Just thought I'd let you know that I posted dissenting opinions on two different CAA statements regarding the IOM about a month ago. They are still sitting in moderation. Here's one them: The initial discussion said to have a workshop. Many of us assumed that experts would hold decision making positions. That experts would vote. Instead, the HHS puts non-experts in charge of the process. Question: Why would someone turn to a group of inexperienced illness criteria authors (IOM) who did a poor job on their only previous attempt, instead of accepting the advice of the actual experts? Answer: From a business, medical, or humanitarian point of view, there is zero justification. The fact that they will be asking for input from experts makes no difference. It is still the IOM running the show. They will be deciding what weight to put on things without the advantage of years of experience. If it is true that expert input will be valued here, then why not simply accept what the majority of experts are saying. Cancel the contract, adopt the CCC, and let the experts continue with their work vetting the ICC. The process of developing the next generation definition has already begun. The IOM project fills no void. All it does is usurp an existing project and take control out of the hands of experts. Your comment is awaiting moderation.