| |
UNINFORMED CONSENT, SEATTLE. WA –
May of 2003 was
a tremulous time for the internationally known NEW YORK
TIMES when Jayson Blair's plagiarism debacle threatened
to erode the paper’s credibility. Blair’s fictional
reporting propelled the 1.6 million readership paper
into the headlines, an uncomfortable place for any news
outlet. For months afterward, the Times exercised damage
control while numerous editors resigned.
Still
the Times exercises damage control.
Currently they are continuing their in-house design to
be publicly proactive.
June 25th, 2005, two seasoned NY Times reporters
ran what was represented as objective coverage on recent
allegations of a government cover-up of a link between
epidemic levels of mercury exposure in vaccines,
medications and dental amalgam that cause ADD, autism
and neurological disease.
Their article was picked up all over the nation by other
respectable newspapers and featured prominently. The
information has since been quoted throughout the
journalistic chasm as ammunition supporting government
authorities' cries that there is a witch hunt a foot
against thimerisal (mercury), and for some individuals
personally for a "cover-up."
This coverage was replete with errors, omissions,
obfuscation, marginalizing and outright misstatement of
fact. One of these reporters has already
written another piece on the same issue with similar
traits.
If allegations of a systematic cover-up of mercury
exposure through government mandated vaccines,
medications and mercury dental fillings affecting
millions - possibly over 90% of the American public are
true, then the authors of this article are willing
accomplices.
Equally troubling, in order to spin their tale of
distortion, spin and marginalizing and omissions,
these reporters had to have been in possession of the
truth.
Why seasoned reporters, Gardiner Harris and Anahad
O’Connor, would go to such lengths to twist a story so
important is hard to imagine.
Why they would jeopardize their careers with
misinformation that just a few clicks of a mouse could
easily disprove is equally hard to fathom.
Their piece ran June 25, 2005:
NYTimes "On Autism's Cause, It's Parents vs. Research
The following comprises a list of the misrepresentations
within the article along with corrections and comments:
1. The NYT article states:
“In a series of House hearings held from 2000 through
2004, Mr. Burton called the leading experts who assert
that vaccines cause autism to testify. They included a
chemistry professor at the University of Kentucky who
says that dental fillings cause or exacerbate autism and
other diseases and a doctor from Baton Rouge, La., who
says that God spoke to her through an 87-year-old priest
and told her that vaccines caused autism.”
a) The obfuscation of the“chemistry professor”
One has to question the motivation behind omitting names
of scientific experts who have such solid credentials.
Experts who can support, with scientific evidence,
claims that vaccines and dental fillings “cause or
exacerbate autism.”
The omitted mystery professor is no doubt the
well-respected and outspoken Dr. Boyd Haley PhD., a
professor and Chair of the University of Kentucky’s
Chemistry Department, with a joint appointment in the
College of Pharmacy.
Haley’s credentials are impressive. He received his MA
in Chemistry from the University of Idaho, PhD from
Washington State University and did his postdoctoral
work at Yale.
HaleyCV
Dr. Haley is well published in over 150 peer-reviewed
publications. He is an internationally known and
respected scientist and is one of the most knowledgeable
scientists on mercury on the face of the earth. Haley’s
studies on the effects of mercury on humans are cutting
edge science based on well-established scientific
standards.
b) An unnamed witness “who says that God spoke to her
through an 87-year-old priest and told her that vaccines
caused autism.”
In reviewing over transcripts of the investigation
hearings that the House (Congressional) committee held
regarding the issue of Mercury in childhood vaccines, no
witness fits the description of “a doctor from Baton
Rouge, LA., who says that God spoke to her through an
87-year-old priest and told her that vaccines caused
autism.”
c) Pairing an un-named professor with an un-named
marginalized witness
It is clear this marginalized un-named witness paired
with the obfuscated mystery professor testifying during
the investigation by the “House committee” was designed
to marginalize Representative Dan Burton (R-Indiana),
the Chair of the US Congressional Committee On
Government Reform.
d) Clarification of the “House committee”
The “House committee” is the Committee on Government
Reform is the same “House committee” that drafted and
designed the Department of Homeland Security and the
Vaccine Compensation Program.
