informed decisions on their own. You seem to believe that people are
> stupid and should have others making their health decisions for them.
Incorrect, strawman. I believe that people should know the truth, and
want to explain the ramifications of what the alt bullshitters spread.
> If *I* were the parent of an autistic child and came across Geier's
> work, I'd study it. I would ask questions. I would want to know what
> leads him to believe that this therapy will work. What evidence does
> he have that specific hormones have the mercury bound up?
If you read Kathy's articles and followed all of her links, you would
have those answers. That is what I did, sad that you did not.
Could his
> procedure cause chemical castration as you claim? I would research his
> answers to those questions and decide for myself if the risk was worth
> the possible reward. You seem to think that if it hasn't been proven,
> it isn't possible.
Some degree of proof would be nice prior to injecting a child with
anything such as Lupron, don'tcha think?
Of course such a position is absurd. If all people
> thought that way, the human race would never progress. Progress
> depends on doing things that have never been done before.
Yes, Mr. Logical Fallacy.
> I am not posting in this thread to defend Dr. Geier. I'm here to make
> sure you keep things real.
It is real, and you chose not to bother to read what I posted. I recall
I said that providing URLs, etc. to you is a waste of time, and you do
prove that here.
From what I've seen, your claim that he is
> going to castrate these kids with his therapy is just a line of pro-med
> crap. That's evidenced by the fact that you won't answer a simple
> question.
It was answered, you chose not to follow along. Sad that your mind is
closed.
Obviously he CAN'T perform this therapy on unwilling
> patients. If parents research his work and feel that it will be
> beneficial to their children, it's THEIR CHOICE to make.
Of course, parents who would subject their child to this need to be
fully informed of the consequences. I would also suggest that they need
a reality check and be told that this is purely experimental and never
been proven.
However, there is evidence that the drug manufacturer will nip it in the
bud and limit sales. Now, if an EVIL pharmaceutical company will not
sell a drug for such a reason, does that give you a hint?
>> No, the burden of proof is on the Geiers who claim that this treatment
>> is warranted in the first place. That burden is exclusively theirs, as
>> the consequences of the treatment are quite devastating to the child.
>
> Again, you claim the treatment is devestating... apparently without
> knowing anything except the worst case scenarios of Lupron. You don't
> even seem to know the dosage to be used. It's interesting that you
> could be so opinionated about something for which you know so little.
> You really need to back yourself up on that, which you have yet to do.
Maxie, I will no longer defend myself when you make such spurious,
dismissive claims. My last words on the subject:
BEFORE I post, I investigate and research. Period.
>> By reading the posts of the professional Barrett haters. I invite them
>> to jump in and post the statistics, or cases, of where his testimony was
>> not permitted to be made a part of the records.
>>
>> I truly would like to see a numerical comparison.
>
> I see. So 1 - you DON'T know for sure if the Geier's Lupron treatment
> will actually castrate the children
Incorrect, as I stated above. That is the function of the medication,
i.e. to reduce testosterone production which is chemical castration.
and 2 - you DON'T know which person
> has been turned down more times as expert witnesses.
Like I said, there is no evidence that Barrett has been rejected more
times than the Geiers. You can, if you wish, open a PACER account and do
some research. The fact remains that the professional Barrett haters
have yet to refute my assertion using any form of information.
3 - you refuse to
> show support for either statement.
Incorrect as explained above.
You really do have a problem with reading what is posted to you.
It's starting to look like this
> entire thread is just a bunch of hot air.
Yes, and it is emanating from YOU, Mr. Logical Fallacy.
>> Nope. Not at all. The point is that Geier was, at best, sloppy, and, at
>> worst, intentionally misleading. What happens afterwards is irrelevant
>> to that point.
>
> As I said, the math was one point amidst a large trial. If you're
> going to refuse to look at the rest of the data in the trial and focus
> on one thing that may not have even changed the outcome of the verdict
> on appeal, then it looks like you're the closed minded one. I believe
> that will be apparent to anyone reading this thread.
There ya go again glossing over a fact that the other expert witnesses
relied on...the case was reversed for a reason that is substantial.
>> Note that because of his "error" the case had to go back and be re-tried
>> at substantial expense to his employers, i.e. the plaintiff's attorneys,
>> the defendants (mean evil pharmaceutical companies that deserve to be
>> made to waste their ill gotten gains, and, of course, the taxpayers, who
>> pay for the congested courts.
>
> They have deep pockets. I doubt they even realized a penny fell out of
> them.
You mean the plaintiff's attorneys? Oops..wait a moment....if their
clients did eventually win, their clients paid for it out of the
proceeds....
>> To me, a bigger embarassment for Geier would be
>>> to lose the appeal because of his sloppiness.
>> True.
>>
>> Since the hounds that
>>> dug up this original mistake didn't harp on the appeal trial, I'm
>>> guessing the verdict must have stood.
>> The case was sent back for retrial. Whatever happened there is immaterial.
>
> To you, because you are closed minded and refuse to look at all the
> evidence.
Wrong. It is you who is clearly closed minded and refusing to see that
this was more than an "oops."
> I see that as a serious character flaw.
Projecting?
If the verdict was
> the same as the original trial based on the rest of the evidence, then
> to me the rest of the evidence must have significant value. Otherwise
> the verdict would be different.
If the rest of the evidence had significant value, the verdict would not
have been a reversal and new trial. It would have been called "harmless
error."
>> My opinion based on understanding the poor math he recently used, and
>> the improper use of datasets not designed to be used the way he did.
>>
>> Others have the same opinion of Barrett. That
>>> doesn't make either opinion correct.
>> Not all opinions are created equal. Mine are based on facts that are not
>> refuted.
>
> I hear your keyboard clicking but all I see is blah, blah, blah.
Of course you would. I expect nothing from you, except the opportunity
to prove you wrong, as I have done here.
> Max.
>
vernon
> Mark Probert wrote:
>> What do you think it does?
>>
>> http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/01/castration/
>>
>> http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/09/05/lupron/print.html
>>
>> for just two examples.
>
> It's interesting that you'll give me any answer except the one I am
> asking for. Why won't you say if theraputic doses cause the chemical
> castration you're claiming?
>
> See, here's the thing... the biggest difference I've seen between you
> and me is that *I* believe people are intelligent and capable of making
> informed decisions on their own. You seem to believe that people are
> stupid and should have others making their health decisions for them.
>
Sad to say, but, the reality is that most people suffer from the lemming
syndrome. They pick a leader who says he a leader (Doctor), (AMA), (Surgeon
General( and follow. The lemming syndrome is primarily an ancillary effect
of laziness.
Mark Probert
> "Mark Probert" <markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
> news:DgA%f.263$_v3...@fe09.lga...
