Hi Cort If your suggesting that ME and PVFS, needs to be weeded out of CFS discussions and literature, I absolutely agree. But this needs to be tackled, in particular, by those in the CFS advocacy community. Will it take place there ''eventually''? Most likely, because it is taking place in other quarters and has been for a while now. You see, the CDC recognise the distinctions or at least that ME and CFS are not the same and state so on their web site. You have the CCC that makes no reference to ME as we know it from the historic literature possibly because they were attempting to summarise the findingd of CFS research ( for the purposes of assisting in clinical diagnoses) and were, in so doing - probably also acknowledging the existing distinction. You have the Nightingale Institute of Canada, you have doctors like Dr Miraz, Dr Hyde, Dr Dowsett, Professor Hooper and you have groups like HFME and ME advocates raising awareness on the matter. I can understand why you would think this discussion might get in the way of advocacy though. Whilst I agree with you, that CFS has had what you refer to as ''piddly'' funding over 25 years - this fact - has had an adverse effect on ME as well, with it receiving no funding at all. Cort, there is genuinely a lot of fascinating reading to be found in the historic ME literature as well as in earlier discussions in this thread, including the point on prognosis and recovery in ME. See herehttp://forums.phoenixrising.me/showthread.php?10962-Is-it-worth-explaining-the-difference-between-ME-and-CFS-to-the-public/page23 and http://forums.phoenixrising.me/showthread.php?10962-Is-it-worth-explaining-the-difference-between-ME-and-CFS-to-the-public/page22 The papers findings are not that fascinating in the context of the general body of historic ME literature. In terms of a comparative analysis between Dr Bells studies or other CFS studies to ME, there might be (as with many illnesses) points of similarity between a certain subset of patients with CFS with ME. However, it is important to note that similarity does not mean - the same as. As has been acknowledged in many shapes and forms both on this thread and elsewhere, ME and CFS are two seperate and distinct medical entities. Having said that, the subset in CFS that is similar to ME, could in point of fact contain ME patients as defined by the historical medical literature - who have been misdiagnosed with CFS. However, unless and until - the CFS community up holds the distinctions between the illnesses of the ilk we are discussing and acknowledging on this thread- they are unlikely to ever find out if that is indeed the case. It is important I think - both for that possible misdiagnosd subset of CFS who might have ME and for clarity of research generally, that this be done don't you think?