I know she bears a heavy burden of proof by being at the CDC for so long. Just looking at it she would seem to be a horrible choice to lead up the CAA's research program.
Reeves really controlled that program. I tried to get in touch with her while she was at the CDC and she replied in a very nice note that she would love to talk but that Dr. Reeves wouldn't let anyone there talk to anyone else. Later she said they referred to him in the program as 'the Dictator"
.
(I was actually able to get a conversation with another researcher there going for a short time and he too, said - never mention my name! He was a nice guy and was not all in the "CFS is psychology branch". I don't think he's with them anymore)
When she came out of the CDC and headed over to the CAA she said her first instinct was to have all the CAA studies be on pathogens. (Her background is, after all, in viruses). That didn't happen but they are (or have recently) funded studies on endogenous retroviruses, XMRV, EBV and gut bacteria.
There is the perception of the CDC as devoted to a psychological interpretation of CFS and that has been a strong focus lately but its looked at quite a few different areas of CFS over time and she has never been involved in the psych studies at all. The CDC has also been focused on the stress response and she has been involved in those studies and I imagine she thinks it plays a role - although in one article she said she thought it played a secondary role. Since she left the CDC immune aspects of CFS have been a major focus for her.
I don't think you're going to agree with everything she's done and I'm imagine you might disagree strongly with a few things she's done - this is after all a really complex field with lots of controversial topics - but in general I really don't think you have to worry about her. THe CAA research program does not look like the CDC research program at all.