I listened to parts of both days of the workshop. I do not share the optimism that some of you feel. This process has been rigged from the beginning. The way the process is designed, the questions that have been produced for the panel to answer as well as each and every panel member who spoke have been very well chosen by NIH. This is a completely controlled process by NIH and the outcome has been predetermined. Eventhough some of the panelists gave good presentations, it will not matter in the outcome. For example, I really liked Dr. Snell's presentation but, unfortunately his study will not be included because it does not hold up to the standards of inclusion in the review. This holds true too with Dr. Natelson's study. In my opinion the main failure is due to: - The use of all 8 diagnostic criteria, as if each one is equally qualified in describing the disease. - They admit that the Oxford criteria is inferior and should not be used anymore, yet they allow the studies using the Oxford criteria in the review - The main question of removing ME from CFS has not been tackled - they seem to think that ME is simply CFS that is more severe (there is no scientific evidence to back this up) - The majority of our studies have been excluded due to the rigid standards (NIH knew this would happen) - In addition: NIH states: P2P workshops are designed for topics that have incomplete or underdeveloped research, difficulty producing a report synthesizing published literature, and are generally not controversial. I think that one thing that we can all agree on is that this disease is hugely controversial. Why then do you think this process was chosen for this study? I think that these two day have been a play on us. It has been a big charade. They were very condescending to the patients/advocates commenting on both days. They wanted them there to appear as if it matters what we think. IT DOESN"T!!! I am 100% against this sham of a process and will continue to fight it.