Jump to content
RemedySpot.com
Sign in to follow this  
Guest guest

Re: Great LA Times article on CFS

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Hi ,

If it doesn't come through in another format please could you scan it -

I'd be very interested but am in the UK - rather a long way away to be

buying the LA Times ;-)

Rosie

Subject: Great LA Times article on CFS

I'm in LA so not sure if this newspaper goes out anywhere else; but

there

was a great article in it (front page!!) in which it discussed how

bebilitating the illness is; how there are 4 sub-groups who have it; how

it can be worse

than those with AIDS or on chemo, the researchers also identified many

genes

which would likely lead to MUCH better treatments in the future. Its

in the

April 21st issue (friday). It should be online at some point but if

not I

could scan it if no one can find it anywhere else. It is a must read

and

something one would really want to share with their family and friends,

especially the skeptics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi, here is a url for this story.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-sci-fatigue21apr21,0,7025295.story

Regards

Simon Lawrence

Great LA Times article on CFS

>

> I'm in LA so not sure if this newspaper goes out anywhere else; but

> there

> was a great article in it (front page!!) in which it discussed how

> bebilitating the illness is; how there are 4 sub-groups who have it; how

> it can be worse

> than those with AIDS or on chemo, the researchers also identified many

> genes

> which would likely lead to MUCH better treatments in the future. Its

> in the

> April 21st issue (friday). It should be online at some point but if

> not I

> could scan it if no one can find it anywhere else. It is a must read

> and

> something one would really want to share with their family and friends,

>

> especially the skeptics.

>

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Sorry to be such a killjoy, but the LA Times article has another red

flag for me.

Only 16% of the people with CFS had been diagnosed.

I know that I was so sick when I first came down with ME/CFIDS that I

could not have gone on with my life until someone contacted me at

random and informed me that I had CFS.

It did take several months for me to get the diagnosis of ME/CFIDS

(in 1991) but I went to a number of doctors during that period and

could not believe my ears when they told me they couldn't find

anything wrong with me after I explained to them how sick I was. I

looked sick too. I was waking up constantly through the night and

dragging my half dead body around during the day.

I have my doubts that the CFS patients in this study have the same

illness that I have.

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

" Tomcy6 " wrote:

> Sorry to be such a killjoy, but the LA Times article has another

red flag for me.

Only 16% of the people with CFS had been diagnosed.

I know that I was so sick when I first came down with ME/CFIDS that

I could not have gone on with my life until someone contacted me at

random and informed me that I had CFS.

It did take several months for me to get the diagnosis of ME/CFIDS

(in 1991) but I went to a number of doctors during that period and

could not believe my ears when they told me they couldn't find

anything wrong with me after I explained to them how sick I was. I

looked sick too. I was waking up constantly through the night and

dragging my half dead body around during the day.

I have my doubts that the CFS patients in this study have the same

illness that I have.

> Tom

Tom. You are absolutely right!

You can see hints of the CDC " put up job " strategy of using Reeves

as a whistleblower to get themselves out of a jam after they stole

the money and lied to Congress in the CNN interview below.

It's playing " Good CDC / Bad CDC " and gets them off the hook with

less fuss than a Congressional censure and nothing more than

a " sincere apology " .

Reeves defends the team that went to Incline saying there was no

evidence.

That is a bald faced lie.

Ask anybody who was there. Ask the Kennedy's or Dr .

It's expressed in almost every interview that this illness could not

possibly be overlooked.

You could spot any of us at a hundred feet with that weird

staggering gait we used when we could walk at all.

Not only that, some people had their eyes almost completely shut

from myasthenia gravis, and EVERY ONE of us had dark circles under

our eyes worse than a heroin addict.

I remember going to Candace Gleeds support group meeting at Lord of

Mercy Lutheran church on Pyramid highway and wondering if she was

going to live long enough to have another meeting - she looked so

sick.

There was NO mistaking this illness.

When the girls basketball team suddenly got sick and couldn't walk,

let alone play basketball, that's fairly noticeable - except to the

CDC.

Oh yeah, forgot. All the girls must have been under some sort

of " stress " simultaneously.

Truckee Wolverines losing streak perhaps?

-

_________________________________________________

Station: Cable News Network (CNN)

Date: Oktober 24, 1999

Programme: CNN & Time

URL: http://cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/impc.html

(home page)

http://cnn.com/CNNPromos/cnntime

(home page 2)

http://cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/9910/24/impc.00.html (text)

SICK AND TIRED

--------------

ANNOUNCER: CNN & TIME. Tonight, " Sick and Tired. " It's been called

the yuppie flu, but it's been anything but a passing fad. It is a

major public outcry.

We all have days when it feels like we just can't roll out of bed.

We're tired, listless, completely drained. But imagine feeling that

way and worse day in and day out for weeks, months, and even years.

JEFF GREENFIELD, HOST: We're talking about chronic fatigue syndrome,

the mysterious, debilitating illness that first showed up in the mid-

1980s. And if you thought that this yuppie flu was the invention of

hypochondriacs or had gone the way of Duran Duran or somehow had

been cured, consider this. In the United States alone right now,

hundreds of thousands of people may be struggling with CFS.

Here's Daryn Kagan.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DARYN KAGAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): As the 1999 Women's

World Cup came down to the wire in penalty kicks, another drama was

taking place behind the scenes.

MICHELLE AKERS, U.S. WOMEN'S SOCCER TEAM: I'm graying out, and I

can't hear, and my body's just clenched.

SPORTS ANNOUNCER: Look at Akers. She leads by example.

KAGAN: Akers played 90 minutes in blistering heat, until

her body gave out.

SPORTS ANNOUNCER: All eyes are on Akers.

AKERS: So they put me on the table and then started trying to get

the IVs in.

KAGAN: Akers' doctors, coaches, and teammates know her symptoms are

real, but some people think the disease she's recovering from,

chronic fatigue syndrome, is not.

(on camera): When you say worst, what does worst feel like for

people who don't know what that feels like?

AKERS: It's like just feeling totally empty on the inside. It's

like -- there's no reserve, no energy. It's like a black hole in the

very depths of your soul.

(voice-over): For years, CFS has been dismissed by many in the

general public, the medical profession, even experts at the Federal

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fifteen years ago, a

mysterious illness swept through the Alpine resorts and towns near

Lake Tahoe. Incline Village, Nevada, was ground zero.

DR. DAN PETERSON, PHYSICIAN: The first ones were isolated cases. A

marathon runner in town who couldn't run any longer.

KAGAN: Dr. Dan is a local physician. He saw the first cases.

