the CDC is like the energizer bunny, they just keep screwing us and screwing us and screwing us......
The Centre for Disease Control, or the Centre for Information Control?
So they too have a Professor of Not Finding Things.
the CDC is like the energizer bunny, they just keep screwing us and screwing us and screwing us......
I stand by my earlier prediction that DHHS is holding the publications of all (there are around a dozen) XMRV research papers until they have testing in place and a better understanding before going public. My feeling is that they are trying to handel things right.
The ME/CFS clock marches onward. People are getting sick(er).and treatments are delayed. Prevention is on hold. The band plays on.
The real credibility hit is to papers still in work which can more easily and quietly buried or "influenced".
The stakes are high. I mentioned a week ago that we were on the cusp of a tipping point where we get one chance to help things fall in the right direction. We've reached it folks. It's time to let all our "leaders" and press contacts know we can't allow the science to be stopped. If that happens, we lose.
"Tick tock people, time is slipping away." - Stevie Ray Vaughn
Remember that the leadership of all of these federal agencies has changed over the last year or so. Because of the implications for the blood supply, this will be big news, and these new leaders will be called upon to explain any contradictory findings by different branches of the same federal agency.
Even with the best of intentions, the new administration is unlikely to have rooted out all of the problem areas in these departments. Perhaps the conflicting results will bring the shameful history of CFS and the CDC to the attention of those who can do something about it.
Which are the most powerful lobbies in the US and which groups would be most interested in suppressing an XMRV-CFS conection?
My initial thoughts are
1) insurance companies, which avoid payouts and economise massively by insisting it is psychological
2) blood transfusion agencies, this would open a can of worms for them. Are they commercial organisations or fully governemnt funded? If they had to ditch all their blood supplies would they lose money as well as be ing unable to save lives?
3) psychologists themselves, who make a handsome living out of their invented "science". XMRV would be career suicide here.
4) (THE SCARY ONE) The CDC itself, whose major role, it seems to me, is the promotion of vaccination programmes. The new head of the CDC is very into vaccination I've just read. The concept of XMRV being triggered by vaccines would basically leave the CDC as a purposeless organisation adn thus be career suicide for many top men.
Which are the most powerful lobbies in the US and which groups would be most interested in suppressing an XMRV-CFS conection?
My initial thoughts are
1) insurance companies, which avoid payouts and economise massively by insisting it is psychological
2) blood transfusion agencies, this would open a can of worms for them. Are they commercial organisations or fully governemnt funded? If they had to ditch all their blood supplies would they lose money as well as be ing unable to save lives?
3) psychologists themselves, who make a handsome living out of their invented "science". XMRV would be career suicide here.
4) (THE SCARY ONE) The CDC itself, whose major role, it seems to me, is the promotion of vaccination programmes. The new head of the CDC is very into vaccination I've just read. The concept of XMRV being triggered by vaccines would basically leave the CDC as a purposeless organisation adn thus be career suicide for many top men.
<snip>
In addition to this the Dr.'s Light study on Interferon and PEM which added an XMRV study to the end of it has never been published and we know from anecdotal evidence that an additional study was executed by the Dr.'s Light in April (is that correct CBS?) of this year.
<snip>
One of the interesting aspects of the Light and Stanford studies is that they are both separated into two phases. Would you test another group if you couldn't fins anything in the first group?
im just trying to get people to sign the petition...
http://healthcare.change.org/petitions/view/xmrv_allow_science_to_progress
I think a big question is; why did both groups submit their papers in the first case?
It appears that they submitted them and then almost immediately held them. It's possible that they did that to make it clear that they didn't intend to just bury this. By submitting them they make it official that there was indeed a study.
Here's question:
Why would the CDC put up a paper on research lead by a researcher with a Masters Degree in Public Health against a paper on research led by someone of Dr Alter's calibre?
Obviously, there can be significant details I don't yet know, but if I had these two contradictory papers in hand and had to evaluate quality, the qualifications of the researchers would certainly be a factor.