Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Daisymay, May 19, 2011.
The empirical definition is Reeves et al. (2005).
The paper references Reeves et al. (2003):
Here I think is the crucial comment on their views:
This is in the published response this week.
Published comments are what are generally the most important/useful.
Figures 2B, 2C, 2F & 2G
Dolphin, for a number of reasons, this 'crucial' comment is problematic. You surely are aware of the complaints we have made about the cohorts? An appeal to publication authority is not relevant here. There are ramifications of this comment which I think you are not aware of, and therefore do not appreciate it's importance.
Can I suggest you read Malcolm Hooper's and my own complaint thoroughly? Do it again if you've already done it. There are very important issues thrown up by White's defence of his trial and its problems which strengthen the concerns we have already expressed.
Thanku for the info dolphin...
So the 'international criteria' used was not Holmes 1988, or CDC Fukuda 1994, or the CDC Reeves Empirical 2005, but something else from 2003. It's a paper that I've not seen before.
It looks to me like the 2003 paper is not an official CDC criteria that is in generally use in the USA, or a widely used or recognised 'international criteria'.
So I wonder why they chose this paper above the 1994 or the 2005 definitions?
Does anyone know if this paper is widely referred to in scientific literature?
By the way, does anyone know how many 'official' CDC definitions there are?
Sorry for so many questions.
Thanku Dolphin... I forgot that Figure 2 has graphs of the results for each of the subsets!
I believe that the comments directed towards Malcolm Hooper are to be published, as they are an official response. That was my understanding anyway.
We need to see the context in which they were written.
Bob, I already gave the reference:
Best of luck, Angela, I think I'll leave this thread for the moment and return to other things which as you say I am more focused on.
Thanks Dolphin, nice one.
Thanks for all the info Dolphin. Please don't leave the thread. You've been exceptionally helpful, as always. And discussion of these issues is good and healthy.
So does anyone know how the 2003 paper corresponds to the 1994 and 2005 CDC definitions? And how can the 2003 paper be referred to as an 'international criteria'?
I've never seen any reference to the 2003 paper before, outside of the PACE Trial. But definitions are not one of my strong points.
I'm sure that all of this has been discussed before, so I'll try to find the info elsewhere.
Very interesting indeed Bob - CONCLUSION at post 29. (but you've deleted)
That info that I posted was incorrect...
That conclusion about the Chalder Fatigue scale was in an article in response to the 2003 paper, but not in the 2003 paper itself...
Is there a full copy of White's reply about? Did I miss it? It's difficult to judge his statements without seeing the full context.
A very telling article Bob none the less.
I don't think there is yet, Esther.
I agree... We need to see the full context.
I agree. White is saying he didn't study ME only Oxford "CFS".
....which is just Idiopathic Fatigue for Six Months! That's the only criterion!
The only good thing that came out of this PACE fiasco is that he basically ADMITTED he's not been studying M.E. patients, or M.E./CFS (such as by the Canadian) or even CDC 1994 CFS (as by the Fukuda --which is universally recognized as too relaxed).
He admitted it! So whenever he tries to say his work applies to us, just remind him he already said it doesn't.
I agree; I'd really like to see the letter from White. Hopefully Prof. Hooper will post it on his site.
From his post it looks like he will in due course. He's just released this in advance because of its importance, I suspect.
Yes Angela, my understanding is that it will be released in due course.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.