Sorry, Cort, I'm not buying it. While I see that you are trying to be even-handed and objective, I think you are being too generous to the CDC. I think one of the biggest problems in our society, and of course this includes scientists, is that once people make up their minds about something, they agree with positive evidence and ignore negative evidence and find some excuse why it's not valid.
This is especially true of someone who has a vested interest, such as a scientist who has already published papers on the subject. It's like going back to a convicted person and saying, "Would you like to change what you said in the original trial?" and the person says, "do you want me to perjure myself now, or back then?" People are very afraid of being wrong, and they are highly invested in protecting their careers. This leads to a lack of objectivity--narrow-mindedness and tunnel vision prevail.
In Asian societies, saving face is a very, very big deal. I would argue that it's not that less of a big deal in the west. Just think about the way China tried to cover up SARS, leading to a bigger outbreak and the country's leaders getting egg on their face. Their coverup just made them look stupid to the rest of the world. They must have realized this, because the H1N1 was handled completely differently.
What I'm waiting for is for the Reeves and Wesselys to finally realize that the more they stick to and tout their old theories and treatments, the more idiotic they are going to look for not being open-minded enough to change course when the evidence turned against them. That's what defines a good scientist--objectivity.
It's like trying to keep covering up lies with bigger and bigger lies. It would have been better all along to just fess up when it was a little white lie and take your lumps.