1. Patients launch $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
Ergonomics and ME/CFS: Have You Hurt Yourself Without Knowing It?
Having a chronic illness like ME/CFS can make it hard to avoid problems that come from bad ergonomics. Jody Smith has learned some lessons the hard way ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Opposition to the Coalition 4 ME/CFS Proposal

Discussion in 'Action Alerts and Advocacy' started by rlc, Sep 16, 2011.

  1. ggingues

    ggingues $10 gift code at iHerb GAS343 of $40

    Messages:
    4,089
    Likes:
    912
    Concord, NH
    So who is using the "old" definition of ME for research? It seems that it is collecting dust and doing no one any good?!

    GG
     
  2. rlc

    rlc Senior Member

    Messages:
    822
    Likes:
    246
    Hi GG, RE So who is using the "old" definition of ME for research? It seems that it is collecting dust and doing no one any good?!

    Im talking about the international Consensus Criteria, published a few months ago.

    They are saying that ME and CFS are completely different illness!!!!!!

    Cort and his coalition are trying to destroy the work of the ICC by making CFS and ME the same, which is the LIE the CDC and Wessely have been saying for years.

    This is what the coalition are trying to do in Corts own words

    The task then is to redefine CFS correctly and rename it 'ME"

    This is in defiance of everything that the world experts who wrote the ICC are saying.
    Do not let them destroy ME, all the good work the ICC has done, and continue to promote the lie that ME and CFS are the same.

    All the best
     
  3. Dx Revision Watch

    Dx Revision Watch dxrevisionwatch.com

    Messages:
    1,819
    Likes:
    558
    UK

    Yes, I know. Initially, I had attempted to leave a comment on the article itself, but the article did not appear to be set to accept comments. So then I left at least two posts on the associated thread (which I've reproduced above), one correcting a number of technical misconceptions Cort had made in relation to ICD-10, ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM in his article, the other raising the issue of the C4ME/CFS's (for which Phoenix Rising is a member) lack of transparency around the initiative.

    As you note, the Front Page article has been taken down and the associated thread at this URL

    http://forums.phoenixrising.me/show...-as-Neurological-Disorder&p=205915#post205915

    has been put behind a password.

    I will ask Cort, this morning, why the article and its associated thread have been taken down.

    ETA: I have now written to Cort for an explanation

    Suzy
     
  4. Dx Revision Watch

    Dx Revision Watch dxrevisionwatch.com

    Messages:
    1,819
    Likes:
    558
    UK
  5. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,570
    Likes:
    11,473
    South of England
    Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this informative discussion.
    I've really appreciated reading both the impassioned opinions and the technical info. Both have been really important.
    I come to this discussion with an open mind because I really don't know what the best political answers are for our community in the short term.
    I'm viewing this whole subject, not through the perspective of pure medical information, but through what is best in terms of political maneuvering..
    I think that it's a sad state of affairs that our community has had to get involved political maneuvering, rather than simply advocating for what is proper in terms of medical knowledge, but unfortunately we have been forced into this situation.
    I understand both sides of the argument, and strangely agree with both, strongly. So that leaves me sitting on the fence, not knowing what is best.

    On the one hand, the new ICC helps our community to separate ME from CFS for the first time, practically speaking, and can help researchers create a proper 'ME' cohort for research purposes. This, for the first time, means that it makes sense to me to leave CFS where it is in terms of classification. But practically speaking, almost everyone in the USA has a CFS diagnosis and so if CFS is kept separate to ME, then realistically most Americans will be kept in the non-neurological 'CFS' category, diagnosed only using the CDC's criteria, at least in the short term, and will continue to be treated the same as they are now. Moving CFS into a neurological category has the potential to instantly help everyone by forcing the establishment to take CFS and ME more seriously. After reclassification of 'CFS', then we can work on getting the most appropriate diagnostic criteria adopted, and advocate for dropping the CFS name and the CDC's criteria. Over time, we can advocate for moving towards using the ICC and dropping the CDC's definitions. On the other hand, if CFS and ME are merged, using the current diagnostic criteria, then it is possible that the psychological lobby will take ownership of CFS/ME, just as they do in the UK, and CFS/ME will continue to be treated as a 'syndrome' or a psychological illness.

    There are complex and valid justifications for both sides of the argument, and I just can't see any obvious or straightforward short-term political answers.

    Medically speaking, I would like to see the ICC used for all research into ME, and ME treated as a distinct medical disease.