>> sunnydisposition wrote:
>>> Skeptic wrote:
>>>> "Max C." <max...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1144708566....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> I think you'd be better received if you were to leave out the
>>>>> name-calling and just stick to the facts.
>>>> Ilena has only opinions, not facts.
>>> Seems like Dr Geier has a difficult history when it comes to his math.
>>> Not sure I'd rely on any stats this guy has to offer:
>>>
>>> http://briandeerBIAS
OOPS...lets restore...Jan is afraid of facts...
http://briandeer.com/wakefield/dtp-garth.htm
>> 'taint the only example of Geier being innumerate:
>>
>> http://goodBIAS
http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/03/math-slop-autism-and-mercury.html
Jan calls it bias because she does not understand the information and it
shows that one of her HEroes is a liar (rhymes with Geier).
>> and his comparison with the Shattuck investigation which showed that using
>> school data, as the Geiers, et al, do, is utterly bogus:
>>
>> http://goodBIAS
http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/04/good-vs-bad-in-math-of-autism-studies.html
>> Of course, the recent Geier (rhymes with liar) crappola is further tainted
>> by the fact that the developers of the two datasets they relied on say
>> that the datasets are not designed to be used as the Geiers do.
Gratuitous personal attack deleted, as it does not affect the validity
of the point that Geier is a liar.
vernon
> Max C. wrote:
>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>> What do you think it does?
>>>
>>> http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/01/castration/
>>>
>>> http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/09/05/lupron/print.html
>>>
>>> for just two examples.
>>
>> It's interesting that you'll give me any answer except the one I am
>> asking for. Why won't you say if theraputic doses cause the chemical
>> castration you're claiming?
>
> I thought you did not need such a fundamental answer as you read the
> articles on Neurodiversity and followed all the links, as I did. I
> apologize for assuming that you bothered to try to understand this.
>
> Lupron's function is to reduce/eliminate the production of testosterone.
> That is what chemical castrating does.
>
1. "castration" here is an analogy.
2. Allowing estrogen reduction (stop the drug) is different than castration.
3. Even physical castration does NOT necessarily stop sexual abuse.
4. People are, usually, permanently deranged and there is no cure except
confinement.
Skeptic
"vernon" <th...@there.com> wrote in message
news:443fb553$0$5692$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
Did you know that many physicians are not members of the AMA?
Max C.
> I thought you did not need such a fundamental answer as you read the
> articles on Neurodiversity and followed all the links, as I did. I
> apologize for assuming that you bothered to try to understand this.
I read your links and they did NOT answer my question... nor did you.
*I* would have thought that such an "obvious" answer would be easily
presented. You have proven otherwise.
> Lupron's function is to reduce/eliminate the production of testosterone.
> That is what chemical castrating does.
It's sad when I can go to a dictionary to prove you wrong:
"castration - 1) To remove the testicles of (a male) 2) To remove
the ovaries of (a female) 3)The removal of the gonads or their
destruction as by radiation or parasites."
So, if we're talking about castration, we're talking about something
that's permanent. Unless the links I've read are incorrect, the
effects of Lupron are *dosage dependant* and *not permanent.* The user
will regain the ability to reproduce after quitting Lupron.
I suppose you'll come back now and say "Chemical castration is
differnet from regular castration." To which I'd say "You got that
right. Chemical castration is is a term you specifically picked out to
use to scare people here in some sort of smear campaign against Geier.
I imagine you chose that term specifically because it sounded
threatening and irreversable."
> Incorrect, strawman. I believe that people should know the truth, and
> want to explain the ramifications of what the alt bullshitters spread.
The truth is you can't (won't) even answer a simple question because
the answer would deflate your position on this issue.
> If you read Kathy's articles and followed all of her links, you would
> have those answers. That is what I did, sad that you did not.
I did not follow those articles because that is not the point of this
discussion. The point is whether or not you're being honest in your
evlauation if the Geiers treatment. The evidence you've presented so
far suggests you are not.
> Could his
> > procedure cause chemical castration as you claim? I would research his
> > answers to those questions and decide for myself if the risk was worth
> > the possible reward. You seem to think that if it hasn't been proven,
> > it isn't possible.
>
> Some degree of proof would be nice prior to injecting a child with
> anything such as Lupron, don'tcha think?
Yes, I do. As I said, if I were a parent of a child being considered
for this therapy, I would certainly want all the proof Geier has and
then I would base my dicision on that. However, reading the list of
side effects of Lupron, the manufacturer would have one believe that
it's nearly harmless unless it's being used to treat prostate cancer.
If that's so, why are you making such a big deal out of this? Do you
disagree with the drug manufacturer and think this is a very dangerous
drug?
> It is real, and you chose not to bother to read what I posted. I recall
> I said that providing URLs, etc. to you is a waste of time, and you do
> prove that here.
Again with your assumptions.
> Of course, parents who would subject their child to this need to be
> fully informed of the consequences. I would also suggest that they need
> a reality check and be told that this is purely experimental and never
> been proven.
I agree 100%. Again, it's THEIR choice to make, and should be made on
full disclosure of the facts. Telling them that their children will be
castrated is scaremongering. You seem to be a pro at that.
> However, there is evidence that the drug manufacturer will nip it in the
> bud and limit sales. Now, if an EVIL pharmaceutical company will not
> sell a drug for such a reason, does that give you a hint?
I'm sure such a decision will be made based mainly on profit. If it
looks like there will be lawsuits, they will not allow it. Vioxx has
really taken its toll on the way drug corps do business... thank God!
> > Again, you claim the treatment is devestating... apparently without
> > knowing anything except the worst case scenarios of Lupron. You don't
> > even seem to know the dosage to be used. It's interesting that you
> > could be so opinionated about something for which you know so little.
> > You really need to back yourself up on that, which you have yet to do.
>
> Maxie, I will no longer defend myself when you make such spurious,
> dismissive claims. My last words on the subject:
I'm curious, does it make you feel all big inside to demean me by
mispelling my name? I hope it does at least something for you, because
I'm sure it makes you look like a bully in the eyes of those reading
our conversation. That's why I don't mind it... I just thought you
might want to know it's probably hurting your credibility.
> BEFORE I post, I investigate and research. Period.
Yeah... we've all seen it. I'm not impressed.
> Incorrect, as I stated above. That is the function of the medication,
> i.e. to reduce testosterone production which is chemical castration.
Changing the definition of castration doesn't make you right. It makes
you deceptive.
> Like I said, there is no evidence that Barrett has been rejected more
> times than the Geiers. You can, if you wish, open a PACER account and do
> some research. The fact remains that the professional Barrett haters
> have yet to refute my assertion using any form of information.
