Bob
Senior Member
- Messages
- 16,455
- Location
- England (south coast)
I think we need to take note that Science mag wanted WPI to drop the CFS as part of their paper. But they refused.
Now, if as reported, the FDA / NIH study is positive, in whom are they seeing the higher figure? The answer is CFS patients. And surely that is the way the FDA / NIH paper will say it.
So, if the plan is or will be for CDC to say, "That's another disease, not CFS," it will fail. Thanks to WPI for insisting that CFS be included in publication, the news media will report it as "virus in patients with CFS". In fact, it is already the case. Google XMRV, and up pops Wikipedia with link to CFs in first paragraph. Second website is WPI, and they use "CFS."
Wall Street Journal has "Further Evidence of XMRV in CFS?" So the history has already been written in just the last nine months. We may get a new name, and some may be left in CFS who are not positive. But the link in the terms between CFS and XMRV will not be erased anytime soon.
If CDC wants to put out that message, they will have to go against the other researchers, doctors who see their CFS patients test positive and the news media.
Tina
It's interesting that the CDC look as if they are now trying to make it look like the WPI are testing an entirely separate disease to what the CDC have been investigating all these years...
But will they get away with this, I wonder? The WPI (and now the NIH/FDA) tested CFS/ME patients as diagnosed by the Canadian Consensus definition, which diagnoses 'ME'.
So are the CDC now going to try to make the case that they never had a department for 'ME', and that they only ever had a department for 'CFS' which is an entirely separate disease?
Can they get away with that? They probably can get away with it, but the CDC has been dealing with classic ME cases ever since the original outbreaks which they were sent to investigate.
It's going to be interesting watching the CDC unravel, or tie itself in ever increasing knots until it strangles itself!