An Inaccurate Byline · Jun 9, 06:39 PM


Significant Misrepresentations
Mark Geier, David Geier & the Evolution of the Lupron Protocol
(Part One) • Related articles

On May 9, 2006, a new article by Dr. Mark Geier and Mr. David Geier was published electronically ahead of the May 2006 issue of the peer-reviewed journal Hormone Research, and was promptly indexed by the National Library of Medicine.

2006 May 9;66(1):33-39 [Epub ahead of print]
A Clinical and Laboratory Evaluation of Methionine Cycle-Transsulfuration and Androgen Pathway Markers in Children with Autistic Disorders
Geier DA, Geier MR.
Department of Biochemistry, George Washington University, Washington, D.C., USA.

Background/Aims: The prevalence of autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) is 1 in 300 children in the US. ASDs are characterized by impairments in social relatedness and communication, repetitive behaviors, abnormal movement patterns, and sensory dysfunction. Pre-pubertal age children with ASDs were assessed for metabolites in the methionine cycle-transsulfuration and androgen pathways, and for present physical development/behaviors indicative of hyperandrogenicity. Methods: The Institutional Review Board of the Institute for Chronic Illnesses (Office for Human Research Protections, US Department of Health and Human Services IRB number: IRB00005375) approved the present study. Sixteen consecutive pre-pubertal age children (11 years old; mean +/ SD: 5.9 +/- 2.1 years old) with previously diagnosed ASDs that presented to the Genetic Centers of America for outpatient care were evaluated. Results: Significantly (p < 0.01) increased levels of serum/plasma dehydroepiandrosterone and serum total testosterone relative to the age- and sex-specific normal laboratory reference ranges were observed. Conversely, serum follicle-stimulating hormone levels were significantly (p < 0.01) decreased. Plasma-reduced glutathione (p < 0.01), plasma cysteine (p < 0.01), plasma methionine (p < 0.01), serum cystathionine (p < 0.05), and serum homocysteine (p < 0.01) were all significantly ecreased. Conclusion: The results suggest a possible cyclical interaction between the methionine cycle-transsulfuration and androgen pathways in some children with ASDs.
Copyright © 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Mark and David Geier’s previous publications identify Mark Geier as President of Genetic Centers of America, and his son David Geier as President of MedCon, a corporation established in 1999 — when David was a freshman at University of Maryland Baltimore County — to provide legal consulting services and expert medical testimony to vaccine injury plaintiffs. (In 2002, the Geiers established a website for MedCon at www.doctorslegal.com; an archived version of the now-defunct site can be viewed at the Internet Archive.)

In addition to citing his position as President of the family consulting business, David Geier has repeatedly referred to his status as a graduate student in biochemistry at The George Washington University (GWU) in Washington, D.C. The identification “Graduate Student in Biochemistry, George Washington University” appears in the March 2006 article, Early Downward Trends in Neurodevelopmental Disorders Following Removal of Thimerosal Containing Vaccines, published in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons in March 2006; An Assessment of Downward Trends in Neurodevelopmental Disorders in the United States Following Removal of Thimerosal from Childhood Vaccines, published in Medical Science Monitor in June 2006; and in his presenter biographies for the November 2005 National Autism Association conference, the April 2006 Defeat Autism Now! conference and the May 2006 Autism One conference.

In the Geiers’ most recent article in Hormone Research, David Geier’s institutional affiliation is “Department of Biochemistry, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.” According to the conventions of academic publishing, this would generally imply that Mr. Geier is a member of the faculty at GWU, or a graduate student publishing with a thesis advisor or other faculty member in the same department; and that GWU is the venue at which Mr. Geier’s share of the research took place. Authors generally indicate their current affiliation (as a footnote) as well as their previous one (in the article header) if they have moved to a new institution after completing research described in an academic journal article. The affiliation in the article header is the one indicating the venue where the research was performed.

Hormone Research’s Guidelines for Authors include:

The first page of each paper should indicate the title, the authors’ names, the institute where the work was conducted, and a short title for use as running head.

I was taken aback by the suggestion that this young man in his twenties — whose most advanced degree is a B.A. in Biology — might be a member of the GWU biochemistry faculty. A search of public areas on the GWU website yielded no instances of David Geier’s name, the “Institute for Chronic Illnesses,” or any indication that the work described in this article took place under the auspices of the GWU Biochemistry Department. Since the GWU website does not allow unaffiliated individuals access to their faculty and student directory, I contacted Dr. Allen Goldstein, Chairman of the GWU Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, to inquire about David Geier and the “Institute for Chronic Illnesses.”

Dr. Goldstein stated that David Geier enrolled in GWU’s graduate biochemistry program in 2003, presenting an an application supported with an impressive bibliography of academic journal articles co-authored with his father. According to Dr. Goldstein, Mr. Geier took two courses in biochemistry during the 2003-2004 school year and none thereafter; he took the last of three public health courses during the Spring 2005 semester.

Dr. Goldstein stated unequivocally that David Geier has never served on the faculty of the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at GWU; that neither the “Institute for Chronic Illnesses” or its Institutional Review Board (that is, the committee that approves and supervises research on human subjects) are in any way associated with GWU; and that none of the research described in the article was sponsored by GWU or conducted in the GWU laboratories. He described the affiliation with the Department of Biochemistry in the Hormone Research article as “fallacious,” and stated that it conveyed a “significant misrepresentation” of Mr. Geier’s position in the field of biochemistry.

Two and a half weeks after its electronic publication, after the editors of Hormone Research learned about the erroneous affiliation, Mark and David Geier’s article was removed from the electronic version of the issue of the journal. Although the PubMed entry for the article has also disappeared, abstracts can still be found on the websites, CASA Abstracts, and Unbound Medicine. Also, a reference to the article remains in the Wikipedia entry on Dr. Mark Geier.

to Part Two:
An Elusive Institute

Comments


  1. Amazing job in figuring this out, Kathleen. With you on our side our opponents can’t get away with blatant misconduct like this.

    Now, is the affiliation claimed in the JPANDS article also a misrepresentation? Maybe it’s time to contact Dr. Huntoon again.

