I will be honest Ember and say that I was also (still am) confused about this one. When the criteria were first published and following all the discourse it prompted, I am still left wondering if some people think it is intended to replace CFS with ME entirely, or only those who meet the criteria leaving X number of people with CFS. I had thought that ICCME would simply tighten up on CCC ME/CFS, but if it 'creates' a distinct disease entity then what of the CCC for ME/CFS I wonder? Broderick also - in his letter - was not exactly confident with the name Myalgic Encephalomyelitis if I recall correctly. It would seem that had they been another option, another name, that perhaps better reflected the condition as he and the others view it and which was similarly recognised by WHO; it might have been chosen instead. It appears almost the case that CFS as a name is crap and ME as a name is a bit better. I think the nomenclature will remain a key weakness in any continuing debate and critique. Until and unless research is properly geared to examining patients and confirms the presence of inflammation but even then the terms themselves are not wholly exclusive. Maybe the problem lies with the WHO? Radical perhaps but what if WHO put CFS alongside or linked to ME? I will read both letters in full myself as soon as I can. I have though read your exchanges. And 'liked' your comments too. Thanks.