Why should "they?" (whoever "they" are.) You're the one that made the
claim and you can't even support it. You pulled a stat out of your
butt and you expect that it's right just because no one is willing to
take the time to prove you wrong? Give me a break.
> You really do have a problem with reading what is posted to you.
I've read it... as stated above.
> There ya go again glossing over a fact that the other expert witnesses
> relied on...the case was reversed for a reason that is substantial.
Unless you were in the jury of the appeal trial, you have no way of
knowing if it actually *was* substantial. It was substantial enough to
get another trial. That is the ONLY information you've provided so
far. Unless it was substantial enough to reverse the *verdict* it was
not substantial to the trial itself.
> Wrong. It is you who is clearly closed minded and refusing to see that
> this was more than an "oops."
I think reading over my comments will reveal to anyone that I have not
taken a stand on the "miscalculation" itself. I don't know enough
about it to do so. If Geier did it on purpose, then shame on him. The
only thing I'm taking a stand for here is your position that seems to
be based on one-sided and incomplete information throughout this entire
thread.
> > I see that as a serious character flaw.
>
> Projecting?
Nope. Just stating my opinion. You seem to like to do that, so I'm
just doing the same.
> If the verdict was
> > the same as the original trial based on the rest of the evidence, then
> > to me the rest of the evidence must have significant value. Otherwise
> > the verdict would be different.
>
> If the rest of the evidence had significant value, the verdict would not
> have been a reversal and new trial. It would have been called "harmless
> error."
What? Talk about your spin tactics! You're trying to say that because
this ONE thing was wrong enough to get a new trial that the rest of the
evidence did not have significant value? Come on! Yes, it was
significant enough to get a new trial. So far, that is ALL you have
presented. That does NOT mean that the rest of the evidence in the
trial was trivial, as you seem to be asserting. You have presented no
evidence that the miscalculation was any more or any less meaningful
than any other piece of evidence in the trial. You seem to think that
the entire trial hinged on this one calculation. That's not logical at
all. Trials of this magnitude normally have tons of evidence from both
sides. You have no way of knowing the importance of the miscalculation
compared with any other piece of evidence in the trial, or if you *DO*
know you have yet to present such info.
> Of course you would. I expect nothing from you, except the opportunity
> to prove you wrong, as I have done here.
Mark-land... a fun place to imagine and daydream. Population : 1.
Max.
Mark Probert
> "Mark Probert" <markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
> news:skO%f.8$Sv...@fe10.lga...
>> Max C. wrote:
>>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>>> What do you think it does?
>>>>
>>>> http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/01/castration/
>>>>
>>>> http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/09/05/lupron/print.html
>>>>
>>>> for just two examples.
>>> It's interesting that you'll give me any answer except the one I am
>>> asking for. Why won't you say if theraputic doses cause the chemical
>>> castration you're claiming?
>> I thought you did not need such a fundamental answer as you read the
>> articles on Neurodiversity and followed all the links, as I did. I
>> apologize for assuming that you bothered to try to understand this.
>>
>> Lupron's function is to reduce/eliminate the production of testosterone.
>> That is what chemical castrating does.
>>
>
>
> 1. "castration" here is an analogy.
> 2. Allowing estrogen reduction (stop the drug) is different than castration.
That is why it is called "chemical castration".
> 3. Even physical castration does NOT necessarily stop sexual abuse.
> 4. People are, usually, permanently deranged and there is no cure except
> confinement.
That is an issue before the NYS Legislature, and my assemblyman is a
strong advocate for lifetime confinement of certain sexual predators. We
have had some long chats on this exact topic, and, at this time, I agree
that the fact of a second offense should result in lifetime confinement.
There are cases where the first should, also, but the place to draw the
line is not clear cut.
Mark Probert
Dr. Geier....Dr. Haley....Hulda Clark....etc. etc. etc.
Mark Probert
> Mark Probert wrote:
>> I thought you did not need such a fundamental answer as you read the
>> articles on Neurodiversity and followed all the links, as I did. I
>> apologize for assuming that you bothered to try to understand this.
>
> I read your links and they did NOT answer my question... nor did you.
> *I* would have thought that such an "obvious" answer would be easily
> presented. You have proven otherwise.
>
>> Lupron's function is to reduce/eliminate the production of testosterone.
>> That is what chemical castrating does.
>
> It's sad when I can go to a dictionary to prove you wrong:
>
> "castration - 1) To remove the testicles of (a male) 2) To remove
> the ovaries of (a female) 3)The removal of the gonads or their
> destruction as by radiation or parasites."
>
> So, if we're talking about castration, we're talking about something
> that's permanent. Unless the links I've read are incorrect, the
> effects of Lupron are *dosage dependant* and *not permanent.* The user
> will regain the ability to reproduce after quitting Lupron.
>
> I suppose you'll come back now and say "Chemical castration is
> differnet from regular castration." To which I'd say "You got that
> right. Chemical castration is is a term you specifically picked out to
> use to scare people here in some sort of smear campaign against Geier.
> I imagine you chose that term specifically because it sounded
> threatening and irreversable."
No, I chose that term as it is the commonly used one when Lupron is used.
Chemical castration
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Chemical castration is a form of castration caused by certain hormonal
drugs. It was developed as a temporary preventive measure or punishment,
typically for male child sex offenders and rapists.
Depo Provera, a progestin, is the drug most commonly used today for sex
offenders. It acts on the brain to inhibit hormones that stimulate the
testicles to produce testosterone. Because of this, the recidivism rate
of sex offenders decreased from 75% to 2%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration
I am tired of playing your asinine semantic games.
Yawn.
Ilena Rose
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chemical castration is a form of temporary castration caused by
certain hormonal drugs. It was developed as a temporary preventive
measure or punishment, typically for male child sex offenders and
rapists.
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
vernon
> vernon wrote:
>> "Mark Probert" <markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
>> news:skO%f.8$Sv...@fe10.lga...
>>> Max C. wrote:
>>>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>> What do you think it does?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/01/castration/
>>>>>
>>>>> http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/09/05/lupron/print.html
>>>>>
>>>>> for just two examples.
>>>> It's interesting that you'll give me any answer except the one I am
>>>> asking for. Why won't you say if theraputic doses cause the chemical
>>>> castration you're claiming?
>>> I thought you did not need such a fundamental answer as you read the
>>> articles on Neurodiversity and followed all the links, as I did. I
>>> apologize for assuming that you bothered to try to understand this.
>>>
>>> Lupron's function is to reduce/eliminate the production of testosterone.
>>> That is what chemical castrating does.
>>>
>>
>>
>> 1. "castration" here is an analogy.
>> 2. Allowing estrogen reduction (stop the drug) is different than
>> castration.