    — Joseph    Jun 9, 07:30 PM    #

  2. Amazing. How did they hope to get away with it?

    — Kev    Jun 10, 01:41 AM    #

  3. I can’t believe this didn’t hit me sooner…

    But if it was an androgen excess, every single child with congenital adrenal hyperplasia would be autistic. Every. Single. One. Mercury is not an issue here, its all over the place, we know that…

    But if it binds to androgens…where are all the autistic CAH kids?

    — Kassiane    Jun 10, 05:02 AM    #

  4. First Class Job, Kathleen
    Thank you

    — Mike Stanton    Jun 10, 07:15 AM    #

  5. The question I’m left asking is: if “the work” wasn’t done at GWU, where was it done, if at all?

    Having only recently established that there were 16 children in the Lancet 12 which launched the MMR scare here in the UK, I know what it can take to run these things to ground, and how it seems almost impossible to keep up with these people. However, methinks there is some way to run for Kathleen’s inquiries.

    Do we know what the Geiers say?

    — brian deer    Jun 10, 10:14 AM    #

  6. I’d like to hear/see Kathleen’s opinion of the Danish studies. Is the Geier’s work better or worse than those? Just curious…

    — Someone with a clue    Jun 10, 10:57 AM    #

  7. To “Someone with a clue” even if they do lack a name.
    I would be interested to know what you think of David Geier giving the misleading impression that he is connected to the Department of Biochemistry at GWU. He could not even get the name right. It’s the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

    — Mike Stanton    Jun 10, 12:07 PM    #

  8. Astounding. I can see the advantage a person could get (when it comes to publishing in a peer reviewed journal) by claiming affiliation that is not there, but some day David Geier would have to add a MS and then a PhD after his name if he were in a graduate program. Looks like he was at GWU for 2 years, normally one can complete a Masters in that time… can’t they?

    I realize we don’t know if he dropped out, but it would appear from Dr. Goldstein’s reaction that David Geier BA couldn’t cut the rigors of biochem… or maybe he told his thesis advisor that mercury could form sheets with testosterone… and words were said… you know, hurt feelings and all…

    Still, one would seem to take away the picture that David Geier couldn’t cut the mustard in biochem at GWU and dropped out but decided to claim the affiliation in various venues since the Spring of ‘05 in spite of the fact that he had no affiliation after that point.

    — Camille    Jun 10, 12:13 PM    #

  9. You don’t learn about testosterone-thimerosal sheets in biochem at GWU or any other university.

    No, that is a special kind of chemistry knowledge that one must invent along with credentials.

    I can’t figure out why people like “Come one with a Sue” stand by these scammers no matter what underhanded schemes they cook up.

    Can they be so blind?

    — notmercury    Jun 10, 12:41 PM    #

  10. Brian, no, as far as I know, they’ve offered no public explanation for the inaccurate byline.

    Clue, I’d rather listen to other folks debate the relative strengths of epidemiological studies than do it myself. In this context it’s beside the point. I’d have a problem with anyone claiming an academic status that they didn’t possess, regardless of whether I agreed with them.

    — Kathleen Seidel    Jun 10, 12:46 PM    #

  11. Here’s a danish study

    Another cool thing is staying on topic. Oooh, a pawprint!

    — Hey Zeus is my homeboy    Jun 10, 12:50 PM    #

  12. and I’d also like to say a big thanks for all this work, Kathleen. Thanks for reminding me that people who do bad stuff get caught in the end. I’m going to shelve my plans for pretending to be a gameshow host who is a secret CIA assassin at night and on weekends.

    — Hey Zeus is my homeboy    Jun 10, 12:55 PM    #

  13. Imagine if all the mercury quack docs came clean about their shady and misrepresented credentials? Talk about cleansing, it would not be unlike a high colonic for the world of autism curation.

    — The Filmore    Jun 10, 01:50 PM    #

  14. Is that a typo—David Geier has a Bachelor of ARTS in Biology?

    andrea
    BSc, MSc

    — andrea    Jun 10, 02:17 PM    #

  15. No, it’s no typo; that’s exactly how it appears on his CV. (Thanks for the reminder to add a link to that CV, and to his dad's, in the article itself.)

    — Kathleen Seidel    Jun 10, 02:43 PM    #

  16. Makes you wonder about his relationship with his father. I mean, here’s a guy who hasn’t gone to medical school, or in some other way acquired an appropriate scientific education for the role he claims for himself. Plainly, he can’t say he’s not interested in the subject matter, so I guess he’s either so bright he doesn’t need to, or he’s so dumb he can’t get through the door.

    — brian deer    Jun 10, 04:22 PM    #

  17. Someone with a sue – I mean – clue:

    “I’d like to hear/see Kathleen’s opinion of the Danish studies. Is the Geier’s work better or worse than those? Just curious…”

    I’ve read some of the criticism of the Danish papers. There might be some flaws in those papers. Flaws occur in a large portion of scientific papers. But constrast with errors in Geier & Geier (2004). If you believe these errors are honest unintentional errors, I invite you to argue so in the comments section of the relevant post.

    — Joseph    Jun 10, 04:26 PM    #

  18. The B.A. in Biology is a quirk in the system. Schools are granted permission to give out certain types of degrees and so it is possible in older universities to only be able to get an Arts or a Science degree regardless of your field. I know of an SF writer who has a BSc. in Poetry from MIT.
    This does not change the fact that some schools seem to be too trusting about the integrity of their graduates.

    — Hawise    Jun 10, 05:09 PM    #

  19. Incredible. If this was some sort of simple mistake, the explanation coud be quite interesting.

    — Dad Of Cameron    Jun 10, 06:30 PM    #

  20. BAs in biology are quite common… Cambridge and Oxford award BA degrees in the sciences. The Open University in the UK also awarded only a BA degree, regardless of the subject matter. In many Scottish universities, one can take an MA in biology. Nomenclature is not really the issue in the worth or validity of a degree; rather, it is whether the course content overall matches with the standards applicable to the degree being sought and ultimately awarded.

    Personally, I don’t have a problem with the BA in biology. I have a problem with young Geier’s integrity (or lack thereof) in what he significantly misrepresented himself to be. That’s the thing that irks, and that is the issue which, quite rightly, is being investigated.

    — David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)    Jun 10, 07:21 PM    #

  21. Thank you Kathleen. I look forward to reading the rest of the series!

    And I’d like to mention that a person who is inaccurate on the subject of their credtials can hardly be expected to get the science correct either.

