Significant Misrepresentations: Mark Geier, David Geier & the Evolution of the Lupron Protocol (Contents) · Aug 25, 02:00 PM

Preliminary Articles

Autism & Lupron: Playing With Fire (February 19, 2006)
About the role played by journalists in the dissemination of scientific misinformation about autism, and the early development of Mark and David Geier’s “Lupron protocol.”
Patent Medicine (April 5, 2006)
About Mark and David Geier’s applications to patent the “Lupron protocol.”

Significant Misrepresentations:
Mark Geier, David Geier & the Evolution of the Lupron Protocol

Part One
An Inaccurate Byline (June 9, 2006)
About the appearance of a misleading statement of affiliation in the byline of an article by Mark Geier and David Geier, published in the journal Hormone Research.
Part Two
An Elusive Institute (June 20, 2006)
About the “Institute for Chronic Illnesses” and its Institutional Review Board, established by Mark Geier to supervise his and his son’s own research, with members drawn from the ranks of patients’ parents, business associates and political allies.
Part Three
A Dubious Diagnosis (June 26, 2006)
About the increase in numbers of autistic children diagnosed with central precocious puberty and administered Lupron, and the criteria according to which those diagnoses are being proferred.
Part Four
On Questionable Terms (June 29, 2006)
About the shifting terminology used by Mark and David Geier to refer to the condition supposedly experienced by autistic children being treated with Lupron, raising questions about the means by which insurance companies are being persuaded to reimburse the costs of the treatment.
Part Five
Testimony of the Faithful (July 12, 2006)
About the promotional assistance provided to Mark and David Geier by the parents of research subjects and political allies.
Update
A Republished Article (July 13, 2006)
About the amendment and republication of Mark and David Geier’s article by Hormone Research, in spite of documented irregularities with their Institutional Review Board.
Part Six
“Desperation Time” (July 20, 2006)
A partial transcript of an interview with Mark Geier on the conspiracy talk show, Radio Liberty.
Part Seven
The Citations Are Not What They Seem (July 24, 2006)
About the manner in which Mark and David Geier cite the work of other researchers to substantiate their claims about the “Lupron protocol.”
Part Eight
Bibliographic Mergers & Acquisitions (August 10, 2006)
About the striking similarities between two articles written by Mark and David Geier, and a June 2000 draft of a study by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control.
Part Nine
Blood & Data (August 25, 2006)
About the extensive phlebotomy and laboratory testing performed on children being evaluated for participation in the Geiers’ study and possible treatment with Lupron.
Part Ten
TAP’s Connection (August 29, 2006)
About the application to patent the “Lupron Protocol” submitted by Mark and David Geier and TAP Pharmaceuticals.
Part Eleven
The Pharmaceutical Cornucopia (September 22, 2006)
About the drugs administered to children on the Lupron Protocol — Lupron, succimer (DMSA) and Androcur.
Part Twelve
Letter to Autoimmunity Reviews (November 17, 2006)
A response to The biochemical basis and treatment of autism: Interactions between mercury, transsulfuration, and androgens, the first peer-reviewed journal article in which Mark and David Geier discuss after the fact their treatment of autistic children with Lupron.
Part Thirteen
A Silent Withdrawal (January 22, 2007)
A second letter to the editor of Autoimmunity Reviews, followed by discovery that The biochemical basis and treatment of autism has been officially retracted by the journal.
Part Fourteen
Letter to Neuroendocrinology Letters (May 1, 2007)
A response to A clinical trial of combined anti-androgen and anti-heavy metal therapy in autistic disorders, in which Mark and David Geier discuss in detail their experimental administration to autistic children of Lupron, chelation chemicals and Androcur — a drug unapproved by the FDA for marketing in the United States.
Part Fifteen
The Expert’s Blind Editorial Eye (October 9, 2007)
About Autoimmunity Reviews’ response to inquiries about the retraction of The biochemical basis and treatment of autism; Mark and David Geier’s televised explanation; and editor Yehuda Shoenfeld’s history as an expert witness for clients of “Institute for Chronic Illnesses” principal Clifford Shoemaker.
Part Sixteen
Staking New Claims on the Autism Treatment Frontier (November 10, 2007)
About Mark and David Geier’s revised application to patent the “Lupron Protocol.”

Related Articles

Foreordained Conclusions (March 8, 2006)
Commentary on the article, Early Downward Trends in Neurodevelopmental Disorders Following Removal of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines.
Strange Bedfellows (March 12, 2006)
About the philosophical, political and antivaccinationist agenda of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
Strategic Disregard (March 24, 2006)
About Mark and David Geier’s IRB approval to conduct a study of the Vaccine Safety Datalink.
Plaintiffs’ Gambit Failed (July 11, 2006)
The full text of Judge James A. Beaty’s opinion in the case Doe vs. Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, in which Dr. Mark Geier was excluded as an expert witness due to a lack of relevant qualifications and failure to properly diagnose.
Several Mentions & Many Thanks (March 30, 2007)
Brian Deer introduces readers of the British Medical Journal to the “Lupron protocol” and its discontents.
A Plaintiff in the Pulpit (April 12, 2007)
A letter to the bishops of the United Methodist Church, protesting their advocacy on behalf of and provision of material assistance to vaccine-injury litigants, and their promotion of blame-mongering and pseudoscience about autism.
A Stubborn Case of Selective Altruism (May 15, 2007)
The United Methodist Church replies to the above.
A Case of Good Gatekeeping (September 7, 2007)
A summary of Redfoot v. Ascher, a lawsuit alleging that autism could be caused by saline nasal spray, dismissed upon the court’s rejection of testimony offered by expert witnesses Mark Geier, Boyd Haley, George Lucier, James Bradstreet, and Arthur Krigsman.
A Recusal Refusal (September 15, 2007)
An edited version of Special Master Denise Vowell’s order in Doe v. HHS, in which she warns the petitioner about the perils of relying on the scholarship of Dr. Mark Geier.

Comments