>
> That is why it is called "chemical castration".
As a cute and very inaccurate phrase.
vernon
It's an ad agency.
You get what you pay for.
vernon
Most people?????
Peter Bowditch
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration
>
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>
>
>Chemical castration is a form of temporary castration caused by
>certain hormonal drugs. It was developed as a temporary preventive
>measure or punishment, typically for male child sex offenders and
>rapists.
Thanks for posting this. Ilena. I see that you agree that Dr Geier is
wrong in wanting to prescribe this sort of treatment for children who
are not "sex offenders and rapists". In fact, it would be evil to do
this to children, wouldn't it? I see why you refer to this quack as
"brave", because it would take a very brave quack to go to the parents
of an autistic child and say that the child was going to be given the
medication used to punish "sex offenders and rapists".
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Jan
The burden of proof is on MARK PROBERT ....WHO SAID
> *****HE'S GOING TO CHEMICALLY CASTRATE THESE CHILDREN*****
> Now....PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!
As usual, Mark had NO proof and could not shut up.
He instead blathered:
I have already proven that
<snip diversion>
Mark Probert
Incorrect. The phrase describes the same net effect of physical castration.
Mark Probert
It is the commonly used phrased. Period.
Google Scholar Results 1 - 10 of about 828 English pages for "chemical
castration". (2.28 seconds
Live with it.
Mark Probert
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration
>
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>
>
> Chemical castration is a form of temporary castration caused by
> certain hormonal drugs. It was developed as a temporary preventive
> measure or punishment, typically for male child sex offenders and
> rapists.
Exactly. Good point. I made it myself.
I would not want a male child injected with this stuff.
BTW, it only works on boys.
Mark Probert
Mark Probert
> The burden of proof is on MARK PROBERT ....WHO SAID
>
> *****HE'S GOING TO CHEMICALLY CASTRATE THESE CHILDREN*****
>
> Now....PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!
I have already proven that the drug is used for chemical castration.
Mark Probert
> Mark Probert wrote:
>> I thought you did not need such a fundamental answer as you read the
>> articles on Neurodiversity and followed all the links, as I did. I
>> apologize for assuming that you bothered to try to understand this.
FIRST Maxie says:
> I read your links and they did NOT answer my question... nor did you.
> *I* would have thought that such an "obvious" answer would be easily
> presented. You have proven otherwise.
>
Snip...and then says that he did not read the articles whose links I posted:
>> If you read Kathy's articles and followed all of her links, you would
>> have those answers. That is what I did, sad that you did not.
>
> I did not follow those articles because that is not the point of this
> discussion. The point is whether or not you're being honest in your
> evlauation if the Geiers treatment. The evidence you've presented so
> far suggests you are not.
Maxie, I am sure that you think that this is an inconsequential error on
your part, and you have a perfect explanation of why you remained clueless.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Mark Probert
Most people according to Vernon suffer from the lemming syndrome. I
merely pointed out that the species of lemmings is wider than you
mentioned.
Ilena Rose
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm#Ratbags
Temporary lowering of hormone levels is NOTHING like Mengele's
Castration that they compare the use of Lupon with.
Ilena Rose
BTW, it only works on boys.
~~~
From what I've read, some women have been successfully treated with it
to ease the pain of Interstitial Cystitis ...
What I'm learning about Lupron is NOTHING like the Ratbaggers are
disinforming the public about.
Peter Bowditch
I am prepared to bet a dollar that the people saying that using Lupron
is not castration because it doesn't involve surgery would also, and
hypocritically, say that it is correct to call RU486 a "chemical
abortion" drug. Can you imagine the hysteria if some real doctor
suggested prescribing RU486 to girls to treat autism?
Peter Bowditch
>I disagree with the Ratbaggers here ...
>
>www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm#Ratbags
>
>
>Temporary lowering of hormone levels is NOTHING like Mengele's
>Castration that they compare the use of Lupon with.
Is there anything on that page you referenced which has anything to do
with Mengele or Lupron?
>*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Changed access to Usenet again, I see. Still hiding from creditors?
vernon
1. Not permanent.
2. The testacies are still there.
Net effect?
Death is the only other net effect.
vernon
Common (use the English use of "common" vs. American) is VERY often
scientifically and logically totally incorrect.
Live with it.
Ilena Rose
Ratbags Posse is this that was disbarred?
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/sandraprobert.htm
Mark Probert
Hmmmm...is Lupron a pre-abortion drug? It does interfere unnaturally
with reproduction.
Mark Probert
Inability to reproduce.
Loss of testosterone induced aggression.
Mark Probert
> Probert further claimed that "it" Lupron ...
>
> BTW, it only works on boys.
For lowering testosterone as conceived by Geier.
> ~~~
>
> From what I've read, some women have been successfully treated with it
> to ease the pain of Interstitial Cystitis ...
>
> What I'm learning about Lupron is NOTHING like the Ratbaggers are
> disinforming the public about.
Expand your education:
http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/83/autism-testosterone-lupron-playing-with-fire
read the entire well documented article written by an Autism mom, and
follow all of the links. It IS educational.
Eric Bohlman
@fe11.lga:
> Exactly. Good point. I made it myself.
>
> I would not want a male child injected with this stuff.
>
> BTW, it only works on boys.
Nope. Lupron works by blocking gonadotropin-releasing hormone and so will
reduce testosterone production in males and estrogen production in females
(and indirectly reduce estrogen in males, since they derive their estrogen
from testosterone). Administering it to a pre-menopausal woman will result
in temporary menopause, along with all the associated symptoms (one of its
accepted uses is regulating hormonal cycles in women undergoing infertility
treatment). The loopy-for-Lupron crowd claims that estrogen helps to
detoxify mercury, yet they're proposing administering Lupron to girls, in
whom it will *lower* estrogen.
Mark Probert
Thanks for the clarification. So, it will only work as the Geiers
propose on boys?
Eric Bohlman
>> Nope. Lupron works by blocking gonadotropin-releasing hormone and so
>> will reduce testosterone production in males and estrogen production
>> in females (and indirectly reduce estrogen in males, since they
>> derive their estrogen from testosterone). Administering it to a
>> pre-menopausal woman will result in temporary menopause, along with
>> all the associated symptoms (one of its accepted uses is regulating
>> hormonal cycles in women undergoing infertility treatment). The
>> loopy-for-Lupron crowd claims that estrogen helps to detoxify
>> mercury, yet they're proposing administering Lupron to girls, in whom
>> it will *lower* estrogen.
>
> Thanks for the clarification. So, it will only work as the Geiers
> propose on boys?