    — Jennifer    Jun 10, 08:28 PM    #

  22. Fascinating. The devil is in the details.

    — Anne    Jun 10, 08:40 PM    #

  23. In the USA some large engineering companies will hire scientists with a science degree and classify them as “Engineer/Scientist” which has a much higher salary than a tech aide.

    When I first started work as an engineer I worked next to a group that specialized in materials that used both engineers and chemists.

    One young lady who was just recently hired to their group was complaining to other of us new hires that she was only getting classified as a tech aide just because she had a BA in chemistry.

    When the rest of us who consisted of two with BS in engineer degrees and another with a BS in chemistry asked her why she did not get the required BS instead of a BA… she replied “Because it was easier”.

    We rolled our eyes and walked away. In many universities there IS a difference between a BA and a BS in science.

    — HCN    Jun 10, 10:19 PM    #

  24. Nice work, Kathleen! I look forward to the rest of the series.

    I have nothing deep to say, but it is nice to see you back.

    — Tera    Jun 10, 10:50 PM    #

  25. Part of the degree-nomenclature issue is the (gradually declining) difference (in the US) between colleges and universities. Historically, in the US both colleges and universities are 2-4 year post-secondary [1] institutions (though 2-year institutions are always called “colleges”), but colleges have a single faculty and grant only undergraduate degrees, whereas universities have multiple faculties and may grant graduate degrees. Thus I, a graduate of a rather small but prestigious liberal-arts college (hint: this year’s commencement speaker has previously said that reality has a liberal bias) have a BA in Mathematics and Computer Science. Furthermore, when I went to said school, math courses counted towards the humanities distribution requirement (which I think is perfectly reasonable).

    It’s interesting that in most of the English-speaking world, medicine is considered a baccalaureate degree rather than a doctoral one, even though it involves post-tertiary studies.

    [1] In the US, “secondary” school runs from the 9th or 10th post-kindergarten year through the 12th post-kindergarten year. Thus if Harry Potter had lived in the US, he’d have a 50% chance of having spent Philosopher’s/Sorceror’s Stone in “elementary school” (we’d call it “sixth grade”), a nearly 100% chance of having spent Chamber of Secrets and Prisoner of Azkaban in “middle school” or “junior high”, which are generally part of the “elementary” system, and a 50% chance of having spent Goblet of Fire in “high school.” He would definitely not have spent “Half-Blood Prince” in a “college,” as he might well have done outside North America.

    — ebohlman    Jun 10, 11:25 PM    #

  26. Add this to your sites:

    Daily Mail
    Another study raises questions over MMR
    from EMILY COOK, Daily Mail, in Montreal 08:17am 3rd June 2006

    Reader comments (0)

    Measles has been found in the intestines of children with a form of autism, it has emerged.

    The finding supports the work of Dr Andrew Wakefield, the discredited scientist who first suggested that the MMR vaccine may be behind some autism cases.

    Campaigners latched on to the research, claiming it was clear evidence of a link.

    One of the scientists behind the study warned, however, against making such a ‘leap’.

    [Remainder of newspaper article deleted by blog administrator; those who wish to read it in its entirely may follow the link above.]

    — Raymond Gallup    Jun 10, 11:27 PM    #

  27. At UCD there is a significant difference between the AB and BS in psych, the BS requires a lot more math and chemistry. I would have loved to have gotten the BS but I can’t do the math… or I could but it would take me another year and a tutor or two…

    getting the AB wasn’t easy, Davis is known for nightmarishly demanding writing-writing-writing, psych at Davis is an “impacted program” so many people want to get into it you have to have good grades to be allowed into the program to begin with… and maybe for math brains the classes I took would be harder… still there’s a difference and I think the BS would be harder to get for most people.

    It would be interesting to see what grades baby BA got in biology.

    — Ms Clark    Jun 11, 12:11 AM    #

  28. It looks like the University of Maryland, Baltimore County website is having some kind of problem… you can get at some info by going to a cached page. The school young Geier went to offered both BA and BS in biological science. If the site was working we might be able to find out the difference in the courses between the two degrees:

    "The Department of Biological Sciences, one of UMBC’s largest academic departments, has 27 tenured and tenure-track faculty members and seven instructors and lecturers. The Department encompasses a wide breadth of research and teaching with foci in Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology; Neurobiology; Physiology; and Evolution, Ecology and Environmental Biology. The Department offers a full complement of baccalaureate and graduate programs leading to B.A., B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. Degrees, which are recognized widely for their strength because of the emphasis on research, scientific approach, faculty contact, and extensive lab offerings. These programs serve to train a broad spectrum of future biologists and researchers and to prepare students for graduate and professional schools. ”

    — Ms Clark    Jun 11, 12:38 AM    #

  29. Biological Sciences at UMBC

    The Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) curriculum is designed for students who wish to concentrate their studies in two areas of knowledge, one of which is Biological Sciences. Such students include those who want to teach biology in secondary schools, and therefore require a background in education as well as biology. This degree would also be appropriate for a student who wants a career in medical illustration, and must couple a strong background in biology with advanced training in fine arts.

    This curriculum is not appropriate for students who want to pursue a career in laboratory science, or who plan to go on to graduate, medical, or dental school. Those students will want to follow the curriculum leading to a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) degree.

    — Loessy    Jun 11, 05:16 AM    #

  30. Regarding the BA v. BSc thing…

    It would seem to me that the main issue, from what I saw on the university website, is that the physics and chemistry requirements are kept low. The chemistry and physics would certainly be important in the career of a research biologist (my ex-wife is now a psychologist but trained originally as a research biologist). Also, the fact that one has to take minors in non-science subjects (if I read the page right) comes to mind as a reason why Baby Geier is nto really well suited to research biology… his minor was, I think, in history…. which he may well be very good in! All I know is that he’s basically a shite biologist.

    — David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)    Jun 11, 10:58 AM    #

  31. Others seem to have covered the substantive points, so I’ll just add a joke: if they thought they could get away with fudging an apparently insignificant detail and expecting people to not notice it or overlook it, they really don’t understand autism! :D

    — Chris    Jun 11, 02:30 PM    #

  32. Raymond Gallup… the “measles” study has nothing to do with this commentary, and it has been adequately addressed here and here.

    — HCN    Jun 11, 03:25 PM    #

  33. In order to adequately explain my opinion on Ms. Seidel’s commentary here, allow me to post an analogy. I imagine that it will be a bit long.

