It's all about what makes the best business case. No treatments meant no money to be made by pharmaceutical companies and lots of disability costs to insurance companies. Creating CFS as a wastebasket diagnosis was a good business case for insurance companies so they got the CDC to execute their best business case at the time. The Norway study is a game changer. If pharmaceutical companies can treat us with expensive drugs for years, they suddenly have a business case. For insurance companies, getting some sick people well and back to work is a good business case. For the subgroup of patients who do not respond to treatment, there is still a need for a wastebasket diagnosis so reclassifying CFS into two classifications would allow for a group who responds to treatments and a wastebasket diagnosis for those who don't. I hope some insurance companies lose enough money in lawsuits so that they begin to see the business case of selling insurance for M.E. You can pretend that floods don't exist because they cost you too much when they occur (and get sued and lose) or you can sell profitable flood insurance. Make it clear that M.E. coverage is an option on health insurance coverage and calculate the costs of that option just like with any other risk.