Both males and females have both testosterone and estrogen, just in
different ratios. The Geiers' followers certainly claim that the levels
of testosterone found in girls are sufficient to impair their excretion
of mercury by trapping it in "sheets" (apparently based on a 1960s
article describing the crystallization of a testosterone/ionic-mercury
adduct formed by "mixing equimolar volumes of testosterone and mercuric
chloride with sufficient hot benzene").
Jan
Ilena Rose wrote:
> The Quackwatch Rag-tag Posse Smear Campaign against Dr. Geier is in
> full swing ... disbarred attorney Probert is posting other Rag-tag
> Posse websites such as the ever humble "OracKnows" ... David H.
> Gorski's.
>
> Quackwatch regularly wages War on those doctors, oft with far better
> credentials and experience than Barrett or the other quackbusters ...
> and twisted what they believe ... much like Probert is doing on Usenet
> for them now.
>
> Here are other viewpoints on the work of Dr. Geier ...
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/mark-geier
>
> Mark Geier
>
> Mark R. Geier, MD, PhD, (b. 1948, Washington, D.C.) is a medical
> doctor based in Silver Spring, Maryland, who also holds a doctorate in
> genetics and is board-certified in medical genetics and forensic
> medicine. He was a researcher at the National Institutes of Health for
> ten years and previously was a professor at Johns Hopkins University.
> He has studied vaccines for more than 30 years and has published over
> 50 peer-reviewed papers on vaccine safety, efficacy, contamination and
> policy. In 1970, while at the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Geier
> co-authored a paper published in Nature reporting the first sucessful
> genetic engineering experiment in which bacteriophage Lambda which
> carried the galactose operon was used to correct the inability of
> cells in tissue culture from a patient with galactosemia to metabolise
> the milk sugar galactose. This work received world-wide aclaim in the
> scientific press and in the news media and resulted in a personal call
> of congratulation from then President Richard Nixon. In 1973 Dr. Geier
> was an author of another paper in the Nature which reported the
> spleen, which was thought to be mostly vestigual in humans, in fact
> played a critical role in immunity by maintaining intact antigen
> allowing for a more robust immune response which was especially
> important the vaccination process. Dr Geier was a co-author on a paper
> in the New England Journal of Medicine which futher discussed and
> extended the observations on the critical role that the spleen plays
> in response to vaccines and other immune challenges. In 1973, Dr.
> Geier after having been part of the group that discovered that there
> was widespread bacterial virus contamination in US vaccines, presented
> a paper "A model system for the evaluation of the fate of phage in
> contaminated vaccines: Physiologic disposition of bacteriophage in
> mice." at the Proceedings of the Workshop of Problems of Phage
> Contamination FDA. In 1978 Dr. Geier published a study "Endotoxins in
> commercial vaccine." in Applied and Environmental Microbiology which
> found high levels of endotoxin in commercial vaccines especailly in
> whole cell Diptheria, Tetanus, Pertussis (DTP) vaccine. Following this
> paper, Dr. Geier worked for many years to help convince the public
> health authorities to switch from whole cell DTP to the much safer
> DTaP which contained a highly purified form of Pertussis vaccine. In
> 1991 the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of
> Sciences,(IOM) invited Dr. Geier to address them on the toxins
> contained in DTP vaccine and the expected time frame over which they
> could be expected to work. Dr. Geier presented evidence to the IOM
> that the expected time of vulnerability was seven days. In 1993 the
> IOM published that the evidence was compatible whole Pertussis vaccine
> causing permanent brain damage in otherwise apparently health children
> if the first symptoms of neurological damage occurred in the first
> seven days following the vaccination. The US began to switch to the
> far safer DTaP in 1993 and as of 2002 the US no longer used any whole
> cell DTP vaccine.
>
>
> Career
> Dr. Geier wrote the article, The True Story of Pertussis Vaccination:
> A Sordid Legacy? which won the first annual Stanley W. Jackson award
> for the best paper published in the Journal of the History of Medicine
> and Allied Sciences during the period of 2000 to 2002. He has authored
> over 90 publications.
>
> Geier has made several presentations to the Institute of Medicine
> (IOM) on the adverse effects of vaccinations. He and his son, David
> Geier, are the only independent researchers ever to have been
> permitted to study the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) database of the
> Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
>
> Geier has testified before the US House of Representatives Committee
> on Government Reform Investigating Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic,
> to critique the Hviid study, conducted in Denmark on autism and
> thimerosal exposure, and he has also addressed the Food and Drug
> Administration (FDA) Advisory Committee regarding vaccine safety. He
> has testified as an expert witness in about 100 cases before the
> National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of
> Federal Claims. Dr. Geier and his son have been invited to speak to
> many state houses who were or are considering state wide bans on
> Thimerosal containing vaccines.
>
> Geier has published several scientific reports, with his son David
> Geier, showing a relation between mercury exposure during infancy and
> the onset of neurodevelopmental disorders. Geier has suggested his
> research shows a direct causal link between Thimerosal containing
> vaccines (TCVs) and the onset of neurological disorders, including
> autism.
>
>
> Controversial studies
> Geier and his son have published six studies on the possible link
> between autistic spectrum disorders and TCVs. In their first study,
> they compared the number of complaints associated with TCVs,
> administered between 1992 and 2000, to the number of complaints
> resulting from a thimerosal-free vaccine administered between 1997 and
> 2000. The children who received greater amounts of ethylmercury from
> TCVs were more likely to have a complaint filed with the Vaccine
> Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Further studies by the Geiers
> yielded similar results.
>
> US health agencies have uniformly rejected the conclusions of the
> Geiers' studies, and one of the Geiers' articles was the subject of
> heavy criticism by the American Academy of Pediatrics On the other
> hand, Mercury in Medicine Taking Unnecessary Risks, a report prepared
> by the staff of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness,
> Committee on Government Reform United States House of Representatives
> Chaired by Dan Burton published in the Congression Register in May of
> 2003 stated: However, the Committee upon a thorough review of the
> scientific literature and internal documents from government and
> industry did find evidence that thimerosal did pose a risk. Thimerosal
> used as a preservative in vaccines is likely related to the autism
> epidemic. This epidemic in all probability may have been prevented or
> curtailed had the FDA not been asleep at the switch regarding the lack
> of safety data regarding injected thimerosal and the sharp rise of
> infant exposure to this known neurotoxin. Our public health agencies'
> failure to act is indicative of institutional malfeasance for
> self-protection and misplaced protectionism of the pharmaceutical
> industry." [1]. Geier says public health officials are "just trying to
> cover it up."
>
>
> Limited access to Vaccine Safety Datalink records
> On February 17, 2004, a panel of medical experts was assembled by the
> Institute of Medicine (IOM), an arm of the National Academy of
> Sciences. The panel recommended the CDC ease its restrictions on
> outside scientists seeking access to its strictly confidential Vaccine
> Safety Datalink, containing over seven million records including
> reports of suspected adverse reactions to vaccines.