2. In describing experts Dr. Mark Geier and his son
David Geier the article states:
“He and his son live and work in a two-story house in
suburban Maryland. Past the kitchen and down the stairs
is a room with cast-off, unplugged laboratory equipment,
wall-to-wall carpeting and faux wood paneling that Dr.
Geier calls "a world-class lab - every bit as good as
anything at N.I.H."
a) Public Property Records
According to publicly available property records, this
“two-story house” is a 6222 square foot, luxury brick
home with a basement on 1.6 acres located in a wealthy
suburb in Maryland.
Picture:
Two-story Geier residence in Maryland
The property sports an Olympic sized tennis court, a
lap pool, a green house, a hot tub, and granite
countertops throughout along with “wall-to-wall
carpeting,” granite floors and expensive “faux wood
paneling.”
A quick peek at sales in the
neighborhood shows comparable properties to be selling
at around $1.8 million. This is hardly the portrayal
that the NYT authors described.
This property
also has a “world-class lab” with first class lab
equipment installed by Dr. Geier himself at some
considerable expense.
3. The article goes on
to describe the Geiers:
“Dr. Geier has
been examining issues of vaccine safety since at least
1971, when he was a lab assistant at the National
Institutes of Health, or N.I.H. His résumé lists scores
of publications, many of which suggest that vaccines
cause injury or disease."
It is apparent
these authors have Dr. Geier’s résumé in hand. In
reviewing Dr. Geier’s résumé, it clearly states that in
1971 he was a “Graduate Student in the Department of
Human Genetics and Development, Columbia University, New
York, NY.”
In addition it states Dr. Geier
enjoyed over a ten year tenure at the NIH as a
researcher (not a lab assistant) and was one of the
leading researchers who discovered how to move
bacterial/human genes (splitting genes). For this Geier
has enjoyed international acclaim in his field being
written up in the NY Times, Time, Science, Newsweek, and
many other respected publications.
Dr. Geier
continues his vocation as a well respected
board-certified PhD in genetics, published research
scientist and practicing MD. Dr. Geier’s research has
been published in over 100 peer-reviewed publications.
Dr. Mark Geier CV
Geier’s research and his son David, who is an
accomplished biochemist and graduate student at George
Washington University in his own right, have together
been published in over 30 peer-reviewed publications
something unheard of in graduate work and coveted by any
ethical medical school.
David Geier CV
We were unable to locate where Geier ever worked as
a “lab assistant”. Perhaps the authors could be kind
enough to share that piece of information.
4.
The article goes on to describe Geier’s testimony:
“He (Geier) has also testified in more than 90
vaccine cases, he said, although a judge in a vaccine
case in 2003 ruled that Dr. Geier was "a professional
witness in areas for which he has no training, expertise
and experience."
The intimation is that Geier has personally derived
revenue from his expert testimony in more than 90
vaccine cases. none of these cases have reached
conclusion nor have we been able to locate any case
where Geier has received revenue for his testimony.
“In other cases, judges have called Dr.
Geier's testimony "intellectually dishonest," "not
reliable" and "wholly unqualified."
This
attention cast on comments out of context that, no
doubt, came from an interview with Geier himself -
quotes that were made in a short minority of cases in
which he appeared.
The NYT authors did not
mention ANY of the cases representing the majority where
Geier received significant praise for his expertise in
vaccines. Some of the omissions even included
passing a Daubert challenge*- a prestigious compliment
not handed out to just any expert witness:
US District Court (Federal Court), Jeffries v. Centre
Life Insurance Company, et al., Civil Action
Full Quote
“According to Dr. Geier, he relied on the
following combination of factor which leads him to the
conclusion that plaintiff had an adverse reaction to the
hepatitis B vaccine:
Medical plausibility;
Studies in peer-reviewed
literature documenting a connection between hepatitis B
vaccine and adverse reactions;
Case studies
reporting similar reactions;
Plaintiff’s reaction
occurred in an acceptable time period following the
vaccination;
All of this
in conjunction with the VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event
Reporting System] database association…(sic)
That the
hepatitis B vaccine contains mercury and aluminum
compounds, and
That these substances in vaccines have been shown to
cause cognitive defects.
