Fluge & Mella's pre-trial study highlights life-changing potential of rituximab
Sasha gives the background and Simon gives the interpretation of the latest study from Haukeland, published today...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

CFIDS Assoc America: IOM Survey

Discussion in 'Institute of Medicine (IOM) Government Contract' started by Firestormm, Jan 11, 2014.

  1. Firestormm

    Firestormm Guest

    Cornwall England
    Roseblossom, Esther12 and barbc56 like this.
  2. lnester7

    lnester7 Seven

    I cited all my successful treatment and the tests that were abnormal. I am also making an effort not to say fatigue but saying that I have inability to produce energy on demand (until we get a better words) so it is obvious to set ME apart from regular fatigue.
  3. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    I do not understand the reasoning behind this, particularly as we do not currently have access to evidence which allows us to be confident that we can develop a criteria for a meaningful diagnosis.

    What if the uniformly accepted criteria is less good than one of the many currently floating about? Why would that be helpful? Do we have any confidence that the IOM process will lead to a preferable criteria to all those currently available? Also, I think that having many conflicting criteria is a good way of reminding people of our current ignorance.

    I'm really uncomfortable about the IOM process.

    I think some patient groups are living in a fantasy land, with a deluded sense of the quality of research around ME/CFS, and a failure to understand how much harm can be done by unjustified claims of expertise.
    Nielk and justinreilly like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page