Comments on: About Kathleen Seidel

By: Regan

Regan — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:34:22 +0000

Kathleen summed the situation up beautifully.

As for that IRB, does it seem odd that some of the same folks who stump about conflicts of interest for mainstream scientists, do not find the composition of this Board completely unacceptable for objective review?

By: Kristina Chew, PhD

Kristina Chew, PhD — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:55:44 +0000

bizarre—-”incestuous”—-nepotistic if that’s a word—–

By: Ms. Clark

Ms. Clark — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:39:58 +0000

The Geiers even copied data from the DeStefano paper and called it their own new (curiously identical) data. And they are claiming that the IRB list was preliminary, that still doesn’t explain the utterly bizarre (one might say “incestuous”) choice of people for the IRB and this “preliminary” IRB was formed after they had begun the experiment on the kids.

Oh the tangled webs they weave….

Now it’s time for Newsweek and USA Today and NBC to profile Kathleen and her work. Maybe one of those outfits would mention that Dr. Geier is being investigated by the Maryland medical board.

I was especially happy to see this reporter draw that very short line from Kathleen being persecuted by Clifford Shoemaker of Vienna, Virginian, and the case of Hannah Poling supposed vaccine induced supposed autism (encephalopathy from a mitochondrial disorder caused autistic-like symptoms). Since Cliffy is in the middle of both scenarios. He’s the generator of the persecution and the lawyer for the Polings.

By: Bonnie Sayers

Bonnie Sayers — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:03:43 +0000

I agree 100% and liked the story, especially that one powerful paragraph. She said it so well.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:31:00 +0000

That was a good article. The part where the Geiers try to rationalize Kathleen’s findings is interesting. Are they actually suggesting that it’s a common practice in science for papers to be nearly identical to other papers with some wording modified a bit here and there? Dr. DeStefano of the CDC (one of the authors of the draft that was apparently plagiarized) didn’t seem to think so. Even the Geiers’ apparent self-plagiarism is questionable. In scientific misconduct terminology, that is known as “salami publications.”

In essense, it would seem that the Geiers are not being truthful (big shocker!)

By: Kathleen Seidel

Kathleen Seidel — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:37:02 +0000

Thanks, Kristina!

By: Another Voice

Another Voice — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:25:47 +0000

This may be a first! The motion of an attorney quashed by a librarian. How nice!