I disagree, Tina. The ME-ICC states that its starting point is the Canadian Consensus Criteria, not Fukuda. It doesn't explicitly suggest replacing Fukuda, although you and others may choose to make that suggestion. The ME-ICC provides a more restrictive definition than Fukuda. Therefore, ME (ICC) patients logically comprise a subgroup of CFS (Fukuda) patients. The ME-ICC's reliance on relevant CFS research is therefore appropriate, even though its references to CFS research don't make ME (ICC) the same as CFS (Fukuda). The international panel was strategically balanced between clinicians and researchers. They state, "It is important to note that the current emphasis must primarily remain a clinical assessment, with selection of research subjects coming later. The ME-ICC is published and in the public domain, so there's nothing to stop clinicians and researchers from using it now. Yes, I've pointed out that the Coalition4ME/CFS hasn't changed its position since the publication of the ME-ICC, and I'm asking, "Why not?" The ME-ICC makes the Canadian Consensus Criteria yesterday's news, yet the Coalition continues its commitment to advocate for the adoption of the Canadian Consensus Document and to promote a new name for this illness that is more appropriate and does not trivialize or give misconceptions (http://coalition4mecfs.org/JoinUs.html -- see items 3 and 4.) If the Coalition is truly backing the ME-ICC, why does it maintain this inconsistency?