It's still expensive and time-consuming to pull together the data, and write and present the paper. Most of our top docs don't have the time -- they're already overbooked with patients. Dr Lerner did a paper such as you suggest and caught a HUGE amount of flack from the patient community because his retrospective study wasn't well-designed in advance. As if you can plan a retrospective study in advance. I'd say such papers are not worth their efforts at this time. Agreed, but that's not the way medicine works. The average physician is going to use treatments recommended by the CDC or NHS or some other established authorities. Those kinds of recommendations take years, if not decades, to put in place. We have things like the ME/CFS Primer which, while not perfect IMO, gives the local physician ideas of how to try to treat many of the symptoms seen in ME/CFS. The problem is that this document, as well as the CCC and ICC definitions, are not widely accepted or endorsed by medical officialdom. Can't argue with that. Well, maybe the more income for governments... don't see how that is going to happen. But I could go for more people being helped and more specialists, certainly. I don't see how you think that is going to happen in any kind of hurry. Yep, that would be great. And how are you going to make that happen? What do you propose that is not already being done by ME/CFS advocates? In the meantime, I'm getting the best treatment I can manage for my daughter and myself. I'm going to share as much information here as I can to help other patients not make the mistakes I did. That's the reality of treatment at this time. It should be better. It isn't. But we're working on it. We're making progress.