Yes she does conduct research herself. Check out the page and a half of research I posted above. My question is why are you willing to give this quote from 2006 more weight than years of research and now years of public work with CAA? Here's a link to some of her public thoughts on research. Note that she highlights infections. http://www.cfids.org/bonus/vernon2.pdf Here are some of the papers she published in 2008. Vollmer-Conna U, Piraino BF, Cameron B, Davenport T, Hickie I, Wakefield D, Lloyd AR; Dubbo Infection Outcomes Study Group (Dunckley H, Geczy A, Harris R, Khanna R, Marmion B, Rawlinson B, Reeves WC, Vernon S). Cytokine polymorphisms have a synergistic effect on severity of the acute sickness response to infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2008 Dec 1;47(11):1418-25. Bolshin C, Aspler AL, Vernon SD, Broderick G. Evidence of inflammatory immune signaling in chronic fatigue syndrome. Behav Brain Funct. 2008 Sep 26;4:44. Fuite J, Vernon SD, Broderick G. Neuroendocrine and immune network re-modeling in chronic fatigue syndrome: An exploratory analysis. Genomics. 2008 Sep 30. [Epub ahead of print]. Presson A, Sobel E, Papp J, Whistler T, Rajeevan MS, Reeves WC, Vernon SD, Horvath S. A systems genetic analysis implicates FOXN1 in chronic fatigue syndrome. BMC Syst Biol. 2008 Nov 6;2(1):95. [Epub ahead of print] Sorensen B, Jones JF, Vernon SD, Rajeevan M. Transcriptional control of complement activation in an exercise model of chronic fatigue syndrome. Mol Med. 2008 Nov 16. [Epub ahead of print] But, but, but....haven't I presented both hers and the CAA's position two times in this thread? Here it is from the FAQ section Her position as a co-author/collaborator in those studies will give her arguments even more weight than other critics. In particular, she could disavow any connection between psychological abuse and CFS that was suggested by such CDC research. Surely you agree with me here, at least... Wouldn't it be great if she did this? Of course. My recollection is that the CAA came down hard on the sexual abuse studies. She has...She's pointed out questionable cohorts throughout - that's been one of her main points. I think you're right - the FAQ's page came out in response to patient queries about various topics and they clarified issues - or least put them out in front for everyone to see. I kind of think that the fact that they've never funded a study using the ED says something and that they focused on the Canadian Criteria for their latest study says something as well. I also think it says something that they hosted an entire webinar on Definitions lead by Lenny Jason - the most virulent critic of the ED there is. Would they have done that if Dr. Vernon was a secret ED admirer as you worry about? My guess is no....If you look at the pattern - public statements, unwillingess to use the ED, hosting a webinar put on the by the chief critic of the ED, I think you have a pretty clear indication of where the CAA stands. I think the same is true regarding research. It may be that Dr. Vernon believes that certain aspects of the stress response are involved. I absolutely believe that. I think the weight of evidence suggests abnormal sympathetic/parasympathetic nervous system and HPA axis dysfunction is pretty darn strong. I think abnormal autonomic nervous system activity could account for alot of symptoms in CFS.....and I think alot of researchers agree with that. Do I think HPA axis problems CAUSE CFS - no, I don't think at all - I think the evidence is way too weak. Do I think infections cause CFS? Absolutely I do...I think or a substantial number of patients they are a primary cause of CFS. If you look at Dr. Vernon's take on CFS research I think you'll find that the CAA is primarily interested in post-exertional malaise, pathogens (XMRV, EBV, gut flora), the vascular system. receptor functioning and the brain. If you think Dr. Vernon is going to throw allostatic stress in there - a research focus, I remind you, that no one except the CDC has picked up....I encourage you to ask her. I know the topic is important to you but its possible that she might not think the topic is an important one given that in the research field its basically a dead topic now. The same is true to some exent with the Empirical Definition -no one except the CDC has used it...not one other group. Neither of those two have caught hold to any degree. It's fine if he was...but if that did happen then it was the CAA that brought him in wasn't it? And Suzanne Vernon does have ultimate responsibility for the Biobank does she not? So if her Biobank has a good selection criteria I think its only fair to give her credit for that (rather than implying that, well, it was just Lenny Jason anyway). I see your point but I think you're reaching a bit..The sentence simply stated the symptoms were psychiatrically unexplained -which means to me - that they couldn't be explained psychiatrically. If he was trying to make a different I think he probably lost a substantial number of people. Of course she did. She and other members referred to him as the Dictator. The CAA went after the CDC with a vengeance after Dr. Vernon joined them. Its all there. I do agree that what the CAA is missing if evocative advocacy - evocative presentation. They're very poor at rallying the patients or driving a cause. They're very tentative in the advocacy area and as I pointed out in my summary - they've made mistakes. Since most of the their positions are the same as the patients at large (no ED, no more CBT, focus on pathophysiological research, more research funding., more focus on pathogens) if they could just let their hair down I think they would do themselves and everyone else a big favor. Here's them on the CDC. Here's testimony http://www.cfids.org/cfidslink/2009/050607c.pdf http://www.cfids.org/cfidslink/2009/050607a.pdf http://www.cfids.org/cfidslink/2009/050607b.pdf A summary http://blog.aboutmecfs.org/?p=623 Here's Kim McCleary on the CDC program I hope some of the above will help.