The article is full of guilt-by-vague-association, and never explains what exactly his antivaccine views are.
> He has headed pediatric neurology divisions at Brown and Tufts University and published research on epilepsy and autism. [..] “His strengths were clinical and not really research as he had no NIH funding, nor had he worked on research projects in a way that resulted in publications.”
He published research, but did not work on research projects in a way that resulted in publications? It takes some spin to present someone that headed the neurology division at an Ivy League university as unqualified, just because he didn't work specifically with NIH.
Who knows, maybe he is unqualified, but the article elects to withhold information that would let us judge this. For example:
> Gaitanis has also served as a paid expert witness in a federal court where families can claim neurological harm from childhood vaccines.
The article omits anything specific about his testimony, or name the specific case or court so readers could look it up themselves. It doesn't even say which side in the litigation he was an expert for! Assuming he represented the injured families, does the article want us to believe that alone is disqualifying? Because adverse effects from vaccines, including neurological, are a well established fact:
The article is full of guilt-by-vague-association, and never explains what exactly his antivaccine views are.
> He has headed pediatric neurology divisions at Brown and Tufts University and published research on epilepsy and autism. [..] “His strengths were clinical and not really research as he had no NIH funding, nor had he worked on research projects in a way that resulted in publications.”
He published research, but did not work on research projects in a way that resulted in publications? It takes some spin to present someone that headed the neurology division at an Ivy League university as unqualified, just because he didn't work specifically with NIH.
Who knows, maybe he is unqualified, but the article elects to withhold information that would let us judge this. For example:
> Gaitanis has also served as a paid expert witness in a federal court where families can claim neurological harm from childhood vaccines.
The article omits anything specific about his testimony, or name the specific case or court so readers could look it up themselves. It doesn't even say which side in the litigation he was an expert for! Assuming he represented the injured families, does the article want us to believe that alone is disqualifying? Because adverse effects from vaccines, including neurological, are a well established fact:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_Adverse_Event_Reportin...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9838503/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41582-024-01000-7
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10573146/