No, I said that it was a topic that is being looked at in other allied diseases.
OK.. but I'm still not clear on what you're saying. What was your point? What does that have to do with CFS? In what way was Dr. Vernon's statement, which was clearly referring to an association of child abuse, etc with CFS (based on a badly defined cohort) qualify as "right"?
You can always find a way Dr. Yes......

It's odd that you should be implying that I somehow twist facts, as you know that is the major concern that a LOT of longtime advocates and new patients alike have about you -- that you seem willing to bend facts and suspend logic in order to defend the CAA's positions!
Actually in that instance I was only noting that your argument was not entirely logical, and pointing out one fallacy. You have not proven your point, you just keep saying over and over that we should not worry about what Suzanne Vernon's views on our disease might be, but just assume they're fine based on her work since leaving the CDC, totally ignoring some of the stuff she put her name on when she was there. And no, that wasn't eons ago (not in CFS time, anyway!).
It's possible be a world class chess player (aka Bobby Fischer) and be a raving lunatic otherwise. So? The question is what does Dr. Vernon do for this field? What kind of work does she engage? Is she engaging in psychological studies? Or dooes she fund studies that you agree with? How would i know what Suzanne Vernon thinks in private? All I care is that she promotes the kind of studies I like and as long she does that I'll support her.
Look, the bottom line is that when a researcher is hired as Science Director by the most influential American advocacy organization dealing with my disease, I want to know whether that researcher has any questionable views or biases in her outlook on the disease. If just a few years ago she accepted the CDC's Wichita cohort as a valid cohort, if she accepted the CDC's hypothesis of stress load causing CFS, and/or if she accepted the CDC's hypothesis that childhood abuse or neglect could ultimately cause CFS, then how do we know she still doesn't? Of course she isn't going to conduct that kind of research herself; it's not in her area. But let me try to explain it to you this way - when you vote for a politician, don't you want to know about her/his general political views, not just her/his platform? Similarly, if one's views on CFS have been influenced by a hypothesis that it is primarily linked to stress and genetic factors governing the stress response, one will tend to focus on a certain subset of genes for any genomic analyses, and be quicker to draw conclusions that align with that view. That is just an example of the subtle way in which bias can creep even into biological research.
I have no clear idea of whether this applies to Dr. Vernon, and what she really thinks; all I have to go on about her views on those subjects is the stuff from the CDC era, because she doesn't discuss them anymore. But I'd like to know, and as she's part of an advocacy group that claims responsibility for advocacy in my country, I think I and others have a right to ask without you trying to shout us down, don't you?
Again - I really think you're reaching. Dr. Vernon did not put that cohort together. She did not devise the random sampling methods. She did her research with what she had at the CDC. When she went to the CAA she disavowed the Empirical definition and the CAA does not employ random sampling....and they focused on the Canadian Criteria in their first BioBank study. What more do you want?
The same thing a lot of people want. Now that, as you say, Dr. Vernon is free of her "boss", there is nothing to sto her from incisively critiquing the CDC's flawed research that utilized the Empirical Definition, which is still being used by the CDC to this day to marginalize and stigmatize CFS patients, as well as to help bolster their recommendations against clinical biomedical testing which in turn allow insurance companies to deny our claims, AND to weaken the case for biomedical funding of the disease. Of course she can't prevent all that from continuing, but she can help. Her position as a co-author/collaborator in those studies will give her arguments even more weight than other critics. In particular, she could disavow any connection between psychological abuse and CFS that was suggested by such CDC research. Surely you agree with me here, at least... Wouldn't it be great if she did this?
So the statements I just posted from Dr. Vernon and the CAA that they do not approve of using the Empirical Definition in research studies do not provide clarity for you? Here they are again. What would Lenny Jason have to do with a CFS XMRV study? (????)
Yes, I know what you're talking about, but you missed my point. Reading "Playing A Weak Hand Well"; it's hard to understand why she felt it necessary to defend the selection criteria used in those negative XMRV studies. She should have said that they were lousy criteria - the Oxford being even worse than the Empirical Definition, which she later said no one should use - and therefore their cohorts were extremely suspect. She could still be saying that now, as other negative XMRV studies have used questionable cohorts.
Her criticism of the Empirical Definiton came after patient pressure on the Association to do exactly that. Perhaps that was just a coincidence, though if that's the case I wish she had made the statement sooner; it would have reduced a lot of unnecessary tension with the patient community.
(Btw I was under the impression that Leonard Jason was consulted by the CAA and was responsible for developing the selection criteria for the BioBank. I made clear that I didn't know this for a fact, however.)
(Me): I would like to know if Dr. Vernon now feels that the findings/conclusions from the studies by her and others involving the Wichita study were distorted by the use of such a poorly defined cohort.
(Cort): I imagine that she believes they reflected the cohort they were done on...
But since that cohort was selected by the Empirical Definition, how can she say the findings from her studies involving that cohort have significance to ME/CFS patients? The high probability of depression or other illnesses showing up in that cohort would so distort the results of a genomic study in particular that conclusions to well-defined CFS cannot even be extrapolated.
You mean you're actually upset that Dr. Reeves said that the symptom in CFS can't be explained psychiatrically? Would you rather he said they could be explained psychiatrically? I'm glad he said psychiatry can't explain CFS symptoms...Good for him.
I think you may not be getting where Reeves was coming from, Cort. I really think he was modifying the term "Medically Unexplained Symptoms", or MUS, which has a specific meaning in medical circles relating to somatoform illnesses (Reeves' favorite kind), to include psychiatrically unexplained symptoms ("PUS"?), a usage I've never seen before... but it would mean that clinically there are symptoms of psychiatric illness without clear psychiatric diagnosis. It's a way to insinuate that evidence for psychiatric disorders is part of the basic presentation of CFS.
That's how I see his comment.
You mean you're upset because she didn't stand up and publically counter her bosses opinion? Really?
You mean you think she secretly thought her boss was full of it? Well, in that case, we can now hear it from her, and it would really improve the CAA's standing in the community if she did so (as I explained above).
This is a pivotal time in the battle between psychological and biomedical models of CFS, and a very confusing and politically-charged one. It would be nice to finally clear the air and know where everyone stands on crucial issues - in their own words, not those of their supporters.
In general, I hope you're right, but I am not in a position to make assumptions. Frankly, I am in a
terrible position, as we all are to varying degrees. For that reason, it is necessary to raise exacting and critical questions of any group that represents us, as we want the best advocacy possible done on our behalf. We each have so little opportunity to have a voice, and so little energy, that when one of us actually does have questions and concerns it is wrong of you or anyone else to attempt to shout them down.
I have made these arguments for the consideration of other readers of the forum. I have to leave the issue to others, as I'm supposed to be resting from yet another crash instead of posting all this! Your defense of Dr. Vernon raised an interesting point that, in turn, highlighted a longstanding concern that I and many others have had. I hope that ultimately the CAA, and Dr. Vernon in particular, will address the questions I raised in previous posts.