1. Patients launch $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
The Pathway to Prevention (P2P) for ME/CFS: A Dangerous Process
Gabby Klein gives an overview of the P2P process, shedding light on the pitfalls with advice as to what we can do in protest ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Article: Ch, Ch, Ch, Changes...Myalgic-encephalomyelitis Now and Then: 75 Years of ME

Discussion in 'Phoenix Rising Articles' started by Phoenix Rising Team, Aug 14, 2011.

  1. Nielk

    Nielk

    Messages:
    5,272
    Likes:
    5,277
    Queens, NY
    Cort,

    Very well said,(written). The transition stage was necessary in order to have the right timing and back up to accept the name M.E.
    A name change for any illness, I would think is hard to accomplish as we have seen for so many years. The form that it came in, with new guidelines by international authorities is very powerful. I just hope that it will be fully accepted by the medical and governmental agencies.
     
  2. Enid

    Enid Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,309
    Likes:
    840
    UK
    Not quite sure how things go with you there Cort, but in my (11) years there has been a constant battle to describe in the absence of a particular pathogen. Ramsey (Royal Free) gave the name Myalgic Encephalomyalitis - think we would all be happy to finally exclude CFS because it has lead to so much warped intervention in the UK and just isn't the whole story. (for the sake of history /CFS only) We must pull together in all of this despite varying predominance of symptoms and not argue names. As we all know this is not some sort of naming game but those trying to put things right.
     
  3. Jill McLaughlin

    Jill McLaughlin *****

    Messages:
    196
    Likes:
    5
    Nielk, this is not a name change.
     
  4. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    441
    Raleigh, NC
    Well, that's the chief thing - they did the right thing - they moved boldly and hopefully they will move everyone with them. Congratulations to the research community for being out in front.
     
  5. Ember

    Ember Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,728
    Likes:
    1,781
    From a Canadian perspective, this statement makes no historic sense. The clinical definition, diagnostic and treatment protocols for ME/CFS were set out in the CCC. To say that the ICC authors adopted the name ME in spite of the ME/CFS nonsense and distractions is to laud and lampoon some of the same authors. In my opinion, these authors deserve only our gratitude and respect.

    I'm happy to hear your congratulations of the research community on this one, Cort. (Though I know you're aware of the important balance between clinicians and researchers on the panel.) Let's look forward to the full acceptance of the ICC!

    You say more articles are on the way. Here or elsewhere?
     
    Wayne likes this.
  6. Jill McLaughlin

    Jill McLaughlin *****

    Messages:
    196
    Likes:
    5
    Ember, The authors of the ICC did not adopt the name ME, they specifically updated the definition of it. Otherwise creating some new mythical ME/CFS, which has no *established usage or meaning, is absurd and likewise dangerous.

    But I agree with Cort, they did the right thing and went against the ME/CFS trend of the US groups and took a much needed bold action. So lets nudge the IACFS in the right direction...
     
  7. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    441
    Raleigh, NC
    Good point Ember - lots of clinicians on there - as there needed to be. If you look at the CCC and ICC you can see how many more people he was able to enroll in the effort this time - good news! and he was able to get it in a major journal - more good news.

    More articles - I think two more will appear on PR this month on ME and the ICC. This is the 'Month of ME' after all. :)
     
  8. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    441
    Raleigh, NC
    We -in the land of CFS - would be happy to see that term go away forever. We started it, after all :D:D I agree that the chief thing is that we get together to fight for more funding and recognition - pull together so we can make an impact....we've never really done that.
     
  9. Nielk

    Nielk

    Messages:
    5,272
    Likes:
    5,277
    Queens, NY
    Jill, if you read the ICC paper, the 23 authors specifically state that the name Chronic Fatigue Syndrome does not make sense with the new information that they have now. The name that best describes it is Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. According to this paper, they are changing the name from CFS to M.E. I don't know what else you would call it but, a " name change".
    Whether this will be accepted by the CDC, HHS..etc. is a different story. It's too early to tell. I don't think that any of us are prophets to foretell the future.
     
    Wayne likes this.
  10. Grannycfs

    Grannycfs

    Messages:
    2
    Likes:
    1
    Charlotte, NC
    Cort,

    Its about time we use ME. Dr. Lapp (my specialist) started using ME/CFS a long time ago. He said he'd gradually drop the CFS. Once the ME consensus document came out, I quit using ME/CFS unless forced to. I'm happy to see this latest article for recognizing ME.

    Nancy
     
    Wayne likes this.
  11. Jill McLaughlin

    Jill McLaughlin *****

    Messages:
    196
    Likes:
    5
    Neilk, Well the name CFS never made sense but that's a different story!

    The paper states: "The scope of this paper is limited to criteria of ME and their application." This is ME criteria. They are defining and describing ME and say that CFS is not a proper or adequate name - for ME. This is not just a name change from CFS to ME.
     