    About 20 years ago when I was in high school, I took a summer job at an ice cream stand. For two years I was a lowly scooper by the third summer I was promoted to manager. Among the responsibilities as manager were that I was responsible for closing the stand up at 9:00 pm which included cleaning the stand and just as importantly, counting the money in both registers—down to the penny. I would then bring the money to the owner in the house right next door (family owned small ice cream stand). About once or twice a week, the owner would allow his 8 year old (or so) daughter to come over and “help” us. It was a special treat for her to stay up late and hang out with the big kids. While we cleaned she would typically just sit on the stoop and chit chat about whatever… 8 year old stuff. When it came time to count the money, she always wanted to be involved. She would grab a $5 or $10 a few dimes, some quarters a few nickels here and there. It was sort of a drag for two reasons. One reason was that when she did this, at the end of the counting I would have to re-count the money that she had and add it to the total. The other issue was that because she was so young, she would continually ask me how much does one $5 and 2 big shiny silver ones make? Or, if I have 3 middle sized shiny ones, does that make $1 ? Not that big of a deal except that when this happened it would inevitably make me lose my count of whatever it was that I was counting. Since I was all about having fun back then this disruption would cause me to be at the stand longer than I wanted to be and it would mean less time having fun with my friends who I could typically meet up with after work for an hour or so before my curfew (summer hours).

    One night I came up with a perfect solution. I would set her up with a “very important job”. Her job would be to count the pennies. I would give her all the pennies and ask her to put them in groups of 10. I made a big deal out of this “big job”. She loved it. The best thing, she could easily count by 1 so there was never the questions about the amount, etc. and she felt so important. Every once in awhile, I would acknowledge that she was doing such a great job and thank her for helping me. She was in heaven. It worked out perfectly because at the very end, I would just count up her piles of pennies and add it to the total. Presto, bango… I would be out of there and hanging with my friends. What does this have to do with Kathleen Seidel?

    Kathleen is sort of like the penny counter in this analogy. She probably spent some time getting this information about the Geiers but realistically, who really cares? It’s not a big major deal. Don’t get me wrong, it’s interesting and possibly she’s right that the Geiers have “overstated” their qualifications or whatever (I’ll hold out judgment on that until I see more) but so what? The Geiers have asked repeatedly for other researchers to be allowed to see what is left of the VSD data. They have also asked repeatedly for more research to be done on other topics. If the CDC, FDA, etc. have issues with their work and they want to proceed with discrediting them, they have had ample opportunites to do so. They have chosen not to. We now have many other researchers who have done other studies which confirm minimally that the theory is not “dead”. It would be one thing if the Geiers were the only researchers who were bringing up this connection. Obviously, they aren’t. For Kathleen to put her energy into discrediting the Geiers is great and admirable, but what does that get her? Not much. Way too much there. Kathleen is great at counting pennies but that’s about all.

    — Common Sense    Jun 11, 04:27 PM    #

  34. Common nonSense:
    ...”the Geiers have “overstated” their qualifications or whatever (I’ll hold out judgment on that until I see more) but so what?”

    Apparently lying is ok when they say what we want them to say. Now that could be a pathetic attitude, but it’s really just nice spin. I expect that kind of lawyerish spin when someone wants to Sue. Or maybe it’s just a nice little troll.

    And I’ll fix this for you:
    “It would be one thing if the Geiers were the only researchers who were [inventing] this connection [for profit].”

    — Hey Zeus is my homeboy    Jun 11, 04:55 PM    #

  35. That was a pretty long-winded, totally irrelevant strawman argument.

    — Dad Of Cameron    Jun 11, 05:13 PM    #

  36. Hey Zeus,

    Don’t be so easily offended. When you have very little, pennies become important. The difficult thing about pennies is that no one really cares about them and they are easily disregarded. I’m all about bills …

    — Common Sense    Jun 11, 05:15 PM    #

  37. “Overstating” qualifications is obviously no small matter. I would imagine it takes quite a bit for a journal to pull a paper out of its publication in its entirety. They did not publish a retraction. They removed it. If a scientist is willing to misrepresent themselves about their qualifications in this manner, can they be trusted with their scientific claims? (In this context, I’d bring up Geier & Geier’s papers on thimerosal – those published in 2004 and 2006). It’s true that other DAN! researchers are looking into the mercury-autism connection. But Geier & Geier are absolutely the only researchers who have claimed to positively correlate autism prevalence with thimerosal dose per child and MMR uptakes.

    — Joseph    Jun 11, 05:44 PM    #

  38. See I thought Mark Geier was so busy counting money instead of scooping ice cream and David was bugging him with silly questions so Mark sent him to GWU to keep him out if the way.

    Was that the moral of this story? What’s the scoop on these penny ante credentials anyway? Do you have 31 flavors or not? Sprinkles don’t impress me.

    — notmercury    Jun 11, 05:46 PM    #

  39. What I find galling is that Daddy Geier states – in no uncertain terms – that he has discovered a new state in which testosterone can be found in humans. He implied (on the “Fair Autism Media” website) that this was BIG news—like HELLO, Nobel PRIZE time!! Baby BA with the ultrasoft Bachelor of Arts in biology, and apparently not able to cope with real chemistry classes, seconds what da’ says about these sheets of testosterone trapping mercury in them.

    Daddy dearest makes a statement that a typical high school chemistry student would look at askance and then ask for the proof, a statement that made at least a dozen scientists and skeptics scratch their heads and say, “What???” A statement that those scientists and skeptics disproved showing that the Geiers had NEVER had found these “sheets” of testosterone.

    But look at all the DAN! docs who refuse to or just don’t bother to challenge these BOZOS on statements like “there are these mercury sheets, yea, um, testosterone and some mercury in these, uh, sheets things, and you take some Lupron injections and it turns loose of the mercury and then the mercury understands that it has to leave the body now.”

    It’s a whole cargo cult of lies and mismashed misunderstandings passed around by unschooled parents, (e.g, Erik “if you only have the faith” Nanstiel).

    WHY isn’t the great Dr. Bradstreet setting everyone straight on Lupron? How about the great Dr. Wakefield? Uhm, the conflicted Krigsman? Lathe? I mean this is actually a small world of “professionals” and their groupies. All you have to do is have one of them stand up and say, “NO WAY”—but THEN someone would have to say the same thing about chelation and RNA drops and NAET and homeopathy. This gang is so so incredibly corrupt that they’d rather see children die than rock the boat and lose out on their piece of the pie.