>
> The Geiers have been granted access to this data [2], but the National
> Immunization Program found that "In summary, during the first visit
> the researchers conducted unapproved analysis on their datasets and on
> the second visit attempted to carry out unapproved analyses but did
> not complete this attempt. This analysis, had it been completed, could
> have increased the risk of a confidentiality breach. Before leaving,
> the researchers renamed files for removal which were not allowed to be
> removed. Had it gone undetected, this would have constituted a breach
> of the rules about confidentiality."[3]
>
>
> Chelation research
> Geier has also published studies which, he says, indicate children
> diagnosed with autism excrete more mercury upon chelation than control
> subjects. Many of these children are reported as having tests showing
> amounts of mercury excreted several times the normal levels. Chelation
> therapy is conventionally used only to treat heavy metal poisoning,
> and carries the risk of overly reducing the levels of beneficial
> metals in the body, such as calcium. In 2004 Dr. Geier and his son
> published a paper in Medical Hypotheses, a non-peer-reviewed journal,
> on the potential importance of lowering testosterone as part of the
> treatment of autism spectum disorders and other disorders which they
> claim involve mercury toxicity.
>
>
> An advocate for vaccine safety
> Geier has supported efforts by Representatives Dave Weldon, MD, Dan
> Burton, and Carolyn Maloney, to pass legislation introduced in early
> 2005 to ban the use of mercury based preservatives (i.e., thimerosal)
> in vaccines in the United States. Although mercury preservatives have
> been removed or reduced from some vaccines in the US, several vaccines
> and most US influenza vaccines still contain the full dose of
> Thimerosal. Geier said in an interview that the link between
> thimerosal and autism was clear.
>
> An NBC crew filmed a presentation by the Geiers before the network's
> Autism: The Hidden Epidemic?[4] series in February, 2005, but the
> producers chose not to use the material.
>
>
> Credibility as expert witness questioned
> Geier and his son David also serve regularly as expert witnesses for
> parents seeking compensation from the National Vaccine Injury
> Compensation Program for vaccine injuries to their children. Geier has
> been criticized over his qualifications in these hearings, wherein one
> Special Master labeled him "a professional witness" who "clearly lacks
> the expertise" required. [5] Critics of the vaccine injury
> compensation system question the stringency of the requirements, which
> they contend effectively preclude fair presentation in the hearings of
> testimony from their experts.
>
> On at least ten separate occasions, the Special Master ruled that
> Geier lacked the necessary qualifications or board-certification to
> offer an expert opinion. Litigants pressing vaccine injury claims have
> a dual challenge, since relatively few experts in relevant fields
> think thimerosal causes autism, and even fewer work in specialties
> required by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
>
> However, on November 25, 2003, Special Master French praised Geier's
> credentials and vast experience and said Dr. Geier "ranks high among
> those who have studied vaccine issues through the medical literature
> on vaccines, databases, studies, articles and information on vaccine
> safety and efficacy in vaccine policy. The tenor of his testimony in
> this case addressed the importance of statistical databases in
> providing statistical reliability and validity in interpreting the
> epidemiology and issues relating to autism and various vaccines...Dr.
> Geier has recently proposed a data-sharing process that would improve
> the reliability of present statistical data that would include the
> present VAERS statistical database. It would be helpful in
> interpreting the epidemiology and issues relating to the autism
> controversy." [6]
>
>
> Background
> Education:
>
> 1970 - B.S. George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
> 1970-1971 - Graduate Student; Department of Human Genetics and
> Development, Columbia University, New York, New York
> 1973 - Ph.D. Genetics, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
> 1978 - M.D. George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
> Work Experience:
>
> 1969-1970 - Research (Student) at the National Institutes for Health,
> Bethesda, MD
> 1970-1971 - NIH Traineeship at Columbia University, Department of
> Human Genetics and Development, New York, NY
> 1971-1973 - Research Geneticist, Laboratory of General and Comparative
> Biochemistry, National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), National
> Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland
> 1973-1974 - Staff Fellow, Laboratory of General and Comparative
> Biochemistry, NIMH, NIH, Bethesda, MD
> 1974-1978 - On Professional Staff Laboratory of General and
> Comparative Biochemistry NIMH, NIH, Bethesda, MD
> 1978-1979 - Intern and Fellow, Department of Obstetrics and
> Gynecology, the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
> 1979-1982 - Assistant Professor, Department of Gynecology and
> Obstetrics, the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
> 1980-1982 - Guest worker Laboratory of General and Comparative
> Biochemistry, NIMH, NIH, Bethesda, MD
> 1981-1984 - Assistant Research Professor, Psychiatry Department,
> Uniformed School of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD
> 1988-1994 - Director of Genetics of Maryland Medical Laboratory, Inc.
> Baltimore, MD
> 1989-1994 - Member of the Substance Abuse and Doping Committee and the
> Sports Medicine and Science Committee of the United States Bobsled and
> Skeleton Federation (Olympic Committee)
> Board Certification:
>
> 1987 - American Board of Medical Genetics
> 1993 - Associate Founding Member of the American College of Medical
> Genetics
> 1996 - Board Certified by the American Board of Forensic Examiners
> 1996 - Diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Medicine
> Other Positions:
>
> 1980-2003 - Laboratory Director, Molecular Medicine, MD
> 1980-Present - Co-director of Genetic Consultants, Bethesda, MD
> 1981-Present - Director of Institute of Immuno-Oncology and Genetics,
> MD
> 1986-Present - President of Genetic Counseling and Research, Inc., T/A
> The Genetic Center, Baltimore, MD
> 1997-Present - President of Genetic Counseling and Research, Inc. T/A
> The Ultrasound Institute of Baltimore
> 1997-Present - President of the Genetic Centers of America
> 2001 - Host of one hour weekly medical talk show "The Dr. Mark Geier
> Show" on KFNX in Phoenix, Arizona, WALE in Provident, Rhode Island,
> and on the World Wide Web.
> Journal Peer-Reviewer:
>
> Annals of Internal Medicine
> Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology
> Environmental Health Perspectives
> Expert Review of Vaccines
> Expert Opinion on Emerging Drugs
> Vaccine
> Major Presentations:
>
> Addressed United States' State Department, Foreign Service Institute
> (Washington, DC) on Contemporary Genetics
> Addressed the Institute of Medicine of the U.S. National Academy of
> Sciences (Washington, DC) on Vaccine Safety & Vaccine Policy Issues
> Addressed the Government Reform Committee of the United States' House
> of Representatives (Washington, DC) on Vaccine Safety Issues
> Addressed the Food and Drug Administration's Vaccine Advisory
> Committee (Silver Spring, MD) on Vaccine Safety Issues
>
> See also
> Controversies in autism
> Vaccination critics
>
> References
> JPandS.org (pdf) - 'Thimerosal in Childhood Vaccines, Neurodevelopment
> Disorders and Heart Disease in the United States', Mark and David
> Geier, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, vol 8, no 1,
> Spring, 2003
> JPandS.org (pdf) - 'A Case-Control Study of Mercury Burden in Children
> with Autistic Spectrum Disorders', Jeff Bradstreet, MD, David A.
