One problem for the CAA is that Suzanne Vernon is one of the authors of the "empiric" definition.While this thread is seeing renewed traffic, I'll just raise this issue:
When the German study failed to find xmrv in certain tissues of prostate cancer patients, the CAA provided a link and declared the news a "cautionary tale" for CFS patients. After taking some flak for appearing to implicitly cast doubts on the WPI Science study, they explained that they were rather "throwing a protective tarp" [not sure I have that verbatim, but close] over the patient community to keep off any eventual rain of disappointment.
Now, when a CDC/NIH replication study is imminent-- a replication study that must necessarily fail because its subjects will not be ill with the same disease as the WPI's subjects at the same rate--where is the CAA's "tarp"? Why, why, why aren't they warning their membership that their family and neighbors are about to see headlines heralding that vaunted federal institutions have squashed the WPI study?