The combination of factors provides a reasonably
reliable basis for Dr. Geier to conclude that
Plaintiff’s cognitive impairments were caused by an
adverse reaction to hepatitis B vaccine, and that
opinion is, of course relevant to the issues in this
case. Therefore, the motion to exclude Dr. Geier’s
testimony is not well-taken and is denied. His opinion
could be helpful to the jury.”
*The Daubert
Decision was a precedent setting case where criteria of
expert witnesses were set. In the Daubert case the court
decided that juries were not sophisticated enough to
decide what was real science and what was junk science
so the court now makes that decision. Courts sometimes
will create a Daubert Challenge through a mini hearing
to determine whether the credentials of the expert are
worthy.
United States Court of Federal Claims,
(McClendon v. HHS**), the judge referred to Dr. Geier
expertise: Full
Quote
“Dr. Geier’s expertise and professional
credibility clearly transcends that of Dr. Lockhart.
Given the totality of the circumstances, therefore it is
crystal clear that Dr. Geier’s testimony is entitled to
substantially more weight than that of Dr. Lockhart…
Moreover, the record persuasively shows that Dr. Geier
has had extensive experience in the area of DPT vaccine,
and the case that the special master makes for rejecting
his opinion is, we believe, built on a false premise.”
**US Department of Health and Human Services
(This is a cabinet directly under the White House.
See Geier - more court
cases
5. The article goes on to state:
“The six published studies by Dr. Geier and David Geier
on the relationship between autism and thimerosal are
largely based on complaints sent to the disease control
centers by people who suspect that their children were
harmed by vaccines.”
The six published
studies by Dr. Geier and David Geier on the relationship
between autism and Thimerosal were based on statistical
information gathered by several governmental agencies
with a cohort base of over 100,000. They were:
a)
The CDC through their Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting
System (VAERS).
b) The CDC through their Vaccine
Safety Datalink (VSD).
c) The third cohort was
through the US Department of Education.
The CDC
databases were gathered by participating medical doctors
and health agencies that report any adverse vaccine
reactions and contain thousands of cases.
The US
Department of Education database is compiled from
surveys done by the US Dept. of Education. It is
publicly accessible and consists of tens of millions.
An interesting note – The Geiers were
directed to investigate the CDC vaccine safety
databases as qualified experts at the behest of certain
members of the US Congress, many from the US
Congressional Committee For Government Reform - a
position that could be likened to inspectors for weapons
of mass destruction, guardians ad litem of sorts.
6. There are then the following quotes:
"The problem with the Geiers' research is that
they start with the answers and work backwards," said
Dr. Steven Black, director of the Kaiser Permanente
Vaccine Study Center in Oakland, Calif. "They are doing
voodoo science."
It would be interesting to
know more of the background behind this quote. Since
Kaiser Permanente is a fairly gargantuan player in the
cohort used in the infamous Verstraeten Study* the
obvious conflict of interest potential is interesting if
not great. Using personnel from Kaiser Permanente for
quotes without first disclosing this fact is as
misleading as it is dishonest.
*The
Verstraeten study is the same study referred to by
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his recently published piece in
Rolling Stone Magazine where he alleged a link between
mercury and vaccines was covered up and embargoed from
the public at the secretly held CDC Simpsonwood Meeting
in 2000.
Go to Rolling Stone, Deadly Immunity
7. The CDC
director, Julie Gerberding quoted:
“Dr.
Julie L. Gerberding, the director of the disease control
centers, said the agency was not withholding information
about any potentially damaging effects of thimerosal."
