alex3619
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,810
- Location
- Logan, Queensland, Australia
The CDC has almost totally failed us. Almost. The only possible mitigation is the multisite study, and the clinics in the study are not CDC owned and operated.
Selling the CDC is like selling a left handed old fashioned screwdriver.
The NIH has also failed us.
The FDA at least gave a fresh look at the issues, and produced an interesting report.
The IOM produced our first evidence based review, though those who are familiar with my writing will know that it was premature and inappropriate. In five years, as they suggest, it might be a better time for such a review. This is not about the team being incompetent or biased, but about the entire process forced on them which is inappropriate to underfunded and under-researched areas where there are strong influences biasing the science.
The P2P ... what do I even say about the P2P. They got some of it right, came to obvious conclusions, but never had the mandate, time or resources to look at the important questions.
Let it not be forgotten that most governments around the world have failed us. The is not a USA-centric issue. The rest of the world should be doing much more collectively than the US, but with a few exceptions the world is mostly silent.
None of this is relevant to the CDC funding axing proposal. The real fallout will be political. Even if it goes through we will have mitigated that fallout by showing that we are concerned.
In fact, dare I suggest it, the best possible outcome might be a major advocacy campaign, with the multisite going independent or with NIH oversight, more NIH funding, and the CDC dropping CFS completely after a permanent loss of funding.
Selling the CDC is like selling a left handed old fashioned screwdriver.
The NIH has also failed us.
The FDA at least gave a fresh look at the issues, and produced an interesting report.
The IOM produced our first evidence based review, though those who are familiar with my writing will know that it was premature and inappropriate. In five years, as they suggest, it might be a better time for such a review. This is not about the team being incompetent or biased, but about the entire process forced on them which is inappropriate to underfunded and under-researched areas where there are strong influences biasing the science.
The P2P ... what do I even say about the P2P. They got some of it right, came to obvious conclusions, but never had the mandate, time or resources to look at the important questions.
Let it not be forgotten that most governments around the world have failed us. The is not a USA-centric issue. The rest of the world should be doing much more collectively than the US, but with a few exceptions the world is mostly silent.
None of this is relevant to the CDC funding axing proposal. The real fallout will be political. Even if it goes through we will have mitigated that fallout by showing that we are concerned.
In fact, dare I suggest it, the best possible outcome might be a major advocacy campaign, with the multisite going independent or with NIH oversight, more NIH funding, and the CDC dropping CFS completely after a permanent loss of funding.