> Geier, BA, Jerold J. Kartzinel, MD, James B. Adams, PhD, Mark R.
> Geier, MD, PhD Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, vol 8, no
> 3, Summer, 2003
> MedSciMonit.com (pdf) - 'A two-phased population epidemiological study
> of the safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a follow up
> analysis', David A. Geier and Mark R. Geier, Med Sci Monit, vol 11, no
> 4, April 1, 2005
>
> External links
> IOM.edu - 'Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism', US
> Institute of Medicine (May 17, 2004)
> MomsAgainstMercury.org - 'A Shot in the Dark: Doctors Question Flu
> Shot Statistics', Kelly O'Meara (2004)
> MomsOnAMissionForAutism.org - Letter from Congressman Dave Weldon,
> M.D., to the CDC
> UniversityOfHealth.net - 'Institute of Medicine Report Stuns
> Scientific Community and Parents: Report Says No Evidence Mercury In
> Vaccines Related To Epidemic Levels of Autism' (May 20, 2004)
>
>
>
>
>
> .
> *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
> *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
ALL 23 posts from Mark Probert trying to do just that has NOT changed
anything.
In FACT, Mark has proven once again he has made claims...he can NOT
back up...
Skeptic
<Ilena> wrote in message news:f84242lp1bc3sc1db...@4ax.com...
> Probert further claimed that "it" Lupron ...
>
> BTW, it only works on boys.
>
>
> ~~~
>
> From what I've read, some women have been successfully treated with it
> to ease the pain of Interstitial Cystitis ...
lupron is not effective for treating IC nor does it chemically castrate
females.
Skeptic
"Eric Bohlman" <eboh...@omsdev.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97A6AB5DF4C39...@130.133.1.4...
> Mark Probert <markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in news:%480g.68$xX.0
> @fe11.lga:
>
>> Exactly. Good point. I made it myself.
>>
>> I would not want a male child injected with this stuff.
>>
>> BTW, it only works on boys.
>
> Nope. Lupron works by blocking gonadotropin-releasing hormone
It's technically an agonist and doesn't block anything. It overrides the
system by overstimulation with eventual lack of response after about 2
weeks.
Skeptic
Testosterone in women comes primarily from conversion of DHEA which is made
by the adrenal gland and not in the same pathway as lupron and thus would be
unaffected.
Peter Bowditch
This is consistent with their total disregard for children's health as
exhibited by their opposition to vaccination. They simply do not care
how many children develop the sequelae of measles infections or are
paralysed by polio, so why should they care if children have their
reproductive hormonal systems damaged. It's all in a good cause, isn't
it?
All that matters to these people is their insane anti-vaccination
agenda. The end justifies the means, and if that means requires the
sacrifice of martyr children then so be it. The death and damage of
children is a small price to pay to rid the world of vaccines. And to
make money, of course.
Peter Bowditch
>Hey Ratbags ... you still denying that the Mark S Probert on the
>Ratbags Posse is this that was disbarred?
>
>www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/sandraprobert.htm
If you are talking to me, I have never either confirmed or denied it.
Unlike you, I don't jump to conclusions based on personal hatreds.
Are you still denying that you are the Rosenthal who lost this court
case?
vernon
Peripheral and temporary, much like extreme body odor by the partner..
Ilena Rose
From: Skeptic -
>lupron is not effective for treating IC nor
<Ilena> wrote in message
news:f84242lp1bc3sc1db...@4ax.com...
> Probert further claimed that "it" Lupron ...
> BTW, it only works on boys.
> ~~~
> From what I've read, some women have been successfully treated with it
> to ease the pain of Interstitial Cystitis ...
~~~~~~~~~~~
No wonder "Skeptic" posts his medical conclusions anonymously ...
I found MANY references to what I mentioned above ... this being but
one:
+ Lentz GM, Bavendam T, Stenchever MA, Miller JL, Smalldridge J.
Hormonal manipulation in women with chronic, cyclic irritable bladder
symptoms and pelvic pain. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002
Jun;186(6):1268-73.
These researchers evaluated women with menstrual cycle-related changes
in their interstitial cystitis symptoms, treated them with hormonal
manipulation, and followed their long term progress.
Fifteen women (age range 23 to 48 years old) with interstitial
cystitis and menstrual cycle exacerbation of symptoms were evaluated
in a retrospective study. These women had undergone laparoscopy that
was followed immediately by cystoscopy and bladder hydrodistension.
Patients were then treated with leuprolide acetate (Lupron) or oral
contraceptive pills.
Ten patients (67%) had findings of both interstitial cystitis and
peritoneal endometriosis. Five of 15 patients (33%) had interstitial
cystitis, but no endometriosis was found. Symptoms improved for 8 of 9
women who were treated with Lupron and for 5 of 6 women who were
treated with oral contraceptive pills. Patients were followed up for
an average of 55 months.
Skeptic
certain topics in which I am quite experienced. IC is one them. Read
below, you'll find it educational.
There have been no controlled studies to show it's effective for IC, nor is
there any reason to think it would have any effect. It is knonw that IC can
flare with menstruation. I usually have patients evaluated for
endometriosis in such cases - and have had some positive findings. That
symptom is classic for endometriosis. The snippet below commented that 2/3
had it, actually, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were missed in the
remaining 1/3 patients since their method of dx used (laparoscopy) has false
negatives. They had no placebo arm and their entire study consisted of only
15 patients. It's quite possible the patients with endometriosis didn't
even have IC, since endometriosis can lead similar symptoms and they didn't
discuss in any depth their diagnostic criteria for IC and seem not to have
done any biopsies (which we do routinely for aid in diagnosis and rule out
malignancy). They mention cystoscopy and looking for Hunner's ulcers, but
that is only one small piece of making a diagnosis of IC.
Also hidden in the body of the study (since you didn't read it) is that of
their 15 patients, only 3 of them did not undergo additional treatments.
Thus, in 12 of 15 patients, hormonal therapy eventually failed, strongly
suggesting placebo effect and/or lack of efficacy for IC treatment.
