The CDC is looking awfully transparent during the last year imho. I mean, they are either so very much more incompetent than we knew of, and/or, they are brilliant (at least their lawyers/analysts are). There just seems to be no reason on this earth why they would contradict the work of the NCI, CC and now the NIH and FDA. It is astounding everyone who knows anything about their history. So, are they That dumb? Imho, no. I am thinking they (The CDC) want their paper and Alter's paper are as far away from each other as much as possible. Here's why.
By holding back the NIH/FDA XMRV CFS association paper this week that confirms the association of XMRV and CFS (Ok, it was said the HHS did it, but well, yeah) and publishing their own, they can slip in and state things in their paper Intentionaly, and how it differs from Alter's (Yeah, I know, but bear with me, and it will make sense). For example, their cohorts in Kansas and Georgia. Their CDC definition and so on. Kinda like when they said this:
“The study found no association between XMRV and CFS in this population of CFS patients and controls. However, these results do not necessarily extend to other populations or locations. For example, the authors note that their findings “may not be generalizable beyond our study populations because XMRV infection rates may vary in different regions or locales.” “
Nicely served CDC. 15/love.
Do you recall this year in February when Bill Reeves, whistleblower and head of the CFS department for the last 20 or so odd years, and a virologist by trade, was shuffled off as a senior advisor to the mental health section of the CDC? Are you curious why his name is on the CDC paper released yesterday?
It's not surprising to see his name on the paper if:
The CDC will start to distance themselves from XMRV/CFS associations, because those +ve XMRV can now be 'excluded' from a CFS diagnosis. This keeps their bread winning psychological treatments of CBT and GET intact, as well as their CFS policies and guildelines. Not to mention it keeps their lawyers happy. Wicked second serve. 30/love.
It gives them (the CDC) the 'CFS' brand, which can help them through those past sticky years of completely denying, and ridiculing a biological basis for CFS. Strong angled backhand. 40/love.
Imho, watch as the FDA/NIH paper is released and see how well the two will split the XMRV and CFS illness sets. Thereby putting those of us with a XMRV positive diagnosis into a brand New classification (ME or something all brand new. In fact, I'd be very surprised to see them use ME. It's too politically dangerous). This way the CDC can keep the 'CFS' brand, and their somatic hypothesis. Air bending Big forehand. Game/Set.
Watch how the CFS department moves into the mental health section of the CDC soon'ish. See how much can be accomplished when CDC applies their Stalling 101 stragety? I also would not be surprised if another CDC department then focuses on XMRV in the CDC's New and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases Division (I may not have the exact title here correct; not enough caffeine yet, and/or Ever :+)). CDC serves again for an Ace at 142 mph. Match.
Anyone have Kenneth Feinbergs phone number?
˙·٠•●♥ ƹ̵̡ӝ̵̨̄ʒ ♥●•٠·˙
NOTE: If the CDC does not find any XMRV in their cohort, it validates their policy that their cohort is just CFS, and it points to those with +ve XMRV as Not part of this cohort (Again proving their point, that if you have CFS, you cannot have any other illness). It's a perfectly devious and brilliant strategy (Unless I am, wrong, and they are just that dumb to try and de-bunk the NCI,CC,NIH and FDA) that validates what they have been (criminally) doing for the last 25+ years (So their friends with the health insurance industry didn't have to pay out disability benefits, and so their Emory freinds could keep getting the easy money). So, yes, as far as they are concerned, the issue is 'dead' for them. Translation for the CDC to the world: CFS and XMRV are mutually exclusive.
The next step for the CDC we might see given this analysis?
1) Of course their independent labs will not find any XMRV in their current cohort. Nor will Alter (If they are having him try and find it)
2) Of course they will not use the +ve samples from this WPI for This paper.
2) They 'might' find and verify that Alter's paper is correct based upon a completely different cohort. (Is Alter's paper being revised to ensure the cohort reported has nothing to do with the CDC's?)
3) Then, they 'might' get the HIV/HTLV team at the CDC to postively confirm Alter's findings, and/or conduct a Real replication study using other +ve samples, and find XMRV.
Am I giving the CDC too much credit? Or, are they dumb as to try and debunk the NCI,CC, the NIH and the FDA? IMHO, instead of trying to merge the papers into a cohesive agreed result, they are doing the opposite, making Sure the two papers are as far away from each other in results as possible. This way, the CDC's reputation, what is left of it, (and their criminal activites imho during the last 20+ years) is not at as Much risk.