  12. Nielk

    Nielk

    Messages:
    5,272
    Likes:
    5,277
    Queens, NY
    Who said it's only about a name change and who ever said that the name CFS makes sense?
    I don't know what your argument is about?
     
  13. Jill McLaughlin

    Jill McLaughlin *****

    Messages:
    196
    Likes:
    5
    Nielk - Today, 07:55 PM

    Who said it's only about a name change and who ever said that the name CFS makes sense?
    I don't know what your argument is about?


    Then you wrote:
    "Jill, if you read the ICC paper, the 23 authors specifically state that the name Chronic Fatigue Syndrome does not make sense with the new information that they have now. .... According to this paper, they are changing the name from CFS to M.E. I don't know what else you would call it but, a "name change"."

    Nielk - You said that with the new info the name CFS does not make sense (so just reiterated as a snide comment), and that it was a name change.
     
  14. Nielk

    Nielk

    Messages:
    5,272
    Likes:
    5,277
    Queens, NY
    Jill,

    This is what I wrote to Cort:
    "Cort,

    Very well said,(written). The transition stage was necessary in order to have the right timing and back up to accept the name M.E.
    A name change for any illness, I would think is hard to accomplish as we have seen for so many years. The form that it came in, with new guidelines by international authorities is very powerful. I just hope that it will be fully accepted by the medical and governmental agencies."

    I don't know why you have a problem with thi statement but if you do, you picked the wrong person and the wrong day to start up with.
     
  15. Ember

    Ember Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,728
    Likes:
    1,781
    I can't agree with your characterization of events.

    The ICC authors write: The Canadian Consensus Criteria were used as a starting point, but significant changes were made. The CCC (opening line) reads: Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a severe systemic, acquired illness that can be debilitating. The ICC authors now write: No other fatiguing disease has 'chronic fatigue' attached to its name e.g. cancer/chronic fatigue, multiple sclerosis/chronic fatigue except ME/CFS. Their statement is made in support of their adopting (or simply using, if you prefer) ME alone.

    ME is clearly not the only definition that is updated here. Some of the same authors who defined ME/CFS in the CCC have now done the right thing, as you put it, with the publication of the ME-ICC. I can't believe they'd agree with you that they took the bold action in spite of the ME/CFS nonsense and distraction. Nor do I believe that they were acting against the ME/CFS trend of the US groups. That version of history seems to me entirely inaccurate and unfair.

    The IACFS/ME is already part of the transition that's underway.
     
    Wayne likes this.
  16. Jill McLaughlin

    Jill McLaughlin *****

    Messages:
    196
    Likes:
    5
    Nielk, You said it in an open forum. I disagreed. Thats all.
     
  17. Jill McLaughlin

    Jill McLaughlin *****

    Messages:
    196
    Likes:
    5
    Actually it sounds like a deliberate move on their part. ME/CFS has fatigue, which they quite clearly are against. So I would say they would agree that this was against the counterintuitive ME/CFS. The US groups had ME/CFS as their platform and pitched it as Unity to make people accept it as the way forward and were promoting and even advertising it. ME pple were adamantly opposed. So I'm sure it was not a conscious objective but what they did was against what US groups were promoting.

    Any other definition can be updated. We kept hearing about an update of the CCC. To my knowledge there is none. This is an ME definition, which is our concern. So that is what matters.
     
  18. Nielk

    Nielk

    Messages:
    5,272
    Likes:
    5,277
    Queens, NY
    Jill,

    Why don't you just come out and say what your "agenda" is instead of beating around the bush.
    I cannot make sense of anything you are stating above.

    When you say "they" who do you mean?

    When you say "ME pple were adamantly opposed" - who are these M.E. pple? and what were they opposed to?

    When you say "So I'm sure it was not a conscious objective but what they did was against what US groups were promoting"
    Does it have to be an opposition? Can you entertain the fact that this was a modification? an improvement upon? as opposed to opposition?

    When you say "This is an ME definition, which is our concern. So that is what matters" - by "our" concern - who is represented here? and what is the concern again?

    As far as I know, no one holds the patent on the name ME, yet you talk like you do.
     
    Wayne likes this.
  19. Jill McLaughlin

    Jill McLaughlin *****

    Messages:
    196
    Likes:
    5
    Niekl, This is straightforward. ME pple are those with ME who did not want a CFS or ME/CFS dx. The ICC is an ME definition, it is not ME/CFS, which we were opposed to from the beginning. Since others were in favor of and promoting ME/CFS, then it was unfortunately an opposition.
     
  20. Nielk

    Nielk

    Messages:
    5,272
    Likes:
    5,277
    Queens, NY
    Jill,

    Since you are an "ME person", you should be happy with the new ICC calling the disease ME.
    Therefore, I don't know what your argument is all about. The ICC agrees with you. Do you have a problem with that?
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page