PETERSON: Then we started seeing the clustering with the girls' high

school basketball team where the entire team became ill -- extremely

ill.

KAGAN: At Tahoe-Truckee High School, dozens of students came down

with symptoms resembling mononucleosis. So did a third of the

teachers.

JERRY KENNEDY: You're not tired. You're -- it's like the blood's

drained out of you.

KAGAN: Like Jerry Kennedy who taught auto mechanics and drafting and

his wife Janice (ph) who taught English.

JANICE KENNEDY, FORMER HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER: It's like having bricks

piled on you. It's as though you're fighting to move at all.

JERRY KENNEDY: It's the worst feeling I've ever had in my life. I

can't compare it to anything else that's ever happened to me.

KAGAN: The number of cases multiplied during the summer of 1985.

PETERSON: That's when I first thought, well, there's some new

contagious disease, you know, I mean, there's something in the

water, some Typhoid had come into the school system and

affected the kids and the teachers.

KAGAN: Besides fatigue, most patients developed a bizarre mental

fogginess.

JERRY KENNEDY: You feel dumb because you can't remember things. You

forget people's -- you don't even comprehend the names. You lose it.

JANICE KENNEDY: As an English teacher, I remember one horrible

moment when I asked myself, " What is a subordinate clause? " I could

not remember what a subordinate clause was.

KAGAN: Eventually, more than 250 people living around Lake Tahoe

seemed to have the illness. For months, Dr. couldn't

persuade anyone to investigate. Finally, the CDC agreed to send a

two-man team.

JANICE KENNEDY: They didn't seem to feel that there was an epidemic,

and we knew there was. It might have been small, but it definitely

existed.

DR. WILLIAM REEVES, CDC EPIDEMIOLOGIST: CDC's study at that time

failed to identify any evidence that there was an unusual occurrence

of a chronically fatiguing illness.

KAGAN: Dr. Reeves is the CDC epidemiologist now in charge of

investigating chronic fatigue syndrome. He didn't go to Incline

Village, but he defends the team that did. He also defends their

findings, which are still controversial today. REEVES: Using

epidemiologic public expertise of the time, there was no evidence,

clear-cut, replicable evidence that anything unusual is

happening in that population.

PETERSON: As I just said right now, I'm right about this. I know

that these people were well, and now they're sick, and they're

staying sick. So I have to hang in there and be diligent about it,

regardless of what the rest of rest of the world thinks.

KAGAN: Over the years, chronic fatigue syndrome has been thought of

as a trendy illness, the yuppie flu. Sufferers say the official name

the CDC gave it didn't help.

JANICE KENNEDY: Ever since they started calling it chronic fatigue

syndrome, I think every person who has had it, every family member

of someone who has it, every doctor who is familiar with it hates

that name because it seems to trivialize.

KAGAN: A diagnostic test for CFS has yet to be developed, but the

CDC did come up with a definition: debilitating fatigue lasting at

least six months, along with four of eight other symptoms. They

include sore throat, muscle and joint pain, short-term memory loss,

and an inability to recover from exertion. New cases have continued

to crop up all over the country. Akers first

noticed her symptoms in 1991.

AKERS: I would go into the shower after training and just cry and

cry and cry. It was the only place I could go to where no one would

see me and just say, " I can't do this. I can't do it. "

KAGAN: Akers sidelined herself for almost an entire season in order

to recover, but when she came back to soccer, she suffered constant

relapses. Still, she kept the illness secret from her teammates,

friends, even her family. Finally, in 1996, Akers went public. She

wrote an emotional letter to Congress describing a day in the life

of a typical sufferer.

AKERS: That was the first time I admitted publicly even to my folks

how bad I was actually feeling, and I read it to my dad over the

phone. I remember my dad was just stunned.

KAGAN: And so were some members of Congress who voted to give

millions of dollars to the CDC to solve the mystery of chronic

fatigue. But less than half actually went directly to CFS research.

That led to another mystery. What happened to the money?

(on camera): This year, federal investigators found out. The CDC

diverted between $9 and $13 million dollars, money that Congress had

specifically set aside to study CFS. Instead, it was spent on other

diseases, like polio and measles.

(voice-over): It was Dr. Reeves, the head of the government

CFS lab who helped bring the diversion to light. He says he did so

after a superior asked him to lie about how much money was going to

CFS research.

REEVES: I felt that the best thing to do was just to report this to

Congress, and that's when I formally blew the whistle.

KAGAN: But not before CDC officials gave inaccurate and misleading

information to Congress about how the money was spent. But why was

the money taken from CFS in the first place?

REEVES: It was taken from chronic fatigue syndrome because it was not

perceived by the people doing it as important as the other ones, not

perceived as an infectious disease.

KAGAN: The CDC's current director, Dr. Koplan, says all the

missing money will be restored over the next four years, and while

nobody was fired, the division overseeing CFS has been put on

probationary status.

DR. JEFFREY KOPLAN, CDC DIRECTOR: CDC, in regard to chronic fatigue

syndrome, misspent funds allocated to us for chronic fatigue

syndrome, and for that, we sincerely apologize to all parties

involved and in particular the people and

their families that suffer from chronic fatigue syndrome.

REEVES: We were set back. There is no question about that. We were

set back substantially. Programs suffered because of this. This has

probably set us back three to five years.

JERRY KENNEDY: I'm not surprised that the money went someplace else.

Somebody had the power to move it some other place, some pet project

they had, and they did it.

KAGAN: Perhaps the government's premier laboratory didn't make CFS a

priority, but other researchers have. Dr. Dedra Buchwald, a Harvard-

trained physician, arrived in Incline Village after the CDC left,

and she's been studying CFS ever since. She believes she's on the

verge of a breakthrough. She's designed a unique study using

identical twins. She compares sick twins to their healthy

counterparts, trying to detect differences caused by CFS.

DR. DEDRA BUCHWALD, CFS RESEARCHER: So they'll put the electrodes on

your head, and then what they do is -- they'll monitor your brain

waves.

KAGAN: (ph) and Martha (ph) are the 21st pair

of twins to take part in Buchwald's study. Martha was an Arkansas

state trooper for 20 years, until a series of worsening symptoms

forced her into early retirement.

MARTHA WILLIAMS, FORMER ARKANSAS STATE TROOPER: I always had a

reason for why I was hurting. It was either the leather gear or the

bulletproof vest. The boots. Getting in and out of the car. The

headaches was from my hat. Or my eyes hurt because the sun...

KAGAN: is a construction worker in Missouri. She's still on the

job.

MARY NELSON, CONSTRUCTION WORKER: Oh, yes. Yes. Anything they've got

that comes in by delivery, if I'm -- I happen to be at the

warehouse, I'm unloading it. KAGAN: Researchers aren't supposed to

know which twin is sick, but it's pretty obvious. Martha's symptoms -

fatigue, muscle pain, difficulty thinking and sleeping -- are

familiar indicators of CFS.

WILLIAMS: Your legs hurt. It feels like you're walking on needles.

In the night while you're trying to sleep, you wake up, and it's

hard to describe to someone, but it's like your arms and your legs

are asleep, or they're numb but they hurt.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CFS RESEARCHER: Here we go. Just stare at that thing, and if you

have to blink, blink all at once, get it over with.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAGAN: For an entire week, the twins were put through a battery of

tests, tests to measure exercise tolerance, memory and thought

processing, sleep disturbances, and blood hormone levels.

BUCHWALD: What we thought was that there would very substantial

differences between the healthy twin and the sick twin.

KAGAN: But there wasn't. Both twins performed low on many of the

tests. Buchwald believes it's because both twins have a genetic

predisposition to CFS.

BUCHWALD: Right now, our thinking is just that there is a group of

people that are vulnerable or that are likely to be vulnerable to

get CFS.

KAGAN: Buchwald's study presents a new option, that hereditary plays

a major role in chronic fatigue.

BUCHWALD: Most people who have that predisposition will never get

chronic fatigue syndrome, but for an unfortunate few, they will be

exposed to some series of triggers or trigger, which could be

anything from an infectious illness to an episode of depression or a

motor- vehicle accident, that will trigger this chronic fatigue

syndrome.

KAGAN: Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control is still trying to

catch up.

KOPLAN: We're looking at what we have now, what resources we have in

terms of people and laboratory techniques, what studies need to be

done, who else we need to involve from outside in giving us more

information. So we're trying to set a forward course in saying how

can we make a difference with this disease.

KAGAN: They're starting with a new national head count. As recently

as two years ago, the CDC believed only 10,000 Americans had the

illness. Now the CDC says, based on a study in Wichita, Kansas, that

number is actually 40 times higher. Today, the CDC estimates 400,000

Americans over age 18 have active CFS.

REEVES: This is a major public health problem, and as I said, in

Wichita at least, this is about a quarter the number of people that

have -- women that have breast cancer, and it's about four times

more than the number of women that have cervical cancer.

KAGAN: But 15 years after the outbreak of CFS in Incline Village,

Nevada, the man who first identified the illness expected to be

further along.

PETERSON: I mean, the CDC is still counting heads, still saying this

disease exists, and here are the numbers. Well, we -- I never

expected to be here still quandering (ph) this problem 15 years

later. I really didn't.

KAGAN: Recently, did his own follow-up of 180 of his

original patients.

PETERSON: About 30 percent of them are still severely disabled. The

remainder have had substantial or at least partial improvements.

KAGAN: And how many are completely recovered?

PETERSON: None.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GREENFIELD: In April, the Social Security administration official

recognized

chronic fatigue syndrome as a medical impairment. That makes it much

easier

for CFS patients to receive disability payments.

--------

© 1999 Cable News Network

---------------------------------------------

Co-Cure is not a discussion list. Please do not reply to the

list.

Co-Cure Archives: http://listserv.nodak.edu/archives/co-cure.html

Co-Cure Website: http://www.co-cure.org

---------------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Carole & Simon wrote:

> Hi, here is a url for this story.

>

> http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-sci-fatigue21apr21,0,7025295.story

>

This is just another summary of the Pharmocogenics journal articles.

It's in every newspaper by now, probably. A friend sent me a URL to the

story in the San newspaper.

--

el (andreafrankel at sbcglobal dot net)

" wake now! Discover that YOU are the song that the morning brings... "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

HI Tom,

I'm inclined to wonder too. From what I understand from these articles

the general population in Kansas was 'rung up' and asked 'how they were'

and from that they extrapolated people who had ME. Seems a bit weird.

It specifically says that they didn't look at patients who were already

diagnosed and in clinics. So does that mean there were a whole load of

individuals with ME hanging around in Witchita or wherever, never having

been to a doc/diagnosed/or complained about feeling dreadful and just

waiting for the day the CDC would ring them up and ask how they were?

And all the preliminaries carried out by 'phone too? Is this usual

practise for good science? Btw the last question is not rhetorical -

can someone actually tell me if this is good practise?

Rosie

Sorry to be such a killjoy, but the LA Times article has another red

flag for me.

Only 16% of the people with CFS had been diagnosed.

I know that I was so sick when I first came down with ME/CFIDS that I

could not have gone on with my life until someone contacted me at

random and informed me that I had CFS.

It did take several months for me to get the diagnosis of ME/CFIDS

(in 1991) but I went to a number of doctors during that period and

could not believe my ears when they told me they couldn't find

anything wrong with me after I explained to them how sick I was. I

looked sick too. I was waking up constantly through the night and

dragging my half dead body around during the day.

I have my doubts that the CFS patients in this study have the same

illness that I have.

Tom

This list is intended for patients to share personal experiences with

each other, not to give medical advice. If you are interested in any

treatment discussed here, please consult your doctor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I think this is really valid concern - its something that really worries me.

Like Tom and I'm sure most of the people on this list, as soon as I got sick I

immediately went to a doctor. OF course some we know went to the wrong doctior

or doctors, money ran out - whatever and that was their problem. THis may not

have been the wealthiest population either - not the yuppies. The big question I

have is how many never saw a doctor? In this day and age and particularly in

the US you would have thought a much more sizeable number would have been

diagnosed with CFS.

To really scare you - reported that Nisenbaum's similar type of

community study found that about 70% of the patients recruited this way no

longer met the CDC criteria for CFS after three years. THat doesnt sound like

the CFS we know. Also most (77%) had a gradual onset,. In a study he did

also found mnore gradual onset; and 65% had seen a physician and only 9% had

been diagnosed.

It sounds like a differnet set; , however, suggested that that the

ethnic minorities in his sample might be more functionally impaired than the

white Caucasians normally diagnosed with CFS. I think the WIchita survey is

mostly white (?). THeres obviously different readings of this.

It may be that the CDC is picking up milder cases of CFS?

It is a big question - a huge question mark hanging over these studies - I

think anyway. It would be great to have 's take on them.

Rosie <rosiecox@...> wrote:

HI Tom,

I'm inclined to wonder too. From what I understand from these articles

the general population in Kansas was 'rung up' and asked 'how they were'

and from that they extrapolated people who had ME. Seems a bit weird.