    Jr has another paper out now with the same affiliation claim in “Medical Science Monitor” I wonder how long before that one gets pulled?

    If you want to stand by them, that’s groovy, Mr or Ms “Counting Pennies”, funny how you aren’t willing to stand by them with your real name. I for one know about the Geiers penchant for suing people they want to shut up, so for now, I’m pseudonymous.

    I would expect to see the New York Times to do the kind of work that Kathleen Seidel has done here. I would further expect that the NYT will pick up on it and run it’s own story. Then Mr.(Ms) Counting Pennies, you can plan on writing a letter to the editor explaining why a lie like this one – David Geier being a grad student – is no big deal.

    Odd how daddy didn’t notice the GWU lie and correct it himself, isn’t it odd? Odd how daddy gets to publish lies about VAERS and the DDS and people just suck them down.

    — arc de triomphe    Jun 11, 05:56 PM    #

  40. “who really cares?”

    Evidently, GWU and Hormone Research cared quite a bit. The honest side of the scientific community I’m sure will care a lot too.

    “When you have very little, pennies become important.”

    Who exactly has very little of what?

    The reality is that the thimerosal-autism worldview is a dying worldview. It’s only a matter of time before it becomes obvious that in the absense of thimerosal, the incidence of ASD remains at the levels it’s always been at. And there are already indications that it’s dying, despite some hold-outs in the EOHarm list. A generation from now, the thimerosal hypothesis will be remembered much like we remember Refrigerator Mother now. And the Geiers will be remembered much like we remember Bruno Bettelheim.

    — Joseph    Jun 11, 06:09 PM    #

  41. Not so Common Sense,

    I think the answer to what to do with the little girl who is too curious about counting and stacking small shiny things and too perseverant to be distratcted, is to haul her away from all that heavy metal covered in viruses and chelate her, but first dose her with Lupron, just in case, and then stick her in a vat of Valtrex, but remember to watch for the “yeast.”

    — Ms Clark    Jun 11, 06:27 PM    #

  42. Personally, I would rather the NYT stuck with something more important such as why our government officials are ok with referring to the Danish studies as proof that thimerosal has no role in autism.

    I would also add that the entire thimerosal/vaccine/autism connection is not going to fall apart because the Geiers overstated their credentials (if they did, big IF). That is just an interesting anectdote (a penny so to speak). Not so important in the GRAND scheme of things (ie: poisoning babies). Kathleen can count pennies all she likes, that’s great. Someone needs to do it. It’s just not all that important to me…

    If the “officials” have an issue with the Geiers… that’s fair. They have the opportunity to do what they need to do in order to discredit the Geiers and bring in “new blood” to shed some more light. They just need to know that we will watch them very closely.

    — Common Sense    Jun 11, 06:38 PM    #

  43. Oh silly Ms. Clark… This little girl was born in 1980/1981 way before they started giving megadoses of mercury in vaccines… there was no need to do any sort of intervention with this little girl at all. Her immune system was functioning perfectly well. No medical issues whatsoever. Her fun with pennies was simply typical childish behaviour in which she engaged with the people around her in a delightful way.

    — Common Sense    Jun 11, 06:48 PM    #

  44. DoC said
    “That was a pretty long-winded, totally irrelevant strawman argument.”

    But think how long it took to write that and how proud it must have felt when it hit the send button. If that is their best shot they must be hurting real bad right now. And I have to repeat this.

    “The Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) curriculum is designed for students who wish to concentrate their studies in two areas of knowledge, one of which is Biological Sciences. Such students include those who want to teach biology in secondary schools, and therefore require a background in education as well as biology. This degree would also be appropriate for a student who wants a career in medical illustration, and must couple a strong background in biology with advanced training in fine arts.

    This curriculum is not appropriate for students who want to pursue a career in laboratory science, or who plan to go on to graduate, medical, or dental school. Those students will want to follow the curriculum leading to a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) degree.”

    Someone remind me. what is David Geier’s degree? Mine is a B.Ed and I do what it says on the packet. I teach.

    — Mike Stanton    Jun 11, 07:10 PM    #

  45. “Personally, I would rather the NYT stuck with something more important such as why our government officials are ok with referring to the Danish studies as proof that thimerosal has no role in autism.”

    You seem to think the burden of proof is on those who disbelieve that thimerosal causes autism. Things don’t work that way. You are making the extraordinary claim – you prove it. Funnily enough, the only papers that claim to correlate autism prevalence with thimerosal are authored by Geier & Geier; not to mention the quality of these papers.

    — Joseph    Jun 11, 07:11 PM    #

  46. Pretty ironic that someone who reads and clearly enjoys Ms. Seidel’s writing, would call me “long-winded”.

    — Common Sense    Jun 11, 07:19 PM    #

  47. “You seem to think the burden of proof is on those who disbelieve that thimerosal causes autism. Things don’t work that way”.

    Joseph, who said anything about proving something? What does burden of proof have to do with publishing and referring to OBVIOUSLY flawed studies? I’m not sure I understand.

    — Common Sense    Jun 11, 07:26 PM    #

  48. Not so Common Sense,

    That’s right, that little girl was born before the Geiers invented sheets of testosterone, too, right? Yeah, that’s what I thought. Before little girls got injected with massive doses of Lupron (like Erik Nanstiel describes his daughter is getting) to cure imaginary mercury toxicity “proved” by scandalously lousy mail order labs that make money off you their customers believing in “heavy metal toxicity.”

    Interesting that “we” are not wiling to use our real name, isn’t it “Common Sense”. Common sense tells me that the Geiers lie about everything related to autism, as do the rest of the mercury mafia. The Geiers just might get “knocked out of the game,” who’s next, several of your heroes are lying about their credentials, likewise. Then you have people lying about finding measles in intestines… which predates the mercury mafia…. Ooops, who’s left?

    Anyway, all autism is is mercury poisoning, we don’t know if the little girl’s mom was using thimerosal preserved contact lens solution while she was carrying that little girl, do we? Little perseverating girls weren’t dxd as “autism spectrum” in the early 1980’s, they would have had other labels then.

