It's a complete lie to say there's no evidence of 'itis' -- it was found by Peterson et al in the Tahoe outbreak and then published. CNS vasculitis was found in the 50's. Ganglionitis was found in several recent well-publicised post-mortems in the UK, and this was mentioned by Dr Chaudhuri (IIRC another MEA advisor) at a recent conference. