Talk:Mark Geier

message: I'll address that last question first.  First, reread the linked reference .  Geier was testifying as a medical expert who was introducing a diagnosis of vaccine-induced acute encephalopathy in a patient.  To the best of my knowledge, Geier was not the attending physician and did not see the patient until well after the events took place; he was giving an opinion based on information in the case file and medical history.
The PhD in genetics is a red herring.  It involves biological and not medical training, and would only be relevant to the matter in question if Geier was diagnosing a gene-linked disorder like Huntington's disease.  His MD training is actually more on point, but Geier was an obstetrician and not a paediatric neurologist.  By testifying that a particular patient suffered an acute encephalopathy, Geier was making a neurological diagnosis that he probably wasn't qualified to make.  Geier further failed to meet the AMA's Code of Ethics standards for an expert witness in this case.
If Geier had wanted to testify about vaccine effects in general, or to the point that a reaction to vaccination may in some cases lead to acute encephalopathy, then as a published researcher in the field he would likely be qualified to do so.  He was not qualified to make an neurological diagnosis after the fact for a specific patient, and the Special Master called him on it. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Special Master

message: I'm not clear on what you're saying about blanket deletions and POV with respect to the NBC piece.  Geier's viewpoint was presented in the NBC series, just not by Geier.  My understanding is that it got a very thorough airing.  If you believe there is a systematic suppression in the media of anti-big pharma sentiment, I would have to disagree.  The media loves to scare people, legitimately or otherwise.  If there was even a hint of suppression and scandal, I would expect it to be plastered all over the news.  It's good for ratings and circulation to stick it to drug companies and the government.  If anything, it means that bad science gets more than its fair share of airtime in the interest of 'balance'—you need look no further than that absurd Fox piece on how the Apollo moon landings were faked.  Although I agree with you that insertion of POV is the modus operandi of the media, I would suggest that their tendency is to side with the underdog lone crusader—not with the CDC, FDA, or any other part of the government.
Which important clinical research have government agencies impeded?  You're going to have to be more specific on that.  If you're referring specifically to Geier's work with VAERS data, I gather that there were serious concerns about him mishandling confidential patient information. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV insertion by media, government?

message: I think we might be getting a bit off track with respect to Andrew Wakefield.  I think the key question about him here is, what mention should he have in this article?  Remember, we're writing an article about Mark Geier.  --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Andrew Wakefield

message: This is again about the main heading here, "Biography?": all the stuff about the VSD access, and also the Kathleen Seidel things, would make much more sense in Thiomersal controversy. The present article could be shortened considerably, and might remain more stable as a result of that. This might be in the interest of everyone involved here: pro-Geier, contra-Geier and pro-facts.--Biologos (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur; this article continually veers on WP:COATRACKing.  Information about the thiomersal controversy belongs in that article, and a brief summary can be written back to here, perhaps a paragraph.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Makes sense.  Incidentally, the large gob of text that appeared today was added by User:GreenspanMD—possibly Stanley Greenspan, who writes frequently on this topic in other venues? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again?  The article was protected last week because a blantant copyvio and blog sources were introduced.  I haven't caught up yet.  I hope it was sourced to a reliable source this time.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thiomersal controversy already has plenty of information about the Geiers, and it already cites Young et al. 2008 () that is the subject of the "large gob of text" added here. Moving the gob to Thiomersal controversy would cause serious WP:WEIGHT problems there. Geier is notable solely for his role in the controversy, and it's appropriate for that topic to dominate this article. I agree the gob was too large, and rewrote it for conciseness and to avoid blurbiness. Eubulides (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Remaining issue, the entire last paragraph is blog-sourced, and we simply cannot do that in a WP:BLP (see also WP:V).  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not solely blog-sourced, though.  The PDF (currently ref 24) is a primary source document from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  While it is hosted on a blog's website, it's not a product of the blog.  Granted, the interpretation and analysis of some of the information from that PDF is sourced to a blog, but it's information that isn't controversial.  (There's little likelihood of dispute that Mark, David, and Anne Geier are related, for instance; in general, the blog entry does a very good job of sourcing its other information about the IRB members as well.)  In principle, we could lift the sources from the blog to add direct citations for each IRB member's identity here, but that seems unnecessarily cumbersome. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's how our articles should be cited; cumbersome should't be our concern, credibility should.  We can't cite a BLP to a blog.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a quick hack to solve the immediate problem, I cited Deer's BMJ article and rewrote the text to match the citation, removing claims not supported by what was in Deer's article. Claims can be restored later if someone finds a non-blog source for them. Eubulides (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Move most information about criticism to [[Thiomersal controversy]]

