As many of you know, I am in the news media business.
I don't know much about how news media works in Netherlands. But usually, reporters go snooping with intuition. Then they just stumble across something. They just keep coming back (if they have the time and resources to pursue it). They get a person to leak them information. And then they get confirmation (in document or second firsthand source). Then, they call someone at that agency to say, "We have this information and we are going forward with the story. We would like your comment."
Sometimes, at that point, a reporter may be asked to hold it. It depends on the public right to know and need to know at that time compared to the benefits of waiting or harm done to release at that time as to whether the reporters go forward or hold back. Not long ago, we had case where New York Times held story of US bugging folks without judge order. They held the story for a year, at the request of Pentagon, I think. But they finally decided that it was time.
So, I can imagine these reporters had been following the XMRV, talking to researchers. And that led them to the conference and someone leaked them the Alter presentation document. So they called the Dutch blood supply folks and said, "We have this and are going forward with the story, do you have a comment on the danger to blood supply?"
So, the Dutch blood supply folks decided they needed to get ahead of the story and release it themselves in a press release. Do we really think they just found out about this today or last week if the comments are from May 26 and 27?
So why now? Possibly, study about to come out (in print now) and two nosy reporters said they were going to release it before that.
Of course, this is speculation. Isn't this fun?
But I have to get something to eat. And I have to write two articles tonight myself.
Tina