Print

Print


Jonathan, I try but I can't understand what you're saying.  So the
Geiers did a later study you did not tell us about in your article
dated 2004?  It must have differed in its conclusions, from what
you DO tell us.  Shall we assume, as the later study was not
attacked by AAP, that it had conclusions less threatening to
vaccinators?  Then how do we interpret your continuing to
disseminate your 2004 article?  Do you believe what you said then,
regardless of any change of heart the Geiers may have had?  Very
confusing.
			Chandler Davis