Geier was just in the room, but why?

The plot thickens. A couple of posts ago, I told you how the kid had disgraced child chemical castrator Mark Geier as a “site preceptor.” Then the George Washington University Office of Communications decided to spam place the same comment over and over on any blog covering this on Friday evening. (Reporter’s tip: Always respond on Friday evenings, hoping the story will die over the weekend.) But our good friend over at Autism News Beat doesn’t rest. He’s gotten in touch with a person at GWU and asked some follow-up questions. The answers, like the comments on Friday, leave even more questions:

“According to the spokesperson, “This particular student’s project was not a practicum. It was part of what is called a culminating experience, which is different from a practicum. Contrary to what was posted on your blog, there was no preceptor and never is a preceptor for a culminating experience. Students completing a culminating experience are supervised by one of our faculty members, as was this student…”

According to the spokesperson, the notorious anti-vaccine activist was helping the student access data.”

So now it turns out that Geier was just in the room. But why was he in the room if not to advise or instruct the kid on how to access the database? And why was Geier identified as the site preceptor by a faculty member at GW? Here:

“An SPHHS spokesperson said the faculty member who made that claim via an email to AutismNewsBeat was in error.”

Are they really throwing the faculty member under the bus just like that? This story has legs because, again, you have a major US university being associated with a physician who’s had his license revoked in multiple states all stemming from his “treatment” of autism with Lupron, a form of chemical castration. Because it’s not just about Geier “helping the student access data.” It’s also about a member of the faculty at GW writing several papers with the Geiers and even doing some biostatistical fancy footwork to “massage” the data. There is a tangled web here, and it’s only getting more tangled.

To think that all this would have been avoided had the kid just showed the world his culminating experience project. Then again, it would have shown his work with Mark Geier, and all of this would have happened then instead of now. So I guess this all is unavoidable, especially because the Geiers tried to use that database to find out who the people in the database were, a violation of confidentiality. Did Mark Geier try to use the kid’s research to gain access to the database again? And, if so, should someone check to make sure Geier didn’t try to break the confidentiality of the database, like he tried to do back in 2004?

I told you it was convoluted.

4 thoughts on “Geier was just in the room, but why?

  1. Allowing Mark Geier “in the room” with the VSD is like giving Bernie Madoff access to the federal reserve. Somebody at GW was phoning it in the day this research proposal was approved.

  2. The Geiers would not be the first to take advantage of the Kid’s zealous nature and lack of judgment.

    I do think GWU should disclose exactly which database this was. They should be proud to describe the work their students have done. Unless it turns out they’re having a big uh-oh moment right now.

Comments are closed.