Just to point out regarding the Newcastle study: what it found was that 40% of people referred to the service had a misdiagnosis. These hadn't been given a solid CFS diagnosis and then said it was found to be a misdiagnosis. Sometimes I've seen this misrepresented. I think what Newcastle does is good. I'm not sure whether we will get to the stage that everyone gets all the test BH likes to do. I also think if a service tried to do all that testing, it would soon become apparent the large cost involved i.e. the "CFS service" system may not be the best to get such testing; not having a CFS service in a region could potentially allow somebody get somebody to get more testing. I have got this impression before that he is a bit too quick to say somebody doesn't have M.E. because they have a certain finding - he almost seems to see it as a success: one more to add to the list of missed diagnoses spotted. However, I think there can be problems with this approach e.g. somebody might pick up one or two extra diagnoses, but without an ME or CFS label, somebody might wonder why they should be so disabled. Also, one might take a different approach if one knows somebody has ME or CFS (e.g. if somebody has low bone density, POTS, or whatever, they might be told to exercise a lot but this might be difficult or even counterproductive if the underlying problem is M.E.).