    It’s so fun watching you squirm and try to paint this as NO BIG DEAL. It is a big deal.

    — Ms Clark    Jun 11, 07:28 PM    #

  49. Pretty ironic that someone who reads and clearly enjoys Ms. Seidel’s writing, would call me “long-winded”.

    Go back and re-read the comment. There is no need for you to take it personally. I was referring in particular to the argument itself when I commented,

    “That was a pretty long-winded, totally irrelevant strawman argument”

    — Dad Of Cameron    Jun 11, 07:48 PM    #

  50. Ms. Clark,

    Back then in the early 1980’s people didn’t need to know about sheets of testosterone or about mail order labs or about “heavy metal toxicity” that’s because it wasn’t a real big problem back then. It is now. It is only out of necessity and parents wanting to get to the bottom of their children’s medical concerns that we know about these things.

    Maybe Ms. Seidel can continue counting her pennies to come up with more dirt on all my “heroes”. Possibly she’ll come up with a few more factoids to make it worth it to me. I would start to become concerned when she got to $1.00

    Why would I be “squirming”? I admire Kathleen’s dedication to getting to the bottom of this supposed issue with the Geiers. For me, however, this is just a tiny little speck in the scheme of things.

    Lastly, this little girls mother wore glasses every day. I doubt very much that she ever wore contacts.

    — Common Sense    Jun 11, 07:53 PM    #

  51. “What does burden of proof have to do with publishing and referring to OBVIOUSLY flawed studies?”

    Those who continue to refer to Geier & Geier are referring to obviously flawed studies, or worse evidently. And I don’t mean ordinary flaws like you might find in any study. I mean very strange flaws that make one wonder how a knowledgeable researcher could possibly end up making those mistakes.

    Burder of proof is important. You keep asking for proof that thimerosal doesn’t cause autism. You could ask for proof that french fries don’t cause autism, and so on, ad infinitum. Those proposing the hypothesis have the burder of proof. Come up with something substantive; then ask for that to be disproved.

    The Danish studies, BTW, are not the only ones. Andrews et al found no association in the UK. Verstraeten et al (2004) found no correlation in the US. Stehr-Green et al (2003) found no association in California, Sweden and Denmark.

    — Joseph    Jun 11, 08:03 PM    #

  52. Oh thank you so much for bringing that to my attention, Dad of Cameron. Let me rephrase my comment. It is pretty ironic that someone who reads and clearly enjoys Ms. Seidel’s writing would call my ARGUMENT long-winded. Is that better?

    — Common Sense    Jun 11, 08:04 PM    #

  53. Hiya Mike…

    “Someone remind me. what is David Geier’s degree? Mine is a B.Ed and I do what it says on the packet. I teach.”

    LoL… yeh… oddly enough… I have BA-status cos of being a postgraduate student in a University School of Education; I have a pending award of a PgCertSpEd which is being subsumed into my MEd when I finally do get it… and I went from Oulu university’s behavioural sciences dept to BrumU’s SoE… so I kinda should get my bachelor degree from Oulu… and the way to do that is to ask the uni for it… when I get it, it’ll be a BEd too…. doing what it says on the packet… I teach, too (amongst the other psychology stuff I do).

    And I’m not overinflating my worth, cos I don’t have to… why does David Geier have to do it?

    — David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)    Jun 11, 08:41 PM    #

  54. Aren’t strawman arguments, almost by definition, totally irrelevant? ;-)

    — Orac    Jun 11, 08:55 PM    #

  55. You know you’re in trouble when you can’t even get into the body of your paper without starting to massage the facts.

    — Lisa Randall    Jun 11, 10:08 PM    #

  56. I have read this paper. Its flaws go well beyond simply misrepresenting the affiliation of one author. The paper claims to discover that autistic children have problems with their hormones, specifically androgen pathway markers.

    The authors suggest that they found these issues with all children who “presented” at their clinic. But prior to initiating their study, they were advertising widely to attract children with precocious puberty. Thus, it is not surprising that they found these children “presenting” at their clinic.

    It would be as if I developed a hypothesis that fair-skinned children could not be properly chelated because they were deficient in melatonin. I could then advertise that I could “cure” fair-skinned autistic children with my special treatment. Then, when only fair-skinned children “presented” at my clinic, I could write a paper to the (imaginary) Journal of Skin Pigmentation, saying that I had made a new discovery – all children with autism have fair skin. Would this be a valid piece of work do you think?

    — Jennifer    Jun 11, 10:33 PM    #

  57. Hi Jennifer…

    “The authors suggest that they found these issues with all children who “presented” at their clinic. But prior to initiating their study, they were advertising widely to attract children with precocious puberty. Thus, it is not surprising that they found these children ‘presenting’ at their clinic.”

    So they skewed their sample, it seems… this does seem to be a hefty kick in the bollocks for the validity of their results, no?

    I suppose that’s what you get when you’re not really a scientist and trying to make out that you are one! Like I said earlier… DG’s a shite biologist!

    — David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)    Jun 11, 11:11 PM    #

  58. For someone who doesn’t find Kathleen’s blog entry particularly important or interesting, for some reason “Common Sense” feels a need to muddy the discussion with irrelevancies and tries to distract from the fact that the Geiers seem to be lying about baby BA’s affiliation… or the journal Hormone Research has been duped by the guys at GWU who for some odd reason are denying that David G is still a grad student there… a grad student who ought to have a Masters by now. It’s not like Jr is married or has kids… doesn’t he live with pappa? Maybe not. Maybe he’s in an apartment just off the GWU campus.

    No one asked you, “Common Sense” for your opinion about how Kathleen spends her time. I for one am grateful that Kathleen spends her time this way. “Common Sense” you could go find a better way to spend your time, right? Counting the false credentials claimed by the mercury quacks… that would keep you busy for a while.

    — Ms Clark    Jun 12, 12:09 AM    #

  59. It is pretty ironic that someone who reads and clearly enjoys Ms. Seidel’s writing would call my ARGUMENT long-winded. Is that better?

    Not really – it still misses the point.

    Kathleen’s writing is not long winded, its simply full of facts. Your ‘argument’ by comparison is literally composed of nothing. Long winded hot air is not impressive or amusing, its just a bit embarrassing to read.

    — Kev    Jun 12, 01:54 AM    #

  60. “Common Sense” is most likely to be SueM… since both she and Common Sense lack… er… common sense.