    For the short term, the strongest political argument that I've seen in this discussion is as follow:

    I don't have a good understanding of the USA's medical insurance system, but it seems that if everyone with a current CFS diagnosis is automatically categorised as having a neurological disease, then this could help a lot of people in an immediate practical sense. Once CFS is recategorised, then our community can move forwards from there in terms of pushing for the CFS name to be dropped and for ME to be treated seriously using the ICC.

    But these are just my thoughts. Like I said, I don't think there are any obvious or easy answers to such a complex set of medical and political issues.
     
  6. Dainty

    Dainty Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,357
    Likes:
    533
    Washington State
    Moderator: Threads merged; apologies for any resulting confusion in discussion continuity.

    Thread renamed to reflect overall topic and remove excessive emphasis.
     
    SOC likes this.
  7. Yogi

    Yogi

    Messages:
    67
    Likes:
    47
    This is a very difficult issue. I have read both sides arguments and will not repeat the issues here.

    I fully support the new International Consensus Criteria for ME. I also personally feel that the Coalition is doing a good thing and as Tina said it is evolutionary and not revolutionary. It is a good step in the right direction.

    Thank you.
     
    SOC likes this.
  8. floydguy

    floydguy Senior Member

    Messages:
    650
    Likes:
    238
    - Lyme Disease
    - Chronic Innate Immune Dysfunction
    - Chronic Low NKC Function
    - Dysautonomia

    This is about going forward, not what has happened in the past. Yes, there will be some turbulence getting rid of CFS but I think many of us think that is worth any risk that might pose. CFS is a completely meaningless diagnosis and should not in any way be brought up to the same level as ME. Otherwise ME will potentially come to represent Reeves Disease. So we will eliminate CFS but not the criteria.
     
  9. Dx Revision Watch

    Dx Revision Watch dxrevisionwatch.com

    Messages:
    1,819
    Likes:
    558
    UK
    Dainty has removed content from one of my posts on this (now merged) thread.

    I had written:


    Dainty has written:

    But no reason for the removal of Cort's article on the C4ME/CFS ICD-10-CM initiative and its associated thread has been given, either by Cort or by the moderators.

    How are members expected to know whether an article has been removed temporarily for revision or permanently?

    How are members expected to know whether specific posts in a thread have been removed because they were deemed unacceptable or whether they have been remove en masse because they were associated with an article that is no longer accessible for, as yet, unstated reasons?

    Is this how the new Forum Management is going to operate? Articles and threads disappearing with no explanation for the reason, then members asked to "respect" the (non stated) reasons for removal?

    Suzy
     
  10. Dainty

    Dainty Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,357
    Likes:
    533
    Washington State
    Members are asked to respect moderator actions, whether or not a reason is given.

    If you have a complaint pertaining to the moderation of this forum, please take it up privately rather than disrupting a public thread with it.

    Thank you.
     
    SOC likes this.
  11. floydguy

    floydguy Senior Member

    Messages:
    650
    Likes:
    238
    So what does a CFS diagnosis do for you or anyone? Why are people so attached to it? Do you receive treatment for it? Do people feel better having some diagnosis - even if it's completely bogus? I'd personally rather have no diagnosis than CFS. If the only basis of the diagnosis is symptoms than the doctor hasn't done his/her job. If there is some other dysfunction like low NKC Activity then use that diagnosis. We've all been thrown under the bus by the medical/insurance establishment. I don't see how perpetuating a a list of vague symptoms dressed up as a diagnosis helps anyone.

    Yes, I think we'd be better off to get rid of the majority of research that suggests that CFS is psychosomatic. The physiological areas where there is proven dysfunction should be performed again using the ICC criteria.

    It's a leap of faith I think. Perhaps many of us won't receive a ME diagnosis but if real research is done perhaps it will help those of us on the outside looking in. Otherwise we will continue to get tired studies using the Atlanta phone book and PACE Trials from the UK. I really don't see how any of that stuff helps me or anyone in the community.
     
  12. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
    That's interesting, Floyd. Probably in some settings it's better to have the kind of diagnoses you mentioned, rather than "CFS". On the other hand i think what we have is one disease that leads to the kind of "malfunctions" like immune dysfunction and dysautonomia, so this approach (a number of other diagnoses) seems to have the risk that people don't realize that there is one disease that is still not really understood that causes all of these problems. And they need to realize this and finally allocate enough resources to research it and find treatments that work.
     
  13. ukxmrv

    ukxmrv Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,508
    Likes:
    2,042
    London
    What happens at the moment in the USA (and please only answers from USA people with first-hand experience)?