"There's certainly not a conspiracy here," she
said. "And we would never consider not acknowledging
information or evidence that would have a bearing on
children's health."
In 2003, spurred by
parents' demands, the C.D.C. asked the Institute of
Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences and
the nation's most prestigious medical advisory group, to
review the evidence on thimerosal and autism.”
Apparently Gerberding forgot to mention the findings
of the other National Academy of Sciences oversight
committee convened to investigate the Institute of
Medicine’s behavior in regards to vaccine safety and the
CDC. The following press release is quoted directly from
the National Academies of Sciences website:
"Concerns about access and transparency have accompanied
the development and functioning of the Vaccine Safety
Datalink data sharing program, and consequently some
people's trust in the reliability of findings from VSD
studies has eroded," explained John C. Bailar III, chair
of the committee that wrote the report and emeritus
professor of health studies at the University of
Chicago. "Taking steps to improve the independence,
transparency, and fairness of VSD procedures will help
enhance confidence in the data sharing program and in
research based on this important tool for evaluating
vaccine safety."
For the complete text of the
NAS review of the CDC:
Independent Oversight of Vaccine Safety Data Program
Needed To Ensure Greater Transparency and Enhance Public
Trust
These VSD databases, including the Vaccine Adverse
Effects Reaction System (VAERS) are administered by the
CDC. Critics claim (including the National Academies of
Sciences) this CDC administration is in direct conflict
with their duel purposes of promoting and administering
the national vaccine program.
Sources claim
Gerberding, shortly after the above findings in February
2005, was faced with immediate demands to separate the
two purposes starting with getting rid of the personnel
administering the safety databases.
8. The
statement discrediting Geier’s work.
"In a
report last year, a panel convened by the Institute
dismissed the Geiers' work as having such serious flaws
that their studies were "uninterpretable." Some of the
Geiers' mathematical formulas, the committee found,
"provided no information," and the Geiers used basic
scientific terms like "attributable risk" incorrectly."
This is a misrepresentation by both the NYTimes
and the IOM committee. The IOM report spent nine pages
justifying their use of the debacled Verstraeten study
and four pages explaining why they could not use Geier's
data complaining that Geier's data was not published and
uninterpretable. Never did the IOM report mention
that Geier's findings were only weeks old at the time of
the February 2004 hearing due to CDC efforts to keep
them from looking at it.
Nor does it mention that Geier's findings were published
a short time after the February IOM hearing in the peer
reviewed Medical Science Monitor.
Withheld from the article is the fact that the Geiers
are not the only scientists who have raised alarms.
The IOM hearing were full of them. At least 200
studies were presented with similar concerns.
Out of 15 scientists
who testified:
60% (9) felt there IS a
link to Autism,
26% (4)* felt there is no
link and
14% (2) were noncommittal.
100% of those who were
convinced there IS a problem were also the only ones
without any obvious conflicts of interest.
There
are hundreds of studies showing compelling evidence of a
correlation between the deadly neurotoxin mercury and
neurological conditions like ADD and Autism. Hundreds
were presented that fateful day in February 2004 to the
IOM committee along with hundreds more contained in
massive binders (at least 4 reams of paper worth each)
and “double sided” as proclaimed by Committee Chair
Marie McCormick at the beginning of the session.
Despite these avid presentations from some of some
of the finest scientific pools in the world, a majority
of those present - 100% of those with no ties to
pharmaceutical revenues stating their belief that there
is scientific evidence of a link, just three months
later the IOM Committee concluded and reported that
there was no link between mercury and autism.
9. The list of IOM studies NYT quoted.
"The
six published studies by Dr. Geier and David Geier on
the relationship between autism and thimerosal are
largely based on complaints sent to the disease control
centers by people who suspect that their children were
harmed by vaccines."
There were not just six studies sourced from the
Geiers. There were hundreds of compelling studies from
many other scientists showing compelling links compared
to what the NYT states as “six studies.”
