from memory thats not correct - she quoted a reply to one of her blogs that included that word in the quote - not quite the same thing - but I'm not here to defend her - her previous blogs may have been the work of a relatively unbiased juvenile but her more recent blog shows considerably more negative bias - to a degree where it can no longer be explained simply as a matter of ignorance coupled with a juvenile and inexperienced point of view
in short we now appear to have become "fun" to torment - given she moderates everything a few weeks with everyone postign computer generated random (not nasty, abusive etc - just gibberish) drivel a few hundred times a day should sort her out - or at least take soem of the fun out of it for her - anyone up for it?
maybe she's hoping for a job working as a health adviser to the UK goverment?
I don't think ERV is as bad as people are making her out to be. She genuinely doesn't care about the politics involved in CFS; she simply enjoys discussing retrovirology and XMRV is a very interesting topic. If you look back at her very first post on XMRV, it was on an XMRV/prostate cancer study before the WPI's XMRV/Science paper even came out and she was saying how odd she thought things were with that paper. She just hasn't quit talking about how weird the whole XMRV thing is, how disparate the findings are, etc. and I doubt she will until or unless the whole thing finally gets ironed out.
To me ERV (and certan commentors on her blog) are actually a pretty good resource/source of information because they have absolutely no horse in this race and only care about what the reality of the situation is with no need to gloss over areas of contention, sugar coat discrepancies, etc. The WPI would look pretty bad if the whole XMRV thing didn't pan out, the CDC would look horrendous if it was true, the CFIDS Association wants to be objective but patients won't let them be anything but 100% supportive of WPI, etc. There aren't too many unbiased sources of information who are also knowledgable on the topic of retrovirology out there.
There are some good comments on the blog, but someone with little understanding of this research will only end up confused. I wish Coffin blogged too.
As for the CAA, it's one thing to raise questions, it is another to chop and change as the political situation changes. Either you go with what the science is telling you, or you duck and dive to keep your political position. Not knowing the CAA, even I have seen them do that in the last year. We need strong advocacy groups, not ones that bend to try and not upset both sides.