10 Comments
User's avatar
Debra Irvine's avatar

She deserves more than just an apology. He should be prosecuted for lying during his testimony. Wondering why no one else has explored this. Wasn’t he under oath?

Mike S's avatar

It wasn’t his only lie.

But it seems lying under oath is no longer regarded as problematic.

Jan Sheringham's avatar

Sadly, he wasn’t under oath during that Senate hearing - although of course he should gave been! The Senate leadership failed to swear him in - look it up - IMHO it was a deliberate act of omission!

Mike S's avatar

Yeah…that was deliberate from Senator Johnson, the antivax useful idiot.

GREGORY MCISAAC's avatar

The full text of the 2019 Daily Record article can be found here

https://www.gfrlaw.com/what-we-do/insights/maryland-board-physicians-absolute-immunity

It partly explains how Kennedy came up with $5 million. The total settlement was $4.6 million when you add in the Geiers' legal fees that the Board had been ordered to pay before overturned by the appeal. The appeal decision may be controversial because it gives the Board broad legal immunity. But Kennedy was wrong to say that the civil court had reversed the initial judgement against the Geiers. The Geier's suit was about the Board improperly releasing the Geier's private medical information, not about the Board's decisions against the Geiers medical practices.

vaxopedia.org's avatar

Your link is about Dr. Mark Geier.

RFK Jr was talking about his son, David Geier...

GREGORY MCISAAC's avatar

I am aware that RFKjr was talking about David, but the article says that David was one of the three plaintiffs in the suit "Dr. Geier, his wife and son sued the Board of Physicians..." Is this not correct? Was RFKjr referring to a different suit and $5 million award?

vaxopedia.org's avatar

Still, the award was overturned on appeal and the lawsuit wasn't about David Geier’s charge of practicing medicine without a license.

GREGORY MCISAAC's avatar

I know and I wrote that in my original comment: "Kennedy was wrong to say that the civil court had reversed the initial judgement against the Geiers. The Geier's suit was about the Board improperly releasing the Geier's private medical information, not about the Board's decisions against the Geiers medical practices." Note my use of the plural Geiers although I should have used Greiers' for the posessive instances.