    — David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)    Jun 12, 02:15 AM    #

  61. In my message above, when I wrote “melatonin”, I meant, of course “melanin”, the substance primarily responsible for skin pigmentation.

    — Jennifer    Jun 12, 06:44 AM    #

  62. No, my guess is that “Someone with a clue” is Sue. “Common Sense” could be JBH. If you think about it, there aren’t many who would try to defend something like this. And what they’ve tried to argue here is so pathetic and irrelevant it’s sad.

    — Joseph    Jun 12, 08:11 AM    #

  63. David, you’re right, it is the ubiquitous Sue M, and I’m inclined not to approve any further comments from her (as “Common Sense,” “Someone with a clue,” or any other pseudonym) unless they are on-topic. Danish studies, pennies, and all the other ways I and the folks at the New York Times might spend our time, aren’t.

    — Kathleen Seidel    Jun 12, 08:24 AM    #

  64. You know, Kathleen, I’m getting too good at spotting that woman… she has one style: pathetic attempt to derail. For a woman who claims to have graduated from a good college in the US, she behaves like someone who couldn’t even get in to high school. The fact, however, that she is trying to derail us in our attempts to discuss fraudulant misrepresentations made by the side she supports is indicative one one thing: we are on the right track. Because, if we were nowhere near going the right direction, she wouldn’t have anything to say… she wouldn’t need to.

    Could somebody pass me that jar of FIGJAM, please????!!!! :)

    — David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)    Jun 12, 08:51 AM    #

  65. The Geiers have also represented that junior ”...is a graduate student at the National Institutes of Health, and has been the president of MedCon, Inc for the past 4 years providing consultation in cases involving vaccines…” in a letter to Sen. Clinton. This letter was reprinted in April 2003 while David was still, presumably, enrolled as a graduate student.

    Hillary, apparently did not take a bite of this apple.

    http://www.cherab.org/information/geiermd.html

    — TheProbe    Jun 12, 09:25 AM    #

  66. As I have said to Kev before and he took me up on it, it is (obviously) up to you if you wish to ban me. I would find it interesting if you banned me due to not being “on-topic”. We disagree. Disagreeing does not equate with being off-topic. I have stated for the record that it is interesting and a nice little tidbit that you have supposedly found the Geiers to have “inflated” their qualifications. I’m not sure that I completely buy into it but I admire your continued research into the topic. I have stated before, someone needs to do it. It is my belief that it is just not as important as you may believe it to be. That is just my opinion. If the Geiers were the only ones proposing a possible link, I suppose your revelations would have more significance. For now, there are plenty of other studies and researchers who offer up evidence of a possible connection.

    Since my first analogy went over so well let’s try this one. It is as if your beloved pet got hit by a car in the road. You run out to try to help. Do you focus on the cut below his eye which seems to be bleeding a bit OR do you focus on the fact that he is unresponsive, may have internal injuries and seems to have 2 broken legs? Personally, I would be more inclined to worry about the latter issues as opposed to the cut below the eye. Maybe it’s just me.

    — Common Sense    Jun 12, 09:54 AM    #

  67. “The fact, however, that she is trying to derail us in our attempts to discuss fraudulant misrepresentations made by the side she supports is indicative one one thing: we are on the right track”.

    It is possible that David has missed my point. I am saying that with OR without the Geiers research, there is enough research out there to warrant the continued study of the topic. If you wish to spend your time focusing on the Geirs possible misrepresentations, please continue. I am not trying to derail you. I am looking at the big picture, you are focusing on the speck of dirt in the picture. That’s all.

    — Common Sense    Jun 12, 10:09 AM    #

  68. “I have stated for the record that it is interesting and a nice little tidbit that you have supposedly found the Geiers to have “inflated” their qualifications.”

    Wakefield is being charged with professional misconduct for much less than this “little tidbit”. Do stay tuned.

    “For now, there are plenty of other studies and researchers who offer up evidence of a possible connection.”

    Please name one study, not authored by Geier & Geier, that correlates autism prevalence with thimerosal.

    — Joseph    Jun 12, 10:18 AM    #

  69. Common Sue:

    Personally, I am concerned about the issue of the Geiers subjecting small children to experimentation with powerful and dangerous drugs based on an unsubstantiated theory. And I am personally concerned that this is happening at the hands of people who not only lack a background in endocrinology (which one would think would be a basic requirement for someone monkeying with the endocrine system), but can’t even be relied upon to get their affiliations straight. Sounds like a massive multi-car pileup waiting to happen.

    — Dave Seidel    Jun 12, 10:19 AM    #

  70. Professional misrepesentations are no big deal. Haven’t you ever inflated your resume? Why would this be any kind of serious misconduct? Ok, this kind of science has a profound impact on public health, but let’s cut these guys some slack. He might have lied about his affiliation, but this doesn’t mean he constantly lies about data and its interpretation. Does it? And what would his motivation be? I don’t think he financially depends on thimerosal causing autism. Does he? Come on. It’s just one paper or two. I say just let the young man fix the little tidbit and let him continue doing all this useful and flawless research.

    — Someone with "common sense" and a "clue"    Jun 12, 10:40 AM    #

  71. The Geiers’ paper may have been withdrawn but its rebuttal by Orac on the Respectful Insolence blog is a treat. Enjoy :-)

    — Mike Stanton    Jun 12, 11:24 AM    #

  72. “Someone with “common sense” and a “clue”

    Thank you for the chuckle. Yes, let’s forgive and forget shall we. It’s not like lives or safety of children are hanging in balance or anything.

    What other dangerous big pharma drugs can we inject in to these kids? It’s not like their lives matter after all, they’re autistic, empty shells and train wrecks any way. What have we got to lose.

    — notmercury    Jun 12, 12:32 PM    #

  73. Hey #70 – good humor.

    If someone really wanted a piece of crap to get into a good journal, maybe they could shoot for the moon and say they were “Noble” Laureates. Might work over the phone.

    blah hahaha. Noble, riiiight.

    Or maybe they could have said it into the phone really quickly, “Did I mention that I’m Mobile Laureate?” Technically it’s irrefutable.

    What about a Snowball Laureate? Maybe they have one saved up in their freezer.

    Or, how about, “I’m just a damn dirtbag who makes up science and experiments on kids?”

