- Messages
- 2,516
I don't believe so.Also confused/scientifically illiterate/worried. Are they saying that every patient that did not exhibit a classical viral onset (e.g. all gradual onset patients, like myself) are 'atypical' and thus predisposed to later comorbidities? The language in the Simmaron piece is vague.
andCort's article said:This week, new findings were published by Columbia and Simmaron that define 2 subsets. They’re not the usual suspects (infectious trigger vs non-infectious trigger; gradual onset vs acute onset). In fact, they involve subsets few would have predicted a couple of years ago.
So what they are calling the atypical group are patients whose ME started from less usual triggers and those who go on to develop other serious conditions. And my reading of that first quote seems to indicate that gradual onset wasn't used to identify anybody as atypical. My history is of gradual onset but I believe I can pinpoint the start of the process to a bad measles infection, so I believe I would count in their classic ME group.Cort's article said:The atypical vs classical distinction was pre-established by Dr. Peterson before the analysis. Based on his wide-ranging clinical experience, the atypical group stood out for either: 1) the presence of unusual precursors (triggers) of ME/CFS or; 2) the development of more unusual and severe comorbidities over varying (and often long-term) intervals after ME/CFS onset.