message: David Geier isn't a lawyer; I am removing that assertion from the lead paragraph.  To the best of my knowledge he isn't a member of any bar and he has no law degree. He is president of MedCon, a company which employs lawyers.  MedCon draws part of its income from filing vaccine injury lawsuits, which may well be worth noting—but that doesn't make David Geier a lawyer. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 12:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Geier's occupation 

message: Copied from article main page:
::The children who received greater amounts of mercury were more likely to have a complaint filed with the Vaccine Adverse Event
::Reporting System (VAERS). Further studies by the Geiers yielded similar results.[1] 
The link after this statement is pointing to a NYT article.  This particular article has caused some controversy (and public rebuttals).  But nonetheless, it doesn't "work" with the text.
The link to the article would be more appropriate after this line:
::Nevertheless, Dr. Geier says public health officials are "just trying to cover it up."
However, if the NYT piece is going to be used as a source for the Geier article I feel it would be more "honest" to mention that it has received negative attention for it's unbalanced presentation. Becca77 11:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NY Times Article

message: Ombudsman reinserted some deleted irrelevant "see also" links. Links such as to the 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference are completely illogical if the relationship between Mark Geier and this conference is not stated. This is not the first time Ombudsman has listed numerous of his favoured articles in the "see also" section simply to push a POV. JFW | T@lk 14:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: Speaking of references.....this article is in desperate need of help. I have added the references code, so now it is possible to turn all links and the existing notes into proper references. One can look at other articles to see how it's done. More information here: WP:FOOT. -- Fyslee 19:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article." Source: WP:LEAD
-- Fyslee 14:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: An anonymous editor deleted the "Allegations of ethics violations" section. While I don't like it when people delete things without explanation, I do think that the section in question was a little iffy in terms of being suitable for the article. Perhaps a shorter section with an external link would be better... -- Tim D 01:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The anonymous editor who blanked out that section is User:24.15.236.23. There have been prior attempts to blank out some sections by the Geier household and User:Leifern. If there are problems with the section, those can be discussed here, or the sections could be reworded. Blanking out will achieve nothing. I for one think the content in those sections is both verifiable and notable. The fact that it's embarrasing to the subject of the article is irrelevant. Neurodivergent 16:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, User:24.15.236.23 has blanked out the Lenny Schafer article without explanation as well. I'd characterize this kind of activity as drive-by censorship. And it's unfortunately becoming more and more common in Wikipedia, and it seems to be generally carried out by certain interest groups about whom embarrasing information exists. See Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Censorship. Neurodivergent 16:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally understood what the underlying intention was and I was going through the section to maybe clean up formatting and such. The problem is that the article had been looking extremely not neutral, and even with valid points, the tone could turn readers off. Some could read it more as a article about a personal crusade by Kathleen Seidel than anything else. -- Tim D 16:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of ethics violations 

message: Just for the record, User:Quantumerik tried to add the following original research and personal attack into the article:
:"These similarities, according to Dr. Mark Geier, are more than coincidental; they are the result of a replication of the Verstraeten study, using the same data sets. This study replication was mandated by a congressional committee. Kathleen Seidel, because of her biased views concerning neurodiversity and a rejection of all medical research of autism, fails to include this information and should therefore be censored."
Another editor rightly removed it shortly after that. I wonder, does Quantumerik think readers are stupid? Even if the Geiers used the same data (and Dr. DeStefano of the CDC does not believe they even had access to the same data) are we to believe this automatically would cause dozens of English phrases to match in the two manuscripts in basically the same order of appearance? That is NOT replication of a study. Dr. DeStefano, BTW, is the one who first complained about the similarities. Neurodivergent 22:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, Kathleen and Dave Seidel have used this Wikipedia entry as part of their smear campaign against Dr. Geier. How is it valid to use this as a forum for their grudge against him? Is this really the PLACE for it, when Kathleen has made it her career to harrass Dr. Geier on her blog? There are folks here that accuse Dr. Geier's self-made corrections of factual errors as "vanity", yet you have the Seidels coming here, making accusations... and quoting as references their own blog! How is that NOT vanity? Using Wikipedia in this fashion may be considered libel. The seidels need a new hobby. --Erik —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.253.127.2 (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erik, get your facts straight and stop making accusations that you can't substantiate. I have made very few edits to this article, and all of them were valid.  I have never added any links to Kathleen's site. Check my user contributions page to verify this.  As for Kathleen, she has never edited a single Wikipedia page. -- DaveSeidel 15:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantumerik 

message: While I'm in the frame of mind, I just need to bring this up: I think that the criticisms section needs a lot of work. Personally, I'm not comfortable with it and it sounds like a persuasive speech rather than something from an encyclopedia. Wouldn't it be best to report the meat of what's going on and leave the ugly details to an external link? It just looks and sounds messy as it is, and I cringe from time to time because name-dropping and excessive details can quickly pull down the perceived objectivity of anything. No offense of course! There just seems to be a thin line that needs to be treaded. -- Tim D 08:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: Just for the record, this is the text DHEA-S wanted to add:
:"Independently of Mark Geier and David Geier, and in direct contradiction to claims by Kathleen Seidel of Neurodiversity on the lack of hormonal abnormalities in autistic disorders and the non-usefulness of anti-androgen therapy in autistic disorders, James Jeffrey Bradstreet (International Child Development Resource Center), Scott Smith (International Child Development Resource Center), Doreen Granpeesheh (Center for Autism Related Disorders), Jane M. El-Dahr (Tulane University Health Sciences Center, Departments of Pediatrics and Medicine, Section of Pediatric Allergy, Immunology and Rheumatology) and Daniel Rossignol (University of Virginia, Department of Family Medicine) have published a Medical Hypotheses article, "Spironolactone Might be a Desirable Immunologic and Hormonal Intervention in Autism Spectrum Disorders"  and according to the article three of the authors have filed a patent for the use of Spironolactone in the treatment of autistic disorders."
Clearly, the phrase that reads "in direct contradiction to claims by Kathleen Seidel of Neurodiversity" just can't be part of Wikipedia. It's a personal attack of sorts, of course, but it's also uncitable. Nowhere that I recall has Kathleen stated there is a lack of hormonal abnormalities in autistic disorders, nor even that anti-androgen therapy is useless. Furthermore, the phrase that reads "of Neurodiversity" gives the impression that Kathleen belongs to an organization named Neurodiversity. There's no such thing. The phrase should be "Kathleen Seidel of neurodiversity.com" or something to that effect. The citation provided says "Spironolactone might be a desirable immunologic and hormonal intervention in ASD". I fail to see how this speculation supports DHEA-S's contention. Never mind that the journal is Medical Hypothesis, or that the senior author, Jeff Bradstreet, is someone who has suggested exorcism is a treatment option for ASD and that Secretin is still a valuable autism treatment. As to suspicion of sockpuppetry, the admins should look into that, although I don't believe they were helpful the last time around. Neurodivergent 16:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DHEA-S text 

message: This section was removed due to lack of citations. Add back once sources found?
On August 8, 2005, Dr. Frank DeStefano of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wrote a letter to the Editor-In-Chief of the journal Medical Science Monitor regarding supposed similarities between Geier & Geier (2005) and the 2000 draft of the Verstraeten et al. study published in 2000. DeStefano, who is one of the co-authors of the study, stated that he had doubts that the Geiers actually performed the Phase II analyses because, to the best of his knowledge, the Geiers had not had access to the VSD data required to perform those analyses. Medical Science Monitor acknowledged receipt of the letter on August 17, 2005,  but there is no evidence the editorial board of the journal considered the complaint credible.
Fences and windows (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegations of plagiarism

message: This note is being done by Dr. Mark Geier. I have not made any changes to the article. Here are some documented facts that if you wish you may use to increase the accuracy of this articele:
1. In addition to my MD I hold a PHD in genetics 1973 from George Washington University. This fact has somehow been removed from the article.
2. I am board certified in genetics by the American Board of Medical Genetics and I am an Associate Founding Fellow of the American College of Clinical Genetics (FACMG).
3. I am board certified in epidemiology and I am a Fellow of the American College of Epidemiology (FACE).
4. In the section called "Limited access to Vaccine Safety Datalink records" further investigation revealed no wrong doing and I was again granted access to this database and in fact I have just recently published, along with an Professor of Public health from George Washington University and with my son David Geier, a paper on my studies from the database in the Journal of the Neurological Sciences, "Thimerosal exposure in infants and neurodevelopmental disorders: An assessment of computerized medical records in the Vaccine Safety Datalink." by Young HA, Geier DA, Geier MR.
5. I was a treating physician and I filed an expert report which included approximately 500 peer-reviewed references in the case of Poling V. HHS which was the first case in which the US Government conceded that vaccines caused autism in a child with an underlying mitochodrial disorder. 
If you wish to keep the article up to date and accurate, I will from time to time write you notes like this one.
Mark R. Geier, MD, PHD, FACMG, FACE  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.225.97 (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for mentioning all this, but as I'm sure you understand, we need reliable sources in the Wikipedia sense (see WP:RS) for all of the above. Anybody could claim to be you and post a message to this talk page. Eubulides (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Note from Mark Geier

message: Please add a "See Also" link to Thiomersal controversy. (The information in that article seems to be more encyclopedic, it contains less "tit-for-tat" than the present article.)--Biologos (talk) 08:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to and information from [[Thiomersal controversy]] 

message: I retrieved reference Burton, Dan (May, 2003). Mercury in Medicine: Taking Unnecessary Risks. Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness, Committee on Government Reform, United States House of Representatives.  today and couldn't find the quote "However, the Committee upon a thorough review of the scientific literature and internal documents from government and industry did find evidence that thimerosal did pose a risk. [...] misplaced protectionism of the pharmaceutical industry." that's said to be taken from there. The quote should be deleted or the correct source should be found.--Biologos (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted it just now. --Biologos (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, you added text.  This is a bio; please see WP:COATRACK.  The article Thiomersal controversy is where a discussion of those issues belongs.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Sandy, please look again. I deleted about 1300 bytes (edit from 17:03) because the given source did not back them up. Then I added a reference for a previously unsourced statement (edit from 17:18). Please undo your edit. Thanks in advance,--Biologos (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Double apology; I've been very busy.  Biologos, I'm sorry for misreading the edit summary, and sorry for taking so long to get back here.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misquotations 

message: This information can be used here and maybe elsewhere:
: The Chicago Tribune has published two articles about the use of Lupron for autism and its principal promoters, Dr. Mark Geier and his son David. One article notes: 
:* The therapy is based on medically unsupported claims that autism is caused by a harmful link between mercury and testosterone. Prominent pediatric endocrinologists interviewed for the reports say that the Lupron protocol for autism is supported only by junk science and that the Geiers' claims that autistic children have high testosterone levels are based on misinterpretation of laboratory tests. http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/acrobat/2009-05/47041388.pdf 
:* Experts also expressed concern that the drug can delay the onset of puberty and have harmful effects on bone development. Tsouderos T. 'Miracle drug' called junk science: Powerful castration drug pushed for autistic children, but medical experts denounce unproven claims. Chicago Tribune, May 21, 2009 
: The other article notes: 
:* Abbott Laboratories, which sells Lupron in the U.S., has concluded that there is no scientific evidence to justify further research on the drug as an autism treatment. 
:* Court records show that judges also have become increasingly wary of Dr. Geier, who has testified close to 100 times in vaccine-related cases. Mills S, Jones T. Physician team's crusade shows cracks: Dr. Mark Geier and son David tout powerful drug Lupron, but scientists see serious flaws in their research. Chicago Tribune, May 21, 2009 
: Earlier this year, an expert panel of endocrinologists concluded that there is no evidence supporting Lupron therapy for treating autistic children. Carel JC and others. Consensus statement on the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs in children. Pediatrics 123:e752-762, 2009 
These are all V & RS, so go for it. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I had already added something about Lupron, citing the Mills & Jones Tribune article, a day before the above comment was made. More additions would be welcome, I expect. Eubulides (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lupron treatment for autism blasted 

message: The article lists Geier as "...a medical doctor with a Ph.D. in genetics" but provides no specific information as to his educational background. Does he have an M.D. or D.O. degree as well as a Ph.D in genetics? Where did he earn these degrees. Seems like it should be pretty easy to establish if he actually has medical training or not (my money's on not). Inoculatedcities (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Medical doctor"?

message: I have started a discussion here:
* Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Mark Geier article being edited by multiple socks of Mark Geier
Brangifer (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article being edited by multiple socks of Mark Geier 

message: So far, some of the edits of Geier (under one of his guises) have been removed. The latest has been deleted in the same manner we delete the edits of any sockpuppet. What shall we do with this one?:
* A Fellow of the American College of Medical Genetics: 
* http://www.acmg.net/source/members/cmemberdisplay.cfm?section=Find_a_Geneticist&id=1906
Let's get input from other editors. Geier's own input is so tinged with COI that it can't stand alone. Brangifer (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: * Fine with me. My objection is to his COI and use of socks. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not quite sure that I'd call his current edits "socking", as he seems to be using only that account.  His previous stuff was way over the line (impersonating one of your biggest critics?  SHAME!), but I don't see that now.  With his history of lies and deception, both on and off Wikipedia, he certainly does bear watching though.  Likewise, he needs to start making EXTREMELY CLEAR in his posts as j2d that he IS Geier, admit the COI and not hide it as he tried to do on COIN.  I mean, wtf? Referring to yourself in the third person when we know it's you?  Use your brain, Geier, we really do know better.  Ravensfire (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I'd like to point everyone to the outing policy, and I've asked an oversighter for assistance here. However problematic an editor's edits are, without on-wiki information showing that they are the same person you can't make that identification here, especially when the editor denies it. -- Atama頭 22:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to deal with edits of a sock 

message: Please fix the dead (404 error) reference linked as it remains unresolved. Oldspammer (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was just fixed by removal. Thanks. Oldspammer (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial studies section

message: More content from a RS, documenting the antics of a Florida chiropractor in collusion with the Geiers:
: Since Mark Geier embraced the autism theory, his appearances in federal courts have led judges to label his testimonies "intellectually dishonest" and "not reliable." The Institute of Medicine has called his work "uninterpretable." The American Academy of Pediatrics said one of his studies exhibited "numerous conceptual and scientific flaws, omissions of fact, inaccuracies, and misstatements."
: ...According to Dr. David Gorski, founding fellow of the Institute for Science in Medicine and an NIH-funded cancer researcher, the Geiers' Lupron treatment is "in essence, chemical castration in order to treat autism based on no reliable science." Says Gorski: "The concept that [the Geiers] embraced isn't even bad science. It's just not science."
: Research Autism, a British charity, states on its website: "Used on children or adolescents, [Lupron] could cause disastrous and irreversible damage to sexual functioning... There is no scientifically valid or reliable research to show that [Lupron] is effective in reducing any of the problem behaviors associated with autism." The drug is also known to thin bones and disrupt heart function, and it might cause diabetes.
: In 2004, shortly before they began experimenting with Lupron, the Geiers were conducting research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) when on-staff technical monitors caught them manipulating data and performing analyses that put patients' confidentiality at risk. The study was terminated.
: Source: Crist backer Gary Kompothecras bullies Florida health officials, By Penn Bullock and Brandon K. Thorp Thursday, Sep 30 2010 
-- Brangifer (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miami NewTimes article 

message: Anyone seen a good secondary source with this information?  Would also be good to add Geier's reaction and plans (appeal, etc).  Right now the section is purely primary source based (pushing the limits of WP:BLPPRIMARY, I think), and probably goes into too much detail.  Probably can pull the bullet list.  Thoughts? Ravensfire (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: New sources out including this and this. Yobol (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And this. Yobol (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

text: As an aside, I find it somewhat amusing that the two main "architects" for the two main anti-vaccine theories (Wakefield and Geier) have gotten some comeuppance.  Apparently it's a bad year to be anti-vaccine...Yobol (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yobol, "comeuppance"? Get a grip. Seipjere (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  License suspended 

message: I am reviewing current information available on the web to see if any updates are in order. Onlydemi (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempting to Update

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mark Geier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111020061053/http://www2.mbc.ca.gov/LicenseLookupSystem/PhysicianSurgeon/Lookup.aspx?licenseType=G&licenseNumber=88736 to http://www2.mbc.ca.gov/LicenseLookupSystem/PhysicianSurgeon/Lookup.aspx?licenseType=G&licenseNumber=88736
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mark Geier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080306022517/http://www.ncmd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Jul06/03cv669op.pdf to http://www.ncmd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Jul06/03cv669op.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I just noticed that the page does not refer to the fact that on June 26, 2019, the judgment of the Montgomery County Circuit Court awarding damages to Mark Geier was reversed by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. However, it would not be appropriate for me to add this information to the page, given that I have reported extensively on Mark and David Geier, and therefore have a conflict of interest with regard to their work. Here's how I would put it:
On June 26, 2019, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland overturned the verdict, noting that, "[a]ll of the individual defendants who were sued under §1983 have absolute immunity under federal law because they performed adjudicative or prosecutorial functions and the applicable provisions of State law afforded adequate procedural safeguards to restrain unconstitutional conduct by agency officials... [R]equiring officials to risk multi-million-dollar lawsuits and to subject their motives to the appraisal of a factfinder would do more to undermine the public trust than to enhance it."
Primary reference: https://mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2019/0338s18.pdf (PDF of decision). Secondary references: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4633496/bd-of-physicians-v-geier (HTML transcript of decision), https://thedailyrecord.com/2019/06/27/geier-board-of-physicians-cosa (paywalled news report).
KathleenSeidel (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judgment overturned 

message: Mark Geier's birthdate is May 3, 1948.
Primary reference: Maryland State Board of Physicians (April 27, 2011). Order for summary suspension of license to practice medicine. In the matter of Mark R. Geier, M.D., before the Maryland State Board of Physicians. Case Numbers: 2007-0083, 2008-0454 & 2009-0308. http://www.circare.org/autism/md/geier_20110427.pdf
As noted above, I have reported extensively on Mark and David Geier, have a conflict of interest with regard to their work, and would prefer not to edit the page myself. I will, however, add his birthdate and a sentence about the above-mentioned Maryland Court of Appeals judgment overturning the verdict against the BOP if no one else makes those edits before the end of the year.
KathleenSeidel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthdate