I'm with CBS on this one. Posting her blog serves absolutely no purpose whatsover. I say please, delete this thread.
Maybe we should throw it on a big bon fire and burn it,
Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
I'm with CBS on this one. Posting her blog serves absolutely no purpose whatsover. I say please, delete this thread.
I know I came off as abrupt. My intent wasn't a personal attack. My apologies for that. I'm more exasperated because this has been hashed over ad nauseum in the past. Not your doing.Thank you cbs....i will go back and read more of her blogs regarding both cfs and other subjects and make up my own mind......but dont tell others what to post and not to post... and I am very sensitive about this....
I doubt that.There are probably some people on this forum who would listen to you ....
It wasn't meant as intimidation. More just a case of fatigue with her line of obfuscation. She doesn't want to understand or she wouldn't get glaring issues like cohort so wrong. Months ago people were trying to share information with her and it looks like she's still getting it wrong when it suits her. On non-CFS topics her blog get 8-10 posts in a week. She posts about CFS and she gets 160. Like it or not, we're her bread and butter and she lives off getting a rise out of CFS folks. She stops posting about CFS (or we stop reacting on her site) and she becomes anonymous. Anonymity is death for blogger. No hits, ScienceBlogs finds someone else. No megaphone for her uniformed rants. Starve the beast.intimidation by anyone, especially a "senior" member isnt welcome....
it serves a purpose
people object to positive (to us) papers being pulled but want references to negative (to us) sites pulled - refusing to listen to disenting views is what people are accusing the opposition of isnt it?
the only problem IMO with this link is the thread shoudl have been in media or somewhere similair
I know I came off as abrupt. My intent wasn't a personal attack. My apologies for that. I'm more exasperated because this has been hashed over ad nauseum in the past. Not your doing.
I doubt that.
It wasn't meant as intimidation. More just a case of fatigue with her line of obfuscation. She doesn't want to understand or she wouldn't get glaring issues like cohort so wrong. Months ago people were trying to share information with her and it looks like she's still getting it wrong when it suits her. On non-CFS topics her blog get 8-10 posts in a week. She posts about CFS and she gets 160. Like it or not, we're her bread and butter and she lives off getting a rise out of CFS folks. She stops posting about CFS (or we stop reacting on her site) and she becomes anonymous. Anonymity is death for blogger. No hits, ScienceBlogs finds someone else. No megaphone for her uniformed rants. Starve the beast.
for example her point about the special line to publishing for members in PNAS I didnt know, and while maybe not that significant was very interesting....
The CFIDS Association of America: Statement About XMRV Studies by Federal Agencies
Today at 8:56pm
As we have since the Lombardi study was published in October 2009, the CFIDS Association of America has actively promoted studies that seek to validate and confirm the association of XMRV in CFS. We are working with several investigators who have studies under way. Publication of study data in top-flight peer-reviewed journals is essential to advancing our understanding of the role that XMRV plays in CFS, and we are actively advocating for publication of the study conducted by NIH/FDA as swiftly as possible. The Lombardi paper was reported to be under review for five months at Science, and its important to recognize that top journals enforce tight requirements on their authors.
Last weeks unauthorized report about the NIH/FDA study by a news agency in the Netherlands disrupted steady progress being made toward publication of the data. In response to a report in the June 30, 2010 issue of the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Harvey Alter issued this statement last evening, transmitted via the NIH Office of Communications and Public Liaison: "Our paper has not yet been accepted for publication. My colleagues and I are conducting additional experiments to ensure that the data are accurate and complete. Our goal is not speed, but scientific accuracy." According to John Burklow, director of the NIH Office of Communication and Public Liaison, these additional experiments were a condition of acceptance by the journal, Proceedings of the National Academies of Science USA (PNAS), and may take weeks to complete and review. Mr. Burklow is confident that the results will be published, and stated that all the collaborators are working expeditiously, but carefully, to ensure the accuracy of their results and the manuscript. The CFIDS Association has confirmed that additional reviewers for the paper were recruited as recently as two weeks ago.
The CDCs paper published today in Retrovirology was submitted to the journal on March 26, 2010, and accepted and published on July 1 after undergoing final scientific review by CDC scientists. According to Joe Quimby, senior press officer at CDC, additional assessment was performed after the paper was originally submitted as part of CDCs commitment to ensuring the accuracy and relevancy of the scientific information it reports. He noted that the paper published today is the same as the original submitted manuscript. No changes were made to the CDC paper authored by Dr. William Switzer, et al.
A critique of the Switzer study by Association scientific director Suzanne Vernon, PhD, titled, Blood from a Stone, has been posted at, cfids.org/xmrv/070110study.asp.
In the months that passed between publication of XMRV/CFS studies (February-June), many people expressed concern that XMRV was being ignored, dismissed or overlooked. The discrepant findings by federal agencies have brought XMRV and CFS to the attention of the nations top public health officials and media outlets. As more information about the timetable for publishing the NIH/FDA study (and studies from other institutions that are in the pipeline) becomes available, we will rapidly share that news.
-----------------------------------
okay - possibly a direct link without the copy&paste would have been more appropriate - that way people can follow if they want but not have to read if they dont want - preferable to demands for deletion IMO
You guys should make allowances for ERV's hostile demeanor since she is a hottie . . .