The following brief list covers my impression of how the CDC manages website criticism. It is not simply about what I saw at the latest CFSAC meeting. It is about comments from the CDC over the past few years, with only some of them being from Dr. Unger. And because I saw Dr. Unger using the same kind of obfuscation Dr. Reeves used, I am not waiting to see what happens next. Here is the pattern of obfuscation (aka double-talk) I have seen: 1. They defend their lack of a representative cross section of research by saying the site is only reports CDC research. This is simply not true. For example, they cite outside studies that support the idea the graded exercise is helpful, while ignoring research that shows the opposite. This is a purposeful bias that has zero relationship to the stated policy of presenting CDC-only research. 2. When their empirical definition of CFS is criticized, they say it is not meant for clinical use. But they include it in the information for clinicians. 3. They say the advice to not give certain tests is aimed at researchers. Yet they include it in the information for clinicians. 4. They say their information is research-based. But instead of presenting the research, they offer it as conclusions. And then fail to mention it is not based on a review of all research. 5. They selectively attend to research that implies a psychiatric cause, and selectively ignore research that implies a physiological cause. And then defend this by saying this is what their research shows. But again, this is not true. They pull research from outside of the CDC to accomplish this, while ignoring other research. If this is really a site about CDC research, they should remove everything that is not CDC research. They should limit the website to news updates that offer an explanation of CDC research including the abstract. And they should clearly state in a very visible way that the research on the site is limited to CDC research, and that not all research supports their findings. Also, they should refrain from giving advice to clinicians or researchers. They are not in a position to do this, considering their repeated statements that they are not responsible for being comprehensive. OTOH, if they do see it as their place to offer advice, then they need to start doing this at a professional level which would be to base their information on what all the research shows, and not only that research that agrees their internal point of view.