It specifically says that they didn't look at patients who were already

diagnosed and in clinics. So does that mean there were a whole load of

individuals with ME hanging around in Witchita or wherever, never having

been to a doc/diagnosed/or complained about feeling dreadful and just

waiting for the day the CDC would ring them up and ask how they were?

And all the preliminaries carried out by 'phone too? Is this usual

practise for good science? Btw the last question is not rhetorical -

can someone actually tell me if this is good practise?

Rosie

Sorry to be such a killjoy, but the LA Times article has another red

flag for me.

Only 16% of the people with CFS had been diagnosed.

I know that I was so sick when I first came down with ME/CFIDS that I

could not have gone on with my life until someone contacted me at

random and informed me that I had CFS.

It did take several months for me to get the diagnosis of ME/CFIDS

(in 1991) but I went to a number of doctors during that period and

could not believe my ears when they told me they couldn't find

anything wrong with me after I explained to them how sick I was. I

looked sick too. I was waking up constantly through the night and

dragging my half dead body around during the day.

I have my doubts that the CFS patients in this study have the same

illness that I have.

Tom

This list is intended for patients to share personal experiences with

each other, not to give medical advice. If you are interested in any

treatment discussed here, please consult your doctor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

The CDC cannot assert " this is the first credible evidence... "

without the implication that all prior evidence is totally lacking

in credibility.

Does anyone here believe that ALL the research and documented

immunological abnormalities that has been done before completely

failed to establish any biological basis for Chronic Fatigue

Syndrome?

-

------

http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/transcripts/t060420.htm

Press Briefing on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Date Thursday, April 20, 2006

MR. SKINNER: Thank you for joining us today for this conference call

where we're going to be updating you all on some important research

that we're publishing in a journal on chronic fatigue syndrome.

With us today is the director of the CDC, Dr. Gerberding, and

two of our principle chronic fatigue syndrome researchers here at

CDC, Dr. Reeves and Dr. Suzanne Vernon.

To start the call, I'd like for the director of the CDC, Dr.

Gerberding, to talk a little bit about CDC's work around genomics,

why it's important, and what we're doing here at CDC with genomics.

You'll find later, in talking with Dr. Reeves and Dr. Vernon, that

genomics played a pretty important role in this particular study

that they're going to be talking about, and this is just one of a

number of examples of important research going on at CDC around

genomics and the role that it has in health.

And so Dr. Gerberding is going to spend a few moments, right now,

just speaking about the big picture here, when it comes to CDC's

work and genomics, and how important it is.

So Dr. Gerberding, I'll turn it over to you.

DR. GERBERDING: Thank you. Can you hear me okay? Tom?

MR. SKINNER: Yes.

DR. GERBERDING: Thank you. I'm delighted to have a chance to

introduce to

you Dr. Reeves and Dr. Vernon, who will be presenting the details of

their

work that's just been published.

But I wanted to frame this in three ways. First of all, this is very

exciting research in the field of chronic fatigue syndrome. It

really is the

first credible evidence of a biological basis for chronic fatigue

syndrome, that's come out in 14 articles, simultaneously, in the

journal Pharmacogenomics. And I think it really reflects a

remarkable confluence of a number of scientific advances really

coming to bear on a problem of greatimportance to many people around

the United States and one that's had

controversies in the past.

[continues...]

-----

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

On Apr 21, 2006, at 12:43 PM, 2276@... wrote:

> I'm in LA so not sure if this newspaper goes out anywhere else; but

> there

> was a great article in it (front page!!) in which it discussed how

> bebilitating the illness is; how there are 4 sub-groups who have

> it; how it can be worse

> than those with AIDS or on chemo, the researchers also identified

> many genes

> which would likely lead to MUCH better treatments in the future.

> Its in the

> April 21st issue (friday). It should be online at some point but

> if not I

> could scan it if no one can find it anywhere else. It is a must

> read and

> something one would really want to share with their family and

> friends,

> especially the skeptics.

Anyone with an LA Times online subscription who can go grab a copy of

this article and e-mail it to the list?

My mom reads the LAT. I'd love to see what's she learned today....<g>

Sara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hello,

Here are the comments of an ME advocate on quotes from the article:

Re: LA Times article

I could fertilize my gardens for a decade with this line, if the source was

organic, but unfortunately, it is filled with toxic waste:

>> " This is the first credible evidence for a biological basis " for the syndrome,

said

CDC Director Dr. L. Gerberding.<<

And then there's this one too, that always makes me want slap them right in

the face with a petri dish full of 37 kd Rnase-L wrapped around a live colony

of HHV-6, and plaster it on with a hypoperfused SPECT film!:

>>The findings will provide immediate help in diagnosing the disorder, which

often

puzzles physicians because of the broad spectrum of symptoms and the absence of

defining biochemical markers.< <

ANd though he got at least part of it right, he was just told that Casey Fero

died of CFS, and he knows damn well M.E. experts in UK know patients die

of sudden heart stoppage:

>> " They are as impaired as people with multiple sclerosis or AIDS or who are

undergoing chemotherapy for cancer, " Reeves said. " They don't die, but they are

severely debilitated. " <<

Du Pre

Website: http://www.angelfire.com/poetry/soareagle/index.html

" By words the mind is winged. " Aristophanes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I was very much bothered by that statement also. Bad publicity if you

ask me.But what as patients can we do about it.

Gail

erikmoldwarrior wrote:

> The CDC cannot assert " this is the first credible evidence... "

> without the implication that all prior evidence is totally lacking

> in credibility.

>

> Does anyone here believe that ALL the research and documented

> immunological abnormalities that has been done before completely

> failed to establish any biological basis for Chronic Fatigue

> Syndrome?

> -

>

>

>

> ------

> http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/transcripts/t060420.htm

>

> Press Briefing on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

> Date Thursday, April 20, 2006

>

> MR. SKINNER: Thank you for joining us today for this conference call

> where we're going to be updating you all on some important research

> that we're publishing in a journal on chronic fatigue syndrome.

>

> With us today is the director of the CDC, Dr. Gerberding, and

> two of our principle chronic fatigue syndrome researchers here at

> CDC, Dr. Reeves and Dr. Suzanne Vernon.

>

> To start the call, I'd like for the director of the CDC, Dr.

> Gerberding, to talk a little bit about CDC's work around genomics,

> why it's important, and what we're doing here at CDC with genomics.

>

> You'll find later, in talking with Dr. Reeves and Dr. Vernon, that

> genomics played a pretty important role in this particular study

> that they're going to be talking about, and this is just one of a

> number of examples of important research going on at CDC around

> genomics and the role that it has in health.

