I am reading through the redacted file now. I've rather lost track of which file is which now (this one seems to be ordered slightly differently from the last one I saw; the previous one I read began with the Behan Report and was followed by a shorter, rather scrappy report by Wessely about psychosomatism and 'managing' ME/CFS), but I don't recall seeing the redacted sections of the CIBA Foundation report before, and they seem to me to be the most compelling evidence I've yet read in these files to indicate that they do indeed conceal suspicious information, rather than merely obscuring personally identifying data regarding patients and stakeholders. The rest of the documents after the CIBA report, mostly letters from patients and the responses, do obscure the identifying information...but the CIBA report's missing sections don't seem to fit that description...
First, I thought I'd better refresh my understanding of "redaction", and the wikipedia explanation seems appropriate enough to mention:
redaction is a form of editing in which multiple source texts are combined (redacted) and subjected to minor alteration to make them into a single work. Often this is a method of collecting a series of writings on a similar theme and creating a definitive and coherent work.
On occasion, the persons performing the redaction (the redactors) add brief elements of their own. The reasons for doing so are varied and can include the addition of elements to adjust the underlying conclusions of the text to suit the redactor's opinion, adding bridging elements to integrate disparate stories...
In business and law, a document can have certain parts "redacted", meaning sensitive names and details were removed for various reasons. For example, a federal court orders that the names of signatories of a state petition be redacted to protect them from death threats from militant activists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redaction
It seems fairly clear to me that the redacted information here which is still selectively withheld is
not solely restricted to the protection of named individuals...
The notes from the CIBA Foundation meeting notes contain a few selected sentences which are still obscured from public view. The context of these obscured sentences makes them highly suspicious, especially to those aware of the historical context of DeFreitas' work...I'll reproduce those sentences here, starting at the bottom of the second page of those notes, with the first section in which information is obscured...the Virology section...
A presentation was scheduled on retroviruses in CFS. However, the speaker [... ...................] did not turn up. [...............................................(approx 3 lines of text obscured).......]. A replacement speaker, (Folks, Atlanta) drafted in at the last minute, produced results showing the absence of retroviral sequences in the samples studied and gave a detailed analysis to explain the discrepancies with the De Freitas paper. There was no evidence for an association of CFS with HTLV-II or other human immunodeficiency virus, but other known or unknown retroviruses could not be ruled out.
Behan (Glasgow) presented results which he claimed showed that enteroviral sequences could be detected by PCR in muscle biopsies from CFS cases. [........(approx two lines of text obscured)......]
The meeting concluded that exhaustive analysis had failed to prove that CFS is caused by a virus or viruses. However, Mims reminded the audience that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". While keeping an open mind on the virus issue, members were increasingly drawn to the idea that the search for a single identifiable cause of CFS is meaningless because it is a multifactorial disorder.
Why should it be necessary to conceal the identity of the retrovirologist who failed to show up to this meeting, one wonders?
The next obscured fragment is from the Sleep Disorder section:
Moldovsky (Toronto) is an expert in this subject and appeared to be [....(one line of text obscured).....]. He postulated a three-way interaction between the immune system, the neuroendocrine system and the sleep/wake system.
The only other short fragment of this 5-page document which is obscured has (unlike the others) an additional marker emphasising that it is "Redacted under FOI Exemption S40 Closed until 2071". That section reads:
Non-pharmacological treatment of CFS
Sharpe (Oxford) described a trial of cognitive and behavioural therapy which he is just starting at the Warneford Hospital. The aim is to help patients re-evaluate and, if appropriate, change, unhelpful feelings about their performance and symptoms, and thus break the vicious circle. He admitted that the trial was a purely pragmatic approach without theoretical foundation. [...........(approx 2.5 lines obscured).......]
It frankly is hard to believe that there is no significance to the specific sections of this document which have been obscured. That text concerns:
(a) at the end of the DeFreitas investigation, the unexplained absence of the retrovirologist due to present on that matter, and their last-minute replacement by another virologist who found the absence of the retroviral sequences
(b) whatever Moldovsky of Toronto "appeared to be"
(c) some lines concerning the introduction of cognitive and behavioural therapy "without theoretical foundation".
There can be little doubt that this period of history marked a significant change in ME/CFS policy in the UK: to cease (public) investigation of the virology of CFS, and to introduce cognitive and behavioural therapy to manage the condition "without theoretical foundation". Selected sentences in the documentation regarding the (retro)virology and the introduction of CBT remain obscured from public view until 2071, and such omissions from the public record will only further fuel conspiracy theories about the origins of ME/CFS.