"In contrast, the committee found five studies that
examined hundreds of thousands of health records of
children in the United States, Britain, Denmark and
Sweden to be persuasive."
These "several
well-designed" studies were represented by the same
scientists who could not find a link (*the same four
mentioned above). They were also among the six
scientists who had disturbing appearances of conflicts
of interest. The authors included the following:
1) The US Study
alluded to by the NYT authors is surely the ill-fated
Verstraeten Study*. Versions of this study were
presented at the IOM by Robert Davis, a “coauthor” of
the Verstraeten Study. At the IOM he changed the time
line points from which autism (and inoculations periods)
tend to appear thus attempting to validate findings of
no causal link.
*The Verstraeten (lead
author) Study is at the center of allegations of
cover-up by government agencies and members of
pharmaceutical companies who attended and embargoed the
information for three years after the secret Simpsonwood
meeting in 2000.
Frank DeStefano, the
director of the CDC’s VAERS database – a position that
was serendipitously missing among his many credentials
in his IOM press packet bio, is another coauthor of the
Verstreaten Study. DeStefano rejuvenated an old 1996
study and added autism to the cohort used in an attempt
to show there is no correlation of autism to mercury.
2) The UK Study was presented by Elizabeth
Miller whose ties with vaccine manufacturers can be
easily found. She is best known for her unprovoked and
continual attacks on Dr. Andrew Wakefield who raised
concerns about the finding the live Measles virus in the
intestinal tracts of 12 children with autism in the UK.
After being unable to consistently answer
pertinent questions by others during her own
presentation at the IOM, Miller spent much of her time
during the day’s hearing contradicting herself in
attempts to attack other scientists who believe there is
a link.
3) The Denmark Study was presented
by Anders Peter Hviid who worked for vaccine
manufacturers who supply vaccine for his government, a
fact he did not disclose during his presentation at the
IOM hearing. The fatal flaws in this study became quite
clear as several scientists questioned him during the
question and answer period. As Hviid seemed to falter
and stutter, Committee Chair McCormick rescued him from
the podium and cut off any more questioning.
4) The other Danish Study - Madsen et al, showed
Denmark's incidence of autism was less than .4 per
10,000 before 1992 and it increased 7.5 times by 2000
seemingly supporting Hviid's findings. Both
studies support no link.
Both Danish studies also seem to imply removing
thimerisal as a preventative for autism - fairly
absurd implication. The most likely hypothesis is
that Denmark had very poor record keeping at the time
combined with the issue that Denmark authorities, like
US authorities, would have reason to cloud the issue
from the public.
5) The Sweden Study uses data from the flawed
Denmark Study.
Footage of each of the scientists who testified at
the February 2004 Institute of Medicine hearing can be
viewed at:
http://www.uninformedconsent.org
along with other documents relating to the allegations
of governmental cover-up.
This NYTimes article is
a profound violation to those who still attempt to honor
the standards of journalism. But most of all it is a
unfathomable breach
of trust of the American people, our babies and loved
ones.
When we contacted the NYTimes regarding this article
we were told by their public editor, Al Siegal, that our
small organization "took up valuable staff time with
traffic." he said we were "irresponsible and
nasty" making the kind of "accusations' we made and we
had made a "terrible mistake." He went on to say
we could quote him as saying the June 25th article was
"thorough, careful and balanced." He repeated the
latter quote twice to be sure it was accurate.
Mr. Siegal also alleged during this call that we
had "refused" to give his assistant our information but
still we were unsuccessful in getting venue information
(as we were with his assistant) before he abruptly hung
up.
It is unfortunate that all Siegal ever saw was our
email request for a chance to communicate with them
about this issue prior to publication.
As far as sharing our article with the NYTimes
prior to publication, we were never given the
opportunity. We did try.
Information and Media contact:
Christy Diemond, Exec. Producer
UnInformed Consent – The Right To Know…
Website:
www.uninformedconsent.org
Email: qci@oz.net
|
|