>

> And so Dr. Gerberding is going to spend a few moments, right now,

> just speaking about the big picture here, when it comes to CDC's

> work and genomics, and how important it is.

>

> So Dr. Gerberding, I'll turn it over to you.

>

> DR. GERBERDING: Thank you. Can you hear me okay? Tom?

>

> MR. SKINNER: Yes.

>

> DR. GERBERDING: Thank you. I'm delighted to have a chance to

> introduce to

> you Dr. Reeves and Dr. Vernon, who will be presenting the details of

> their

> work that's just been published.

>

> But I wanted to frame this in three ways. First of all, this is very

> exciting research in the field of chronic fatigue syndrome. It

> really is the

> first credible evidence of a biological basis for chronic fatigue

> syndrome, that's come out in 14 articles, simultaneously, in the

> journal Pharmacogenomics. And I think it really reflects a

> remarkable confluence of a number of scientific advances really

> coming to bear on a problem of greatimportance to many people around

> the United States and one that's had

> controversies in the past.

>

> [continues...]

>

> -----

>

>

>

>

>

> This list is intended for patients to share personal experiences with each

other, not to give medical advice. If you are interested in any treatment

discussed here, please consult your doctor.

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I was very much bothered by that statement also. Bad publicity if you

ask me.But what as patients can we do about it.

Gail

erikmoldwarrior wrote:

> The CDC cannot assert " this is the first credible evidence... "

> without the implication that all prior evidence is totally lacking

> in credibility.

>

> Does anyone here believe that ALL the research and documented

> immunological abnormalities that has been done before completely

> failed to establish any biological basis for Chronic Fatigue

> Syndrome?

> -

>

>

>

> ------

> http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/transcripts/t060420.htm

>

> Press Briefing on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

> Date Thursday, April 20, 2006

>

> MR. SKINNER: Thank you for joining us today for this conference call

> where we're going to be updating you all on some important research

> that we're publishing in a journal on chronic fatigue syndrome.

>

> With us today is the director of the CDC, Dr. Gerberding, and

> two of our principle chronic fatigue syndrome researchers here at

> CDC, Dr. Reeves and Dr. Suzanne Vernon.

>

> To start the call, I'd like for the director of the CDC, Dr.

> Gerberding, to talk a little bit about CDC's work around genomics,

> why it's important, and what we're doing here at CDC with genomics.

>

> You'll find later, in talking with Dr. Reeves and Dr. Vernon, that

> genomics played a pretty important role in this particular study

> that they're going to be talking about, and this is just one of a

> number of examples of important research going on at CDC around

> genomics and the role that it has in health.

>

> And so Dr. Gerberding is going to spend a few moments, right now,

> just speaking about the big picture here, when it comes to CDC's

> work and genomics, and how important it is.

>

> So Dr. Gerberding, I'll turn it over to you.

>

> DR. GERBERDING: Thank you. Can you hear me okay? Tom?

>

> MR. SKINNER: Yes.

>

> DR. GERBERDING: Thank you. I'm delighted to have a chance to

> introduce to

> you Dr. Reeves and Dr. Vernon, who will be presenting the details of

> their

> work that's just been published.

>

> But I wanted to frame this in three ways. First of all, this is very

> exciting research in the field of chronic fatigue syndrome. It

> really is the

> first credible evidence of a biological basis for chronic fatigue

> syndrome, that's come out in 14 articles, simultaneously, in the

> journal Pharmacogenomics. And I think it really reflects a

> remarkable confluence of a number of scientific advances really

> coming to bear on a problem of greatimportance to many people around

> the United States and one that's had

> controversies in the past.

>

> [continues...]

>

> -----

>

>

>

>

>

> This list is intended for patients to share personal experiences with each

other, not to give medical advice. If you are interested in any treatment

discussed here, please consult your doctor.

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Interesting that Reeves actually thinks what we're talking about as a

likely weakness of the research is a comparative strength. Below is

what he said about this research compared to the UK gene research.

Hmmm, I think I'll take the biases that come from research performed

on patients who are profoundly ill and already in treatment, than the

biases from researching patients who likely who don't even have true

CFIDS:

" There is one major difference between this study and any other study

that we are aware of.

For example, the U.K. study involved patients identified because they

were attending a tertiary care clinic.

They were attending a specialty clinic for chronic fatigue syndrome.

Our study identified people with the illness, who we found in a survey

of a quarter of the population of Wichita, Kansas.

So we surveyed the population of an entire city. Fewer than 16 percent

that had been diagnosed ever or treated for CFS. So the study is

unique in that it is free of the biases that inevitably occur when

only people who have already attended tertiary care clinics are involved. "

http://listserv.nodak.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0604d & L=co-cure & T=0 & P=317

>

>

>

> HI Tom,

>

> I'm inclined to wonder too. From what I understand from these articles

> the general population in Kansas was 'rung up' and asked 'how they were'

> and from that they extrapolated people who had ME. Seems a bit weird.

> It specifically says that they didn't look at patients who were already

> diagnosed and in clinics. So does that mean there were a whole load of

> individuals with ME hanging around in Witchita or wherever, never having

> been to a doc/diagnosed/or complained about feeling dreadful and just

> waiting for the day the CDC would ring them up and ask how they were?

> And all the preliminaries carried out by 'phone too? Is this usual

> practise for good science? Btw the last question is not rhetorical -

> can someone actually tell me if this is good practise?

> Rosie

>

>

>

> Sorry to be such a killjoy, but the LA Times article has another red

> flag for me.

>

> Only 16% of the people with CFS had been diagnosed.

>

> I know that I was so sick when I first came down with ME/CFIDS that I

> could not have gone on with my life until someone contacted me at

> random and informed me that I had CFS.

>

> It did take several months for me to get the diagnosis of ME/CFIDS

> (in 1991) but I went to a number of doctors during that period and

> could not believe my ears when they told me they couldn't find

> anything wrong with me after I explained to them how sick I was. I

> looked sick too. I was waking up constantly through the night and

> dragging my half dead body around during the day.

>

> I have my doubts that the CFS patients in this study have the same

> illness that I have.

>

> Tom

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> This list is intended for patients to share personal experiences with

> each other, not to give medical advice. If you are interested in any

> treatment discussed here, please consult your doctor.

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

cort johnson wrote:

> OF course some we know went to the wrong doctior or doctors, money

ran out - whatever and that was their problem. THis may not have been

the wealthiest population either - not the yuppies.<

If you go through the list of Incline Village survivors professions,

you might notice a peculiar thing:

There were no Yuppies!

-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

http://www.cfsresearch.org/cfs/conferences/16.htm

This is part of my report on the 2004 AACFS conference. It is Dr.

