The Call for Opposition: Challenging the P2P and IOM Processes
In our second article on how to react to the publication of the draft P2P report, Gabby Klein provides her view of why she and a large group of advocates and patients are continuing their protest of the government’s ongoing control and manipulation of our disease via their processes...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

CFS section of GWS manual

Discussion in 'Institute of Medicine (IOM) Government Contract' started by Andrew, Nov 28, 2013.

  1. Andrew

    Andrew Senior Member

    Los Angeles, USA
    I am looking only at the section of the GWS treatment guide that says it addresses CFS. It begins on page 97. I was not able to do the entire section. I only picked two things out of the treatment section that I know the most about.

    Graded exercise:
    They recommend graded exercise. And to support this, they reference three web sites that offer no citations to back up their claims. The IOM also cites two journal articles. The first is called The Neuroendocrinology of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. It says nothing about graded exercise helping CFS patients. The second paper, called Endorphins and Exercise, doesn’t even deal with CFS. The IOM panel also fails to mention the studies that show negative effects from exercise.

    They only mention pain control and sleep. In contrast, the Canadian Consensus document includes a section on pharmaceuticals for a much wider range of symptoms. I also know of two books that cover a wide range of pharmaceuticals along with citations.

    I've seen better work from high school students.

    Here's what the IOM says about their review process.
    I added the bold lettering above. What this means is they accept no responsibility for the final product.
  2. SickOfSickness

    SickOfSickness Senior Member


    I wonder if we could have a campaign to write each of those people 20,000 emails with real data about "CFS".
    lnester7 likes this.
  3. minkeygirl

    minkeygirl But I Look So Good.

    Left Coast
    What a bunch idiots. I have one working brain cell and I can make more sense than them.
  4. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    I think we need to be careful in interpreting reviewers involvement. Reviewers see the report produced by the panel and produce comments and suggestions. They are not part of the panel. As a result they have no control over the report aside from their suggestions.

    Having said that the commentary looks like something you could cook up using Wikiepedia for a few hours. "Evidence" based in this case means uncritical cherry-picking of unsubstantiated claims?
  5. justinreilly

    justinreilly Senior Member

    NYC (& RI)
    They say this also in the section you quote:
    "Responsibility for the final content of the report rests entirely with
    the authoring committee and the institution."

    So IoM does take some responsibility for the report, contrary to what Kate Meck said in response to David Egan. (also of course they do bear responsibility, no matter what they claim)

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page