justinreilly
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,498
- Location
- NYC (& RI)
We now have a very rare window of opportunity to make a huge difference in the US federal response to ME/CFIDS for years to come. IMO this is currently our most important issue.
Thankfully, one of our biggest tormentors, Dr. William Reeves, was recently moved out as Chief of CDC's Chronic Viral Diseases Branch. The interim Chief is Dr. Elizabeth Unger, by accounts a very good virologist who has made significant contributions to the science of HPV.
Dr. Unger is a co-author of some of Dr. Reeves' 'CFS' papers including the horrendous Reeves Criteria paper which continues to waste our precious federal resources and to harm us. Some say it is not her fault since she was just an employee under Reeves when the paper was published.
On the other hand, she has not removed her name from this paper or done anything to indicate there is any change in policy re: "CFS" at CDC since she was appointed a few months ago. This highlights why an ostensibly competent and well-meaning CDC insider is not acceptable for the post of permanent CVD Branch Chief in view of CDC's long sordid history re: ME.
We must put the maximum possible pressure on CDC to appoint an outside expert. An outside expert running the show could well lead to a cascade effect of increasing medical and social progress. A bad or ineffectual appointee would leave us continuing in the dark ages for years or decades to come. We must do everything possible to prevent this possibility.
I suggest an expert such as Nancy Klimas, Leonard Jason, Paul Cheney, Dan Peterson, Charles Lapp, Lucinda Bateman, David Bell, Judy Mikovits, Annette Whittemore, Hillary Johnson or Anthony Komoroff.
Perhaps Stephen Gluckman, Clinical Director of Infectious Disease at U. Penn. Med. School, Deidre Buchwald at U. of Washington and/or Susan Levine in NYC. I don't know enough about Drs. Gluckman and Levine. I seem to remember reading some papers written by Deidre Buchwald which I thought were a little biased against us, but please correct me and let me know if she would be good. Please also give some feedback about what you think of this idea and these candidates.
I will edit this post later to include a sample letter and emails of people to contact. For now, I want to get people thinking about this crucial opportunity.
Thankfully, one of our biggest tormentors, Dr. William Reeves, was recently moved out as Chief of CDC's Chronic Viral Diseases Branch. The interim Chief is Dr. Elizabeth Unger, by accounts a very good virologist who has made significant contributions to the science of HPV.
Dr. Unger is a co-author of some of Dr. Reeves' 'CFS' papers including the horrendous Reeves Criteria paper which continues to waste our precious federal resources and to harm us. Some say it is not her fault since she was just an employee under Reeves when the paper was published.
On the other hand, she has not removed her name from this paper or done anything to indicate there is any change in policy re: "CFS" at CDC since she was appointed a few months ago. This highlights why an ostensibly competent and well-meaning CDC insider is not acceptable for the post of permanent CVD Branch Chief in view of CDC's long sordid history re: ME.
We must put the maximum possible pressure on CDC to appoint an outside expert. An outside expert running the show could well lead to a cascade effect of increasing medical and social progress. A bad or ineffectual appointee would leave us continuing in the dark ages for years or decades to come. We must do everything possible to prevent this possibility.
I suggest an expert such as Nancy Klimas, Leonard Jason, Paul Cheney, Dan Peterson, Charles Lapp, Lucinda Bateman, David Bell, Judy Mikovits, Annette Whittemore, Hillary Johnson or Anthony Komoroff.
Perhaps Stephen Gluckman, Clinical Director of Infectious Disease at U. Penn. Med. School, Deidre Buchwald at U. of Washington and/or Susan Levine in NYC. I don't know enough about Drs. Gluckman and Levine. I seem to remember reading some papers written by Deidre Buchwald which I thought were a little biased against us, but please correct me and let me know if she would be good. Please also give some feedback about what you think of this idea and these candidates.
I will edit this post later to include a sample letter and emails of people to contact. For now, I want to get people thinking about this crucial opportunity.