- nytimes.com/2011/01/04/health/04fatigue.html
- nytimes.com/2011/03/08/health/research/08fatigue.html?_r=1
- nytimes.com/2011/06/01/health/research/01fatigue.html?_r=1
- virology.ws/2011/11/23/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-and-the-cdc-a-long-tangled-tale/
List date(s) this work was published or aired.
January 3, 2011; March 8, 2011; June 1, 2011: NY Times November 23, 2011: Virology Blog I provided URLs for the first three, and a pdf and URL for the fourth
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
There is an abundant body of evidence–from Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, and other major research centers–that chronic fatigue syndrome is an organic disease, or cluster of diseases, characterized by severe immunological and neurological dysfunctions as well as the frequent presence of multiple viral infections. So this is a serious–and seriously underreported–public health issue. I have covered it for the New York Times for the past year or so, and also posted an investigation of the CDC’s program on chronic fatigue syndrome on Virology Blog. Researchers, patients, and advocacy organizations have long criticized the CDC’s chronic fatigue syndrome research program for multiple failings. Yet news organizations have given the agency a free ride on this issue–largely because the illness remains so poorly understood. My earlier beat coverage allowed me to write the longer epidemiologic investigation, which found that The agency has focused major resources on investigating purported psychiatric and trauma-reltated factors using flawed research methodologies while largely dismissing the idea that infectious agents are likely involved. As a result, progress on finding answers has been off-track for years.
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
Minutes of federal advisory committee meetings, dozens of epidemiologic studies.
Explain types of human sources used.
Interviews with many ill patients, clinicians, and researchers.
Results:
Not applicable
Follow-up (if any). Have you run a correction or clarification on the report or has anyone come forward to challenge its accuracy? If so, please explain.
No corrections or clarifications.
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Read the minutes of federal advisory committee meetings–they can be very enlightening. Understand epidemiology and the important of case definition when reporting on complex illnesses.