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.
It looks to me like the authors of the paper probably didn't want to find the bug.
But when some big kahuna at the DHHS heard about the FDA/NIH study he realised he had been asleep at the switch for the past nine months while a major discovery was unfolding.
Now Mr.Bigkahuna is frantically trying to buy a bit of time and patch up a bunch of holes as this unfolds.
There is no chance in hell of burying this thing at this point. Wall Street Journal, Nature, etc... this cat is out of the bag.
Aren't the parameters for replication clearly stated in the original paper?
We really need to get the CDC to dump that stupid definition. Everyone at the CFSAC meeting was so polite to the new CDC officer, but enough is enough. They can't go on with years of bad research. Just call them fatigue studies and give us our money back.
Patients from both groups had CFS that met the criteria of the 1994 International CFS Research Case Definition, which was established to help distinguish CFS from other illnesses that cause fatigue.
Can't we just call our illness CCCFS (Canadian Criteria Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) and clarify that this is a different illness from CDCCFS (Centre for Disease Control Chronic Fatigue Syndrome)?
There is no chance in hell of burying this thing at this point. Wall Street Journal, Nature, etc... this cat is out of the bag.
Switzer's paper was delayed to give the CDC a chance to review his paper and methods in more detail, and to give Switzer's team a chance to perform more tests, says Stephen Monroe, director of the CDC's Division of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology. The delay lasted three weeks, and resulted in no changes to the manuscript, Switzer says.
Strong association
Monroe called the delay a "strategic pause", initiated after CDC officials learned of a contradictory study by the NIH and FDA team, reported at a meeting by NIH researcher Harvey Alter. Although a PNAS spokeswoman reportedly told The Wall Street Journal that the study had been accepted for publication, press officers at PNAS refused to comment on the matter today. One scientist familiar with the issue said that the journal's editor-in-chief, cell biologist Randy Schekman of the University of California, Berkeley, sent the paper out for further review after government agencies requested the publication delay. That review came back with requests for additional studies, the scientist says.