Dr Geier's testimony was disallowed because the courts repeatedly found that he was not qualified to testify. the judges gave precise reasons why his testimony was inadmissible. Here are two examples.
“[T]he court has found, however,that Dr. Geier’s testimony must be excluded because he is not qualified as a pediatrician, neurologist, toxicologist, or epidemiologist, and because his opinion is not reliable… [T]here is no evidence that Dr. Geier has either the training or the background to diagnose autism or to treat autism in any child." http://www.neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/132
“[U]pon being subjected to extensive cross examination, much of Dr. Geier’s analysis, based upon his collective review of a motley assortment of diverse literature, proved, in the Court’s view, to be overstated… . For example, in examining Dr. Geier’s methodology, the Court notes that Dr. Geier could not point to a single study, including anything that he had published, that conclusively determined that the amount of thimerosal in RhoGAM when given not to the fetus but to the mother, as in this case, could cause autism… This Court must find more than the ‘hypothesis and speculation,’ engaged in by Dr. Geier in this instance, in order to allow Dr. Geier to rely upon the methodology he used in forming a conclusion based upon his review of the literature presented to the Court… [T]he Court finds that Dr. Geier’s literature review, in this instance, does not meet the Daubert standard of being both derived by the scientific method and relevant to the ‘task at hand.’”
“…[T]he Court is particularly concerned as to a potential bias in Dr. Geier’s methodology and ultimate conclusion given the recency of Dr. Geier’s research into the cause of autism, which he admittedly began in only the last two and a half years, a time period that also represents the pendency of this lawsuit… [T]he Court finds that Dr. Geier (1) was not specifically qualified to perform a differential diagnosis of a pediatric neurological disorder, and, that (2) he did not properly perform the differential diagnosis given his failure to consider within his analysis the high probability that an unknown genetic cause cannot be ruled out as the specific cause of Minor Child Doe’s autism.” http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/102/
Comment Reply
Dr Geier's testimony was disallowed because the courts repeatedly found that he was not qualified to testify. the judges gave precise reasons why his testimony was inadmissible. Here are two examples.
“[T]he court has found, however,that Dr. Geier’s testimony must be excluded because he is not qualified as a pediatrician, neurologist, toxicologist, or epidemiologist, and because his opinion is not reliable… [T]here is no evidence that Dr. Geier has either the training or the background to diagnose autism or to treat autism in any child." http://www.neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/132
“[U]pon being subjected to extensive cross examination, much of Dr. Geier’s analysis, based upon his collective review of a motley assortment of diverse literature, proved, in the Court’s view, to be overstated… . For example, in examining Dr. Geier’s methodology, the Court notes that Dr. Geier could not point to a single study, including anything that he had published, that conclusively determined that the amount of thimerosal in RhoGAM when given not to the fetus but to the mother, as in this case, could cause autism… This Court must find more than the ‘hypothesis and speculation,’ engaged in by Dr. Geier in this instance, in order to allow Dr. Geier to rely upon the methodology he used in forming a conclusion based upon his review of the literature presented to the Court… [T]he Court finds that Dr. Geier’s literature review, in this instance, does not meet the Daubert standard of being both derived by the scientific method and relevant to the ‘task at hand.’”
September 25, 2011 - 2:36pm“…[T]he Court is particularly concerned as to a potential bias in Dr. Geier’s methodology and ultimate conclusion given the recency of Dr. Geier’s research into the cause of autism, which he admittedly began in only the last two and a half years, a time period that also represents the pendency of this lawsuit… [T]he Court finds that Dr. Geier (1) was not specifically qualified to perform a differential diagnosis of a pediatric neurological disorder, and, that (2) he did not properly perform the differential diagnosis given his failure to consider within his analysis the high probability that an unknown genetic cause cannot be ruled out as the specific cause of Minor Child Doe’s autism.” http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/102/
This Comment
Reply