As for the treatment, all you're doing is treating a possible precipitating
factor of IC in a select number of patients but doing nothing to treat IC
itself. It's like saying giving prophylactic antbiotics to an AIDS is
treating their AIDS - it's not, it's dealing with a sequelae.
And going another step - even if you think women should be treated with
hormones - lupron is overkill, we have OCP's that work just as well with
fewer side effects and much less expensive.
Those are the facts and that was a terrible reference. I guess the American
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology doesn't have very high standards for
publication.
<Ilena> wrote in message news:jav442dttem3kiddb...@4ax.com...
Ilena Rose
gloat and post medical opinions as 'facts' on ongoing controversies
...
My quick research on Lupron and IC shows that others have varying
opinions than yours ... and they don't hide in shame like you.
As far as Lupron ... I disagree entirely with your conclusions and
Probert's conclusions regarding Dr. Geier's work.
Mark Probert
Listen, toilet paper, I proved that Geier misuses datasets, and plays
with statistical analysis to make sure he reaches conclusions to support
his testimony.
You cannot change that.
Mark Probert
> As far as Lupron ... I disagree entirely with your conclusions and
> Probert's conclusions regarding Dr. Geier's work.
As is your right.
However, when the government files its motion to exclude Geier, we'll
see what the Special Master has to say.
I know that the DOJ attorneys will just be perfectly prepared to deal
with him, et al.
Skeptic
<Ilena> wrote in message news:pig542dttem3kiddb...@4ax.com...
> While you continue to hide your identity in shame ... you continue to
> gloat and post medical opinions as 'facts' on ongoing controversies
> ...
>
> My quick research on Lupron and IC shows that others have varying
> opinions than yours ... and they don't hide in shame like you.
>
> As far as Lupron ... I disagree entirely with your conclusions and
> Probert's conclusions regarding Dr. Geier's work.
If you disagree, why don't you state exactly what you disagree with. I've
included the snipped post for you to focus:
REPOST:
Skeptic
<Ilena> wrote in message news:pig542dttem3kiddb...@4ax.com...
> gloat and post medical opinions as 'facts' on ongoing controversies
Who I am is of no consequence. I gloat about nothing. My medical opinions
are medical practice, and regarding this topic - IC - they are cutting edge.
Lupron is not a cure for IC. It, along with OCP, can help endometriosis,
which is often associated either as a secondary diagnosis or the
real/underlying problem that was missed earlier.
I prescribe frequently - for men. I treat IC frequently, and never used
lupron ... but have sent women to their OB/GYN who later diagnosed my
patients with endometriosis.
> My quick research
I research IC. You google it. Don't kid yourself.
> on Lupron and IC shows that others have varying
> opinions than yours ... and they don't hide in shame like you.
> As far as Lupron ... I disagree entirely with your conclusions and
> Probert's conclusions regarding Dr. Geier's work.
FYI, it's believed that the extensive scarring associated with endometriosis
can affect the outside of the bladder and/or ureters resulting in a pain
syndrome easily confused with primary bladder associated pain. Contraction
of the bladder to urinate could result in pain from a purely anatomical
perspective, which is to say it would NOT be IC or IC related, which is
fundamentally different.
Understand?
Orac
Ilena Rose <Ilena> wrote:
> Obviously Moron ... your opinions are just that ... your opinions ...
>
> Dr. Geier has been a target of the dubious and unlicensed Barrett for
> years ...
>
> That's why I posted the opinion of non Pharma shills here for others
> to decide themselves ...
You mean the same Dr. Geier who advocates chemical castration for
autistics and is trying to patent it to make money on it?
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/02/why_not_just_castrate_them_1.ph
p
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/04/the_geiers_try_to_patent_chemi.
php
The same guy who mines the VAERS database using very bad statistics and
math to "prove" a link between autism and mercury?
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/03/the_geiers_go_dumpsterdiving_y_
1.php
http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/03/math-slop-autism-and-mercury.html
Yes, that Dr. Geier, who deserves all the abuse he takes from real
scientists.
--
Orac |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
| interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
| of observation."
| http://scienceblogs.com/insolence
Orac
Ilena Rose <Ilena> wrote:
> The Quackwatch Rag-tag Posse Smear Campaign against Dr. Geier is in
> full swing ... disbarred attorney Probert is posting other Rag-tag
> Posse websites such as the ever humble "OracKnows
You mean the same Dr. Geier who advocates chemical castration for
Orac
"Peter Moran" <pmo...@bordernet.com.au> wrote:
> <Ilena> wrote in message news:ir7l3291kmfel6u1k...@4ax.com...
> > The Quackwatch Rag-tag Posse Smear Campaign against Dr. Geier is in
> > full swing ... disbarred attorney Probert is posting other Rag-tag
> > Posse websites such as the ever humble "OracKnows" ... David H.
> > Gorski's.
> >
> > Quackwatch regularly wages War on those doctors, oft with far better
> > credentials and experience than Barrett or the other quackbusters ...
> > and twisted what they believe ... much like Probert is doing on Usenet
> > for them now.
>
> This is petty and juvenile stuff. Those of us complaining about the poor
> quality of Geier's "scientific" publications have stated quite specifically
> what is wrong with them.
Indeed.
For example:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/03/the_geiers_go_dumpsterdiving_y_
1.php
http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/03/math-slop-autism-and-mercury.html
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/02/why_not_just_castrate_them_1.ph
p
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/04/the_geiers_try_to_patent_chemi.
php
--
Orac
Ilena Rose <Ilena> wrote:
> For more on the work of this scientist being smeared by those of far
> lesser contributions ... please read:
>
>
> http://www.vran.org/docs/d-geier-legacy.pdf
>
> Opens pdf of "True Story of Pertussis Vaccination: A Sordid Legacy?"
> by Mark and David Geier
Here's an even more sordid legacy--by the Geiers:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/03/the_geiers_go_dumpsterdiving_y_
1.php
http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/03/math-slop-autism-and-mercury.html
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/02/why_not_just_castrate_them_1.ph
p
Especially the Geiers' attempt to patent their quackery to make money
off the gullible:
http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/94/patent-medicine
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/04/the_geiers_try_to_patent_chemi.
php
Perhaps Ilena can explain that one.
Orac
Ilena Rose <Ilena> wrote:
> I disagree with the Ratbaggers here ...
>
> www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm#Ratbags
>
>
> Temporary lowering of hormone levels is NOTHING like Mengele's
> Castration that they compare the use of Lupon with.
Try this instead:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/02/why_not_just_castrate_them_1.ph
p
Also, the Geiers are trying to patent their quackery:
http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/94/patent-medicine
Very much like the Big Pharma that Ilena so distrusts, the Geiers,
proposing using very powerful and expensive drugs and patenting their
treatment.