Barry
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Trouble is they likely thought that the CDC advice was from a reputable source. For me as a pragmatist rather than a perfectionist (I have a combination of both!), I see the article as having a hugely more positive impact on the innocently uninformed than negative. Yes, I do agree that the 30 min advice is crap, and it would have been better if the author had contradicted what the CDC advise. But if there had been a choice to have the article published as it stands, or not at all, I would still have chosen to have it; the nett effect is heavily weighted towards beneficial I feel, given the target audience.Not sure I agree with that. It's not as if there is a shortage of ME sufferers or patient organisations to ask what they think. Maybe my expectations are too high, but if you're having an article published in the New York Times it would be nice to scratch beneath the surface and do a bit of research. The proof of the pudding is that the author has repeated / validated some horrendously harmful advice, so they must have done something wrong. Not being paid to think isn't much of an excuse, the information is out there and sufferers and their organisations have been screaming it for decades. All the author had to do was listen / ask a few questions / dig beneath the surface.
Do we know if the CDC have been advised how wrong this piece of advice is?