GW School of Public Health Responds, Raises More Questions

I’ve received a comment from the GW School of Public Health Office of Communications on the post from the other day whereby a student there, one we all know as the anti-vaccine activist “kid”, had as site preceptor for his practicum experience the father of the Father and Son team of Mark and David Geier. The comment reads:

“The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services is still investigating the claims in this article.

However, your article gives the impression that Mark Geier was teaching or advising a GW student who was doing a practicum at SPHHS. In fact, Mark Geier was facilitating the use of a non-GW database the student used while doing his/her research, which was not part of a practicum. The student in question was being supervised by a faculty member at the university and the student’s contact with Mark Geier was limited mainly to accessing the information in this database.

GW School of Public Health
Office of Communications”

Here is the guidebook for the practicum at GWSPH. In it, on page 9, a site preceptor is described thus:

“Sign-in on the Practicum Website and complete the following:

o Site Application
o Site Preceptor Application
 Receive verification, password , then load project
o Project Description
• Review and approve Student’s Practicum Plan
• Engage Student in work and provide constructive feedback and guidance to Student
• Provide guidance for professional conduct
• Verify Student’s weekly contact hours
• Complete the following on the Practicum Website:
o Midpoint Evaluation Form in conjunction with the Student
o Final Site Preceptor Evaluation of Student and Practicum
• Negotiate payment/stipend with Student, if applicable
• Evaluate Student’s professional behavior
• Address Student’s reports of problems, including site safety issues and/or sexual

If Mark Geier, as the site preceptor (as identified to and by Autism News Beat) was not “teaching or advising”, then what does it mean to “review and approve Student’s Practicum Plan”, “provide constructive feedback and guidance to Student”, “provide guidance for professional conduct”, and evaluate the student? On the other hand, if “Mark Geier was (only) facilitating the use of a non-GW database”, why was Mark Geier identified to ANB as the site preceptor of the student?

Can we see the student’s research summary, paper, abstract to determine what role Mark Geier played?

7 thoughts on “GW School of Public Health Responds, Raises More Questions

  1. Pingback: Geier was just in the room, but why? | The Poxes Blog

  2. I’m thinking that GWU-School of Public Health is doing some damage control here. ANB posed valid questions about the practicum adviser, which IMO, were not answered.

    • Considering the lack of the usual PAO doublespeak, I reiterate my question.
      Especially considering the non-response on the practicum adviser.
      Usually, there’s a bit more of a public affairs officer type going on, which is utterly absent here.

      • It’s legit. IP and email check out. Autism News Beat will follow up with them on Monday. Wonder why they responded late on a Friday? Is it that much of a big deal that it needs to be buried on a weekend?

  3. Presumably we are expected to find it reassuring that Geier was merely “facilitating the use of a non-GW database.” Geier is notorious for, among many other things, his shenanigans with the VSD database, and GWU should have been aware that he was an abysmal choice to be advising one of their students to even that limited extent.

  4. I noticed the comment on the previous article. Is the e-mail address legit?
    I wouldn’t put anything past certain folks and as an information security professional, I trust no one, not even myself. 😉

Comments are closed.