The selection of David Geier to potentially lead a National Institutes of Health (NIH) study on the link between vaccines and autism, reportedly at the behest of RFK Jr., has drawn sharp criticism. Concerns center on Geier’s qualifications, impartiality, ethical conduct, and past research practices.
Firstly, David Geier’s credentials have been called into question. Despite holding a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology, he lacks a medical degree or any advanced clinical or laboratory research degree. Critics argue that these deficiencies render him unqualified to conduct a scientifically credible epidemiological study on the complex relationship between vaccines and autism.
Secondly, Geier’s impartiality is heavily disputed due to his well-established anti-vaccination stance. He is a vocal proponent of the discredited mercury-autism theory and founded MedCon, a medical-legal consulting firm that aided vaccine injury claimants in pursuing compensation. His father, Dr. Mark Geier, has a long history as a medical expert witness in lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers and the government. These connections raise significant concerns about potential bias.
Thirdly, David Geier’s ethical conduct has been severely criticized. He and his father engaged in highly controversial research practices, centered around a so-called “treatment” for autism known as the Lupron Protocol. Operating under ethics approval from a research institute he founded, the Institute for Chronic Illnesses, Geier and his father administered puberty-blocking drugs and chelation therapy to autistic children. This practice was based on unfounded assumptions, including the false notion that mercury in vaccines causes autism. The Lupron Protocol, which involved chemically castrating autistic children at a substantial cost, was ultimately halted due to its reckless and harmful nature. Both Geiers faced sanctions, with Dr. Geier losing his medical license and David Geier being reprimanded by the Maryland Medical Board for practicing medicine without a license.
Fourthly, concerns have been raised about the quality and rigor of Geier’s past research. He has a history of publishing analyses of existing databases that consistently purport to show a link between vaccines and autism. However, these studies have been heavily criticized by qualified statisticians and scientists, who cite issues such as statistical inconsistencies, neglect of confounding factors, and flawed research protocols.
The potential selection of David Geier to lead a study on vaccine safety, particularly given his background, raises serious questions. Critics argue that his lack of qualifications, financial conflicts of interest stemming from his involvement in vaccine litigation, and history of promoting unproven and harmful autism “interventions” cast doubt on his ability to conduct impartial and scientifically sound research. Some suggest these very factors may be why he was considered for the role.