extract from the international ME definition:
The label chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) has persisted for many years because of lack of knowledge of the etiological agents and of the disease process. In view of more recent research and clinical experience that strongly point to widespread inflammation and multisystemic neuropathology, it is more appropriate and correct to use the term myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) because it indicates an underlying pathophysiology. It is also consistent with the neurological classification of ME in the World Health Organizations International Classification of Diseases (ICD G93.3).
Took a while to plow through but I had a look at the full text (
http://www.meassociation.org.uk/?p=7173).
This consensus document by 25 international authors is impressive. It criticizes and eliminates the term "CFS", cites a lot of important research on pathophysiology, makes many excellent points along the way, gives the correct impression that ME is "an acquired neurological disease with complex global dysfunctions", and is a major slap in the face to how the biopsychosocialists approach "CFS/ME".
Although this ME criteria seems more complicated than the Canadian criteria, I apparently also meet the stricter research definition of ME. Now I feel more familiar and associated with the term ME without saying "CFS" or "ME/CFS".
biophile wrote on another thread:
Then of course is the dreaded response. If someone is actively skeptical about ME/CFS, you aren't going to convince them otherwise in a single sentence. Saying "I have CFS" in the current climate, part of me feels like that is almost as cringeworthy as saying something like "I'm a pathetic loser so please make fun of me and denigrate the worth of my existence as a human being".
Some people instead say "I have ME". I've never been to the UK but I have the impression that over there, in the public eye "ME" has erroneously become synonymous with "chronic fatigue" just like CFS, except possibly worse in the eyes of those who think ME doesn't exist, so if I said "I have ME" in the UK I'd feel like I was at serious risk of being misinterpreted as saying something like "I have psychosomatic chronic fatigue that can be cured with psychotherapy but I'm one of those stubborn somatisers who lacks insight and refuses to call it CFS, I've convinced myself I have an organic disease called ME in order to escape the stigma of admitting to my mental problems and weak character, oh and I hate psychiatrists because they know the truth and threaten my lifestyle".
This climate still exists, and medical authorities may still largely ignore this definition of ME as they did the Canadian definition of ME/CFS, but in recent years the problems with the flawed Oxford/CDC definitions have become more and more prominent in the spotlight, we can now be encouraged by this sign of the reappearance of ME in the recent published literature.
If Peter White thought the Canadian criteria was "impossible" to use in the PACE trial because is somewhat more complex than Oxford/CDC and "burdens" him, this new ME criteria would be a stressful nightmare for him and his colleagues if they had to use it. They may need some therapy after all this: CBT to correct their "abnormal illness beliefs" regarding ME and to overcome the "fear avoidance" and "psychosocial barriers" that prevent them from accepting biomedical research, and GET to increase their activity levels so they are fit enough to apply "impossible" Canadian and/or international ME criteria to research without complaining about "burden" and enable them to perform "unethical" tilt-table tests etc on patients who will show abnormalities when these tests are actually done.
Compare this international ME definition (and the Canadian definitions) versus the simpleton Oxford/NICE/CDC definitions, guess who seems to know better what they are talking about when it comes to our symptoms and pathology?