I have a question: we know that J Kerr collaborated in this study, but not as principal investigator. I wonder if he would not be biased in some way with his study expected to come out in June, when he is the principal investigator?
Now we've talked in the past of Dr Vernon having her name attached to a lot of Dr Reeves so-said studies on CFS, but how much has she collaborated and agreed with them? And does that mean that J Kerr will have a study result similar to the February one?
Thanks creekfeet (love that tag!). I don't think so about Kerr; he realizes that every negative study dampens more interest in this; he's investigated viral infections in CFS and he believes they play a part. They also had the top retrovirologist in the UK in on this. A positive result would only help him in the long run. Dr. Vernon agreed with and was very proud of some CDC studies but was critical of others; they included the allostatic stress approach and the sexual abuse studies. She told me that she wanted to a slew of viral studies in CFS when she first came to the CAA. If you check out the CAA's studies under her you'll see that they're very different from the CDC's current approach.