This should be reposted on Mainsite with any updates on the fight. 

Thanks for putting this too light.  The Canadian Health Agency often rely on finding of the CDC and NIH.  This is important that we all know where the financing comes from.  

Hike Madonna Mountain - SLO

Made up yesterday’s wod. 18:20. A row hasn’t hurt like that in a long time. 

.

:)

Made up yesterday's wod
results there.

I got my first strict pull ups today (I got 2) and also my first rope climbs (from the floor with leg assistance up to a 12 foot ceiling - I completed 2 climbs and found the hardest part was the descent). Woo hoo! Thanks for the great programming.

Rest days are times to think or to not think at all.....for me I’m reflecting on my well-being rebirth that started post cancer in late 2015 and to now aged 50 in 2019. 
The path to CrossFit has meandered  through many multi shaded places until I had unexpected moment of clarity at 3am on New Year’s Day. Flipping my work life balance to a life work view combined with eating clean and training smart has brought about a rapid change in my physical, mental, emotional and spiritual self. 
In a few months my bodyweight to fat ratio beyond where it was in my 30’s as a elite athlete in the sport of bobsleigh. CrossFit has truly changed the person looking back at me in the mirror and I now love life and look forward to every day, hour, minute and second.
Jonni OM 

Had some crunchy knee pain last 2 weeks and got it checked out.... torn meniscus right b4 the OPEN. FML.

Really needed. 
Yesterday I did the “ACID BATH” WOD ! 

Jesus Christ ...
Today I can’t feel my legs 🤮

An update on this:
The CDC Foundation recently published its 2018 report. Despite our lawsuit and Congress' instructions, they are not complying with the law. Their report still hides donor amounts and restrictions. Worse, there are three anonymous donors. 

https://www.cdcfoundation.org/FY2018/organizations

What the foundation does disclose strongly suggests corporate interests in conflict with CDC's avowed mission. For example, the CDC Foundation's board includes Gary Cohen, Executive Vice President of Becton Dickinson (BD), a medical device company. BD donated to FCDC in 2018 (and years prior going back at least to 2014). The private public partnership is motivated by a concern for AIDS in Africa.

That's what they say. On the other hand, check this out: "U.S. investigates bloodstream infections for link to heparin syringes" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bectondickinson-recall/u-s-investigates-bloodstream-infections-for-link-to-heparin-syringes-idUSKBN1IC2JC

"Health agencies are investigating an outbreak of bloodstream infections in children from four U.S. states that may be linked to heparin and saline syringes made by Becton Dickinson and Co ... The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed 14 cases of bloodstream infections in children caused by the same strain of the Serratia marcescens bacterium ...

Becton Dickinson said it was cooperating with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and CDC ... Dr. Kiran Mayi Perkins of the CDC’s Public Health Program, who is leading the investigation, said if there is contamination, it’s “probably a very low amount,” which makes it very hard to test for."

Prima facie, we have a CDC investigation into an infectious outbreak caused by BD products, while BD is funding the CDC Foundation, and a BD executive serves on the CDC Foundation's board. That itself is concerning for anyone aware of the massive evidence showing the impact of financial relationships on research and policy. 

Now, the CDC may object that it's perfect capable of investigating a sponsor and CDC Foundation board member. Yet to even begin evaluating the CDC's ability to separate BD's funding and influence from its investigation would require a minimum level of transparency. The CDC and its Foundation would need to begin following the law and disclosing BD's payments and restrictions.

FNIH and FCDC have so far refused to follow clear legislation, despite CrossFit's litigation and Congress's express concern, and despite numerous examples of apparent conflicts of interest. It makes one wonder.

Great

 The health of our nation depends  on getting answers to these questions. 

Why is transparency such a big deal? Because industry funding influences research, even when researchers say it doesn’t. 

Marion Nestle discusses this in her new book, “Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.” She cites a 2003 systematic review of more than a thousand biomedical research studies. 

“Investigators with industry affiliations were nearly four times more likely to come up with pro-industry conclusions than those without such ties,” she wrote. 

Sometimes bias is unconscious. More sinister is industry funders’ careful formulation of research questions designed to produce certain results and/or the spinning of neutral or insignificant results in a positive light. 

Consider the Coca-Cola-funded International Study of Childhood Obesity. The study concluded that neither “healthy” nor “unhealthy” dietary patterns were correlates of childhood obesity and comforted readers with a disclosure statement saying, “The study sponsor has no role in study design, data collection, analysis, conclusions or publications.” 

GEBN emails obtained by the New York Times and reviewed by Nestle told a different story.

“As an analysis of the emails makes clear, this statement does not fully describe the extent of Coca-Cola’s actual involvement, not least because the researchers consulted with Coca-Cola in making strategic decisions about study design,” Nestle wrote. 

Nestle also exposed conflicts of interest–in the form of payments for conference activities, publications, prizes, scholarships, donations, grants, honorariums and more–between the food-and-beverage industry and several government and professional organizations, including the American Society for Nutrition and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

The danger of biased research results isn’t just that it’s bad science–although that should be enough–it’s dangerous because science influences policy.