Reeves' statements summarizing the Wichita epidemiology study. I hope

this will clear up some misconceptions about the study. It was an

amazing study that made many things about cfs clearer. Please read

this carefully. Do not reproduce this without my permission. - a

Carnes

" C. Reeves, MD from the CDC began his presentation of their

new epidemiology studies by stating clearly that the " fatigue " in

chronic FATIGUE syndrome is not just " tired. " It is a fatigue not

relieved by rest and includes hurting all over. He then moved on to

some startling new information. The CDC study found 235 cases of CFS

per 100,000 in their Wichita study. Women are more likely than men to

have it, but CFS is more common than breast cancer among women. These

details are familiar, but here is a list of surprises.

Rural rates of CFS are twice those of urban areas

Minorities have the highest risk

Lower socioeconomic groups have a much greater risk

Eighty percent have a GRADUAL onset

No regional differences in the disease are manifest

Median duration of the illness is 2-7 years

Only 16% of the cases uncovered in the survey are diagnosed

Unemployed or cases on disablity total 25%

Level of disability equals that of patients with major health

problems such as COPD

The cost in lost productivity ($9 billion) is equal to WalMart's

annual profit margin, or the cost of the hurricane in Miami in 2004.

The cost to a family with CFS for one year is $20,000. This includes

the cost of treatment. In the UK it is costing the government $4

billion to treat CFS patients.

The CDC is working to develop a network system to create more

clinical studies of CFS. The next epidemiological study will be in

the Atlanta, Georgia area, and will include both urban and rural

counties. The location in the CDC area will enable them to do the

complex studies efficiently. "

>

> Interesting that Reeves actually thinks what we're talking about as

a

> likely weakness of the research is a comparative strength. Below is

> what he said about this research compared to the UK gene research.

> Hmmm, I think I'll take the biases that come from research performed

> on patients who are profoundly ill and already in treatment, than

the

> biases from researching patients who likely who don't even have true

> CFIDS:

>

>

> " There is one major difference between this study and any other

study

> that we are aware of.

>

> For example, the U.K. study involved patients identified because

they

> were attending a tertiary care clinic.

>

> They were attending a specialty clinic for chronic fatigue syndrome.

> Our study identified people with the illness, who we found in a

survey

> of a quarter of the population of Wichita, Kansas.

>

> So we surveyed the population of an entire city. Fewer than 16

percent

> that had been diagnosed ever or treated for CFS. So the study is

> unique in that it is free of the biases that inevitably occur when

> only people who have already attended tertiary care clinics are

involved. "

>

> http://listserv.nodak.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0604d & L=co-

cure & T=0 & P=317

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

> This is part of my report on the 2004 AACFS conference. It is Dr.

> Reeves' statements summarizing the Wichita epidemiology study. I hope

> this will clear up some misconceptions about the study. It was an

> amazing study that made many things about cfs clearer.

>Eighty percent have a GRADUAL onset

>Median duration of the illness is 2-7 years

>Only 16% of the cases uncovered in the survey are diagnosed

>Unemployed or cases on disablity total 25%

Hi a.

The excerpts from your report above are among the things that trouble

me about this study. I think that the CFS that this report adresses is

a different illness from ME/CFIDS or an intentional attempt to blur the

distinction between chronic fatigue and ME/CFIDS. We know that the

Wessely camp has been blatantly doing this in the UK and we know that

they have trying to export their dishonesty to the US for years.

I don't doubt that the findings reported in this study are correct, but

the population that they captured has a different illness from those of

us who did not have to be " uncovered " by a study. We knew we were

extremely sick and were searching desperately for help. That 84% did

not know they had CFS is a dead giveaway that something is not right

here.

As for the median duration being 2-7 years, I didn't start to feel any

better for at least 5 years and I felt really bad. A few years ago Dr.

Cheney checked up on as many of his original Incline Village patients

as he could find and found that none of them were substatially

recovered (not sure of his exact description).

We can call it all CFS and divide the people into different subgroups,

I'm not that concerned about what they call it as long as they

understand the real nature of the illness they are dealing with. What

I have read so far gives me no confidence that that is the case here.

Watching how the CDC has dealt with this illness for the last 20+ years

does not make me inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt either.

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

" Median duration " of two to seven years did NOT mean these folks were

recovered. It meant at the time they got the phone call they had been

sick 2-7 years. I'm telling you this report is about the ONLY good

thing to come out of the CDC. Don't knock it. Did you notice that

most of us sickies are " minorities " not yuppie white women? Did you

notice that our disability is about as bad as disability gets? Did

you notice all the comparisions to financial loss to the country

because of disability with cfs? We need to be writing thank you notes

to Dr. Reeves for this one - not criticizing.

Let me explain again, if they had used a survey of those of us who

have been all over the country frantically trying to get well, guess

who would have been the " majority? " Yep, yuppie white women with rich

husbands.

Now don't ask me about what they are doing with their studies of this

population now...

a Carnes

>

> > This is part of my report on the 2004 AACFS conference. It is

Dr.

> > Reeves' statements summarizing the Wichita epidemiology study. I

hope

> > this will clear up some misconceptions about the study. It was an

> > amazing study that made many things about cfs clearer.

>

> >Eighty percent have a GRADUAL onset

>

> >Median duration of the illness is 2-7 years

>

> >Only 16% of the cases uncovered in the survey are diagnosed

>

> >Unemployed or cases on disablity total 25%

>

> Hi a.

>

> The excerpts from your report above are among the things that

trouble

> me about this study. I think that the CFS that this report

adresses is

> a different illness from ME/CFIDS or an intentional attempt to blur

the

> distinction between chronic fatigue and ME/CFIDS. We know that the

> Wessely camp has been blatantly doing this in the UK and we know

that

> they have trying to export their dishonesty to the US for years.

>

> I don't doubt that the findings reported in this study are correct,

but

> the population that they captured has a different illness from

those of

> us who did not have to be " uncovered " by a study. We knew we were

> extremely sick and were searching desperately for help. That 84%

did

> not know they had CFS is a dead giveaway that something is not

right

> here.

>

> As for the median duration being 2-7 years, I didn't start to feel

any

> better for at least 5 years and I felt really bad. A few years ago

Dr.

> Cheney checked up on as many of his original Incline Village

patients

> as he could find and found that none of them were substatially

> recovered (not sure of his exact description).

>

> We can call it all CFS and divide the people into different

subgroups,

> I'm not that concerned about what they call it as long as they

> understand the real nature of the illness they are dealing with.

What

> I have read so far gives me no confidence that that is the case

here.

> Watching how the CDC has dealt with this illness for the last 20+

years

> does not make me inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt

either.

>

> Tom

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi, a.

I'm with you on this! And I also think we should keep our focus on

the fact that two of the papers dealt with polymorphisms.

In my opinion, this is the real future of CFS research. It will point

us to the root causes and offer the potential for real CURES. (By

cures, I mean compensating for the polymorphisms effectively using

supplements, so that the vicious circles are broken and the symptoms

go away. I don't mean correcting the polymorphisms, though I think

stem cells, even perhaps endogenous or umbilical stem cells, might

have the potential to do even this.) And I think that polymorphism

studies will also define the subsets in the CFS population.

I only hope that they continue with this part of it, and go on to look

at the polymorphisms in enzymes and other proteins associated with the

sulfur metabolism and the associated folate metabolism and the

biopterin cycle, the detox system, the antioxidant system, and the

immune system. These are the other systems involved in the front end

of the pathogenesis of CFS.

As I've been writing for some time, in order for polymorphisms to be

relevant to determining whether a person is more likely than the

general population to develop CFS, they must be located in the enzymes

involved in the early part of the pathogenesis. Otherwise they will

not be accessed during the Go-no go stage of the action. The CDC

collaborators focused on the polymorphisms in the stress response and

neurotransmitter systems. That was great, because the stress response

systems are the earliest systems accessed in the pathogenesis of many

of the cases, in my opinion. This happens well before the immune

system involvement in many cases, which is the first clue that the

sudden onset people have that they are becoming ill. By that point, I

believe that the die has already been cast in many cases, because I

believe that glutathione is already depleted at that point, and the

person is therefore already " set up " for viral reactivation and cell-

mediated immune dysfunction. By that time, it's a foregone conclusion

that the person will develop CFS.

I wasn't thrilled with everything Bill Reeves and Gerberding

said in the news conference, but this really is the best stuff that

the CDC has done so far on CFS, and at least the polymorphism work is

going in the right direction, in my opinion.

And did you notice that Gerberding said that they think they can

use the same approach for autism? Wow! I think they are going to be

following Amy Yasko's tracks, and this can't help but benefit CFS

research, too, because we're talking about the same polymorphisms! It

is also going to cause a crash collision with the part of the CDC that

is denying any involvement of thimerosol (ethylmercury containing

preservative in the vaccines) in the pathogenesis of autism. This

will be very interesting to watch!

I do intend to write them again, and to say some good things to them,

as well as to urge them again to look at these other polymorphisms.

And a, I know how strongly you feel about the need to look into

infectious causes. I agree with that, too. I also think that

studying the immune system polymorphisms will help a great deal in

figuring out why some people seem to be more vulnerable to infections

than others.

Rich

I'm telling you this report is about the ONLY good

> thing to come out of the CDC. Don't knock it.

We need to be writing thank you notes

> to Dr. Reeves for this one - not criticizing.

> a Carnes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I guess I am simply not as optimistic as you are about this work. I'm

more interested in this kind of work:

1: J Biol Chem. 2006 Apr 18; [Epub ahead of print] Related Articles,

Links

Click here to read

Hepatitis B virus capsid-like particles can display the complete,

dimeric outer surface protein C (OspC) and stimulate production of

protective antibody responses against Borrelia burgdorferi infection.

Skamel C, Ploss M, Bottcher B, Stehle T, Wallich R, Simon MM,

Nassal M.

Internal Medicine II / Molecular Biology, University Hospital

Freiburg, University Hospital, Freiburg D-79106.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) capsid-like particles (CLPs), icosahedral

assemblies formed by 90 or 120 core protein dimers, hold promise as

immune-enhancing vaccine carrier for heterologous antigens. Insertions

into the immunodominant c/e1 B cell epitope, a surface-exposed loop,

are especially immunogenic. However, display of whole proteins,

desirable to induce multispecific, and possibly neutralizing antibody

responses, can be restrained by an unsuitable structure of the foreign

protein and by its propensity to undergo homomeric interactions. Here

we analyzed CLP formation by core fusions with two distinct variants of

the dimeric outer surface lipoprotein C (OspC) of the Lyme disease

agent Borrelia burgdorferi. Although the topology of the termini in the

OspC dimer does not match that of the insertion sites in the carrier

dimer, both fusions, coreOspCa and coreOspCb, efficiently formed stable

CLPs. Electron cryo microscopy clearly revealed the surface disposition

of the OspC domains, possibly with OspC dimerization occurring across

different core protein dimers. In mice, both CLP preparations induced

high-titered antibody responses against the homologous OspC variant,

however with cross-reactivity against the other. Importantly, both

conferred protection to mice challenged with B. burgdorferi. These data

show the principal applicability of HBV CLPs for the display of dimeric

proteins, demonstrate the presence in OspC of hitherto uncharacterized

epitopes, and suggest that OspC, despite its genetic variability, may

be a valid vaccine candidate.

---

Or Kathleen's posting on sci-med recently noting that:

" Exposure to Lyme results in immune incompetence to fungal

infections.

You end up tired because your red blood cells no longer deliver

oxygen as well as they did. " And then citing her pubmed search on

lipoproteins and TLR-2's (toll-like receptor 2)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=PureSearch & db=pubmed & details_t\

erm=%28%28%22lipoproteins%22%5BTIAB%5D%20NOT%20Medline%5BSB%5D%29%20OR%20%22lipo\

proteins%22%5BMeSH%20Terms%5D%20OR%20lipoprotein%5BText%20Word%5D%29%20AND%20TLR\

-2%5BAll%20Fields%5D

She is really really smart, aside from any other issues she may have,

and has keyed into a lot of stuff that nobody else is saying or

understanding.

I'd rather they look at the inflammatory lipoproteins that certain

organisms share, and neutralize those, than look at polymorphisms.

Although I do think certain polymorphisms will show cross

vulnerability to sets of organisms, both autism and CFS are

wastebasket diagnoses that involve multiple issues. Some autistic kids

must eat a very strict specific carb diet w/o any casein glutein and

other stuff. Others don't benefit that much from diet and chelation is

the main thing. There are multiple causes.

This is imo where the funding is but it doesn't take into account

infection at all. It just calls it " stress " . I don't think folks like

Nobel Prize winner Lederberg, or Ewald or others, would

agree that polymorphisms is the way to go. You need to see first why

and how the body is being hijacked by little genius microbes that have

been perfecting their technique for a much longer evolutionary time

than we have.

>

> I'm telling you this report is about the ONLY good

> > thing to come out of the CDC. Don't knock it.