    Does your insurance company govt department/doctor/anyone important use the existing ICD codes

    and if so which one for CFS?

    How does this affect you in practise please?

    (just trying to understand, in the UK some doctors and hospitals do use the ICD G93.3 code for ME (we are on a different version as you probably know. My insurance company not at all))
     
  14. Andrew

    Andrew Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,962
    Likes:
    1,229
    Los Angeles, USA
    I can't read all these lengthy messages. Here's what I'd like to see happen.

    1. The people Ramsey was talking about be called ME
    2. The Lake Tahoe Cohort be called ME
    3. What I have be called ME
    3. The ICC be adopted
    4. Chronic Fatigue Syndrome be removed by the WHO
    5. The CDC acknowledge that the group they long called CFS is really ME
    6. The CFS term go away, and everyone understand we have ME
    7. The UK's fatigue-only psychiatric disorder be renamed idiopathic chronic fatigue.

    I don't care if WHO retains Chronic Fatigue, as long as they remove Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
    I don't care if WHO calls it neurological and the ICC calls it neuro-immune. The two terms don't conflict.
     
  15. Guido den Broeder

    Guido den Broeder *****

    Messages:
    278
    Likes:
    180
    Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    This is a good and serious question. In response to the ICCME, one of the things that is currently happening is that people with the diagnosis of CFS, who don't have ME, are getting extremely enraged, attack people that do have ME within ME/CFS organizations, and even insist that if the term CFS must go, ME should be reserved for them.
     
  16. ukxmrv

    ukxmrv Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,508
    Likes:
    2,042
    London
    Is there any way you could find out what code your healthcare system is using for CFS specifically, SickofCFS?

    If their codes came from ICD (for example) do they have anything under the G93 section at all?

    For your insurance company - where are you coded with them now (i.e. where is CFS at the moment with them)?

    Sorry to be a bother - just trying to understand.
     
  17. floydguy

    floydguy Senior Member

    Messages:
    650
    Likes:
    238
    If CFS went away then the CFS diagnosis would disappear and people would either get ME or whatever condition they have. I am sorry but just because people are stuck with a label is not a good reason to perpetuate its use. Misery might love company but that's taking it to an extreme.
     
  18. Angela Kennedy

    Angela Kennedy *****

    Messages:
    1,026
    Likes:
    154
    Essex, UK
    The problem is the CFS diagnosis -at this time - will not disappear. Reeves, White, the CDC etc. will not let that happen. Realistically, at this time, this community cannot force it either.
     
    SOC likes this.
  19. Hope123

    Hope123 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes:
    539
    I think a distinction needs to be made between what patients and advocates want ideally and what is feasible currently. It's rare that change takes place in one fell swoop (and even then, what appears to change rapidly is often preceded by a lot of lesser changes behind the scenes beforehand) for most things; rather change usually works incrementally.

    My understanding of this issue is that primarily, the term CFS will be moved to the "neurologic" section rather than be categorized in the vague "symptoms" section of the ICD. This is a good thing as it might help those whose healthcare providers or benefits agencies view CFS as primarily a psychosomatic issue rather than a biological one. The current proposal has nothing to do with removing ME, making ME into CFS or vice-versa, etc.

    One important reason for not eliminating CFS at this time is, as pointed out earlier, a lot of people, including those with ME, in the US are diagnosed with CFS. ME is hardly known by US healthcare providers and agencies. For people receiving disability benefits, especially Social Security Disability benefits, their claim may be based entirely or partially on CFS,which is recognized by the US government as a disabling illness and has specific rules that, if people fit, can help a lot with their case. There is no similar federal precedent with ME or many of the other diagnoses that people with CFS may carry, e.g. low NK cell function, herpes virus reactivation, etc. Until there are standardized tests or validated diagnostic criteria for ME (and no, neither the ICC nor Canadian, although developed by experienced clinicians, have been validated) or certain provisions are made legally for ME, eliminating CFS entirely may cause a lot of problems.
     
    Cort and SOC like this.
  20. Guido den Broeder

    Guido den Broeder *****

    Messages:
    278
    Likes:
    180
    Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Yes, that is the proposal, but it is not a good thing.

    Most people diagnosed with CFS that do not have ME, don't have another postviral neurological disorder (many have psychiatric problems, see Jason, but other conditions like diabetes and cardiomyopathy are found as well). Classifying CFS in the table under G93.3 will mean that they won't receive proper treatment and advice. What needs to happen instead, is that everyone gets the correct diagnosis. To accomplish that, CFS needs to disappear.

    I know that it's not easy, but it must be done.
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page