    — Hey Zeus is my homeboy    Jun 12, 01:56 PM    #

  74. “Wakefield is being charged with professional misconduct for much less than this “little tidbit”. Do stay tuned”.

    Are you referring to this.

    Or is there more? I read about this and it saddens me that a man whose findings have since been replicated by Krigsman has to go through this type of crap. It’s no wonder why doctors over in the UK are not properly taking care of autistic children who suffer with GI issues. They are scared of the consequences.

    — Common Sense    Jun 12, 02:45 PM    #

  75. “Personally, I am concerned about the issue of the Geiers subjecting small children to experimentation with powerful and dangerous drugs based on an unsubstantiated theory”.

    Are you suggesting that I am not concerned about that? There is room to be concerned all around for our children. We can look at biomedical treatments, anti-depressants and unsafe vaccinations … it’s all one big experiment at this point. Sadly.

    — Common Sense    Jun 12, 02:59 PM    #

  76. ”...but this doesn’t mean he constantly lies about data and its interpretation”.

    I’m sorry, I lost track. Are you referring here to the Geiers or have you drifted over to Mr. Paul Offit and his use of the Danish studies?

    — Common Sense    Jun 12, 03:05 PM    #

  77. Sue M. said: Are you suggesting that I am not concerned about that?

    Yes, I am. Anyone who defends the Geiers and displays such a lack of concern for their obvious and serious flaws is implicitly saying that it’s OK for these guys to perform dangerous (and, IMHO, unethical) experimentation on children. Is that clear enough for you?

    — Dave Seidel    Jun 12, 03:18 PM    #

  78. Kathleen, If you want to stop posting Sue M’s comments, I think that would be fair, she can always start a blog or go comment on Wade Rankin’s blog about how mean we are all being to poor David Geier with the bachelor of arts in biology. Besides when she stops commenting, usually we hear from Kevin C. of New York, it’s a sort of tag team thing…

    Where’s Handley in this? How about Erik Nanstiel? I wonder if the new Hormone Research paper was ever linked to on a GR website…

    I wonder if Erik N has corrected baby BA’s credentials on FAIR?

    — Ms Clark    Jun 12, 04:11 PM    #

  79. MsC: “Besides when she stops commenting, usually we hear from Kevin C. of New York, it’s a sort of tag team thing…”

    Nah… it’s a weird love thing. She dumped JBJr for his unwavering obsession with my gonads, and has taken up with KC instead (on the proviso that he leaves his Sunshine Band outside in the van). Together, they have vowed to annoy the snot out of the world, and then some….

    Handkerchieves at the ready, people!

    — David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)    Jun 12, 04:31 PM    #

  80. “I read about this and it saddens me that a man [Wakefield] whose findings have since been replicated by Krigsman has to go through this type of crap.”

    To appropriately call something a “replication” it should preferably be an independent replication. It would be nice too if it at least used a control group.

    — Joseph    Jun 12, 05:31 PM    #

  81. “Anyone who defends the Geiers and displays such a lack of concern for their obvious and serious flaws is implicitly saying that it’s OK for these guys to perform dangerous (and, IMHO, unethical) experimentation on children. Is that clear enough for you”?

    It is clear but twisted. I’m really not defending them here. If they have done something wrong then fine… I imagine Kathleen will be following up on the issues. She can do that all she wants. It’s not as if the Geiers are the ones hiding the VSD data or anything (it’s your side that is doing that, remember)? Are you really interested in going down that road about ethics, Dave. I imagine not.

    On a completely different topic, but I know he is on here… Mr. Deer, do you still believe that their was no issue with the DTP vaccine.

    — Common Sense    Jun 12, 06:07 PM    #

  82. Thank you to Ms. Clark and David for their “on topic” comments. It is good to know that some things never change… On that note (unless Deer choses to answer my question), I will be gone for now. Didn’t mean to disrupt your love fest.

    — Common Sense    Jun 12, 06:11 PM    #

  83. Note to self: before signing off with the ND crew, be sure to check your e-mails and web sources just in case something else needs to be said. Something else has popped up that I may need to comment on (if I haven’t been banned)... So I retract my previous good-bye message. It will be very brief, however, no fear.

    — Common Sense    Jun 12, 06:33 PM    #

  84. Bye, Sue! We’ll save a banana for you.

    /just another genuine monkey who doesn’t have a journal article pulled by the publisher. Pssst. The secret is not lying. Don’t tell anyone.

    — JAGMWDHJAPBP    Jun 12, 06:37 PM    #

  85. That’s it… comes in, makes inconsequential statements and tries to derail things… when she gets what she deserves, she buggers off.

    Typical coward.

    — David N. Andrews BA-status, PgCertSpEd (pending)    Jun 12, 07:03 PM    #

  86. A new article by the Geiers was published today (June 13, 2006) in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, An Evaluation of the Effects of Thimerosal on Neurodevelopmental Disorders Reported Following DTP and Hib Vaccines in Comparison to DTPH Vaccine in the United States. In the byline, David Geier is identified as “Graduate Student, Department of Biochemistry, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.” which again suggests that his share of the research was performed under the auspices of GWU. The article was originally received by the journal on May 4, 2005, and accepted for publication on July 14, 2005, with no further revisions indicated.

    — Kathleen Seidel    Jun 13, 11:25 AM    #

  87. Science blogger Orac ("Respectful Insolence") has posted an extensive discussion of the Hormone Research article in his latest post, Mercury and autism: Well, look at what the Geiers are up to now.

    — Kathleen Seidel    Jun 13, 11:42 AM    #

  88. Response from Erik.

    — Junior    Jun 15, 08:51 AM    #

  89. Re: 88

    Didn’t he learn the hard lessons of the telephone game in kindergarten? The guy needs to stop being someone else’s gimp… unless he really likes it or something. ew.

    — Hey Zeus is my homeboy    Jun 16, 10:14 AM    #

  90. Has the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health been notified of the misleading nature of David Geier’s reported affiliation?

    — Lisa Randall    Jun 16, 02:50 PM    #

  91. I don't know. Not by me.

    — Kathleen Seidel    Jun 16, 06:33 PM    #

  92. The Hormone Research article has been republished with an amended affiliation statement. See Update: A Republished Article for more information.

    — Kathleen Seidel    Jul 13, 11:23 AM    #