>

> We need to be writing thank you notes

> > to Dr. Reeves for this one - not criticizing.

>

> > a Carnes

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi, .

In defense of Bill Reeves, one of the main missions of the CDC is

epidemiology. They are charged with determining how many people

actually have a disease, and how it's distributed among various

population groups. If you want to do good epidemiology, you have to

survey the entire population in a random way, not just rely on

counting people who show up at clinics, especially tertiary clinics.

The agency of the U.S. government that is charged with developing a

thorough understanding of the disease is the NIH. At this point, I

would say that the CDC is carrying out its responsibilities vis a

vis CFS more expeditiously than is the NIH.

Rich

>

> Interesting that Reeves actually thinks what we're talking about

as a

> likely weakness of the research is a comparative strength. Below is

> what he said about this research compared to the UK gene research.

> Hmmm, I think I'll take the biases that come from research

performed

> on patients who are profoundly ill and already in treatment, than

the

> biases from researching patients who likely who don't even have

true

> CFIDS:

>

>

> " There is one major difference between this study and any other

study

> that we are aware of.

>

> For example, the U.K. study involved patients identified because

they

> were attending a tertiary care clinic.

>

> They were attending a specialty clinic for chronic fatigue

syndrome.

> Our study identified people with the illness, who we found in a

survey

> of a quarter of the population of Wichita, Kansas.

>

> So we surveyed the population of an entire city. Fewer than 16

percent

> that had been diagnosed ever or treated for CFS. So the study is

> unique in that it is free of the biases that inevitably occur when

> only people who have already attended tertiary care clinics are

involved. "

>

> http://listserv.nodak.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0604d & L=co-

cure & T=0 & P=317

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi a.

Sorry about the misunderstanding about median duration, I admit that

I'm not too hard to confuse.

I don't know of course, but I'd guess that most of the people on this

list are not yuppie white women with rich husbands. I can say with

certainty that I am not;)

I think that people who were about as disabled as disabled gets would

have seen at least a few doctors before they threw in the towel and

went home to live off of God knows who, waiting for a miracle to

restore their health. Someone might even have told them about an

article they had read or a report they had seen on the news about

chronic fatigue syndrome during those 2-7 years.

There's too much about this study that just doesn't add up. Why

brush aside all other studies and thought on CFIDS as meaningless?

Are Doctors Cheney, Shoemaker, Komaroff, Enlander, Klimas, Gow, De

Meirleir, Lapp, Bell and all the many others who have worked so hard

to unlock clues about the illness just bad scientists who wasted

their time and our money?

You may be right. Maybe we'll all soon be thanking God for Dr.

Reeves. I'm remaining skeptical at the moment though.

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Ha, ha. You had me giggling. I doubt I will be quite at the point of

thanking God for Reeves any time soon.

I have very mixed feelings about the CDC. I hope Rich V. is correct

that their ongoing study will be useful. Trouble is I see this as a

long way off whereas testing this population for Lyme is not that

hard to do. So that is where I would part ways with Reeves. I find it

odd that the study shows twice as many rural folks are sick, yet no

one starts checking on borrelia or exposure to toxins. BTW if you go

to my complete article which I did not post here you will find that

Demitrak said rickettsia is found in cfs patients. Duh! Welcome to

the world of ticks. They are the little critters that carry

rickettsia in the US. Sp when is the CDC gonna test all those country

folk for rickettsia?

Would these people have gone to the doctor? I don't know. If you live

on a farm or are on welfare you can sort of get along - you don't

think about how you lost your big career if you just lost your job at

Mc's. The disease is tricky and with 80% slow onset you might

not figure anything out. You might start getting treated for RA or

fibro. Or maybe you just think you are depressed.

You were confused because I didn't write the median thing too clearly.

I don't think the epidemiology study contradicts DeMeirleir, Cheney

et al at all. Indeed, DeMeirleir was there at the AACFS conf and I

expect he thought the study was great. What we all don't like is

where they go next, or maybe that they are taking the long road to

get there.

We shall see...

a

>

> Hi a.

>

> Sorry about the misunderstanding about median duration, I admit

that

> I'm not too hard to confuse.

>

> I don't know of course, but I'd guess that most of the people on

this

> list are not yuppie white women with rich husbands. I can say with

> certainty that I am not;)

>

> I think that people who were about as disabled as disabled gets

would

> have seen at least a few doctors before they threw in the towel and

> went home to live off of God knows who, waiting for a miracle to

> restore their health. Someone might even have told them about an

> article they had read or a report they had seen on the news about

> chronic fatigue syndrome during those 2-7 years.

>

> There's too much about this study that just doesn't add up. Why

> brush aside all other studies and thought on CFIDS as meaningless?

> Are Doctors Cheney, Shoemaker, Komaroff, Enlander, Klimas, Gow, De

> Meirleir, Lapp, Bell and all the many others who have worked so

hard

> to unlock clues about the illness just bad scientists who wasted

> their time and our money?

>

> You may be right. Maybe we'll all soon be thanking God for Dr.

> Reeves. I'm remaining skeptical at the moment though.

>

> Tom

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

But there's already a fairly loaded use of language on his behalf at

the press conference; compare his comments with Vernon's.

I'm not interesting in attacking or defending Reeves, all I mean is

that I'm far more interested in the results that come from the

Kerr/Gow patients. If both of them manage to talk about their results

without mentioning CBT, I have more trust that they are talking about

the same disease I have. Not judging which is good science and which

isn't, just which interests me more.

> >

> > Interesting that Reeves actually thinks what we're talking about

> as a

> > likely weakness of the research is a comparative strength. Below is

> > what he said about this research compared to the UK gene research.

> > Hmmm, I think I'll take the biases that come from research

> performed

> > on patients who are profoundly ill and already in treatment, than

> the

> > biases from researching patients who likely who don't even have

> true

> > CFIDS:

> >

> >

> > " There is one major difference between this study and any other

> study

> > that we are aware of.

> >

> > For example, the U.K. study involved patients identified because

> they

> > were attending a tertiary care clinic.

> >

> > They were attending a specialty clinic for chronic fatigue

> syndrome.

> > Our study identified people with the illness, who we found in a

> survey

> > of a quarter of the population of Wichita, Kansas.

> >

> > So we surveyed the population of an entire city. Fewer than 16

> percent

> > that had been diagnosed ever or treated for CFS. So the study is

> > unique in that it is free of the biases that inevitably occur when

> > only people who have already attended tertiary care clinics are

> involved. "

> >

> > http://listserv.nodak.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0604d & L=co-

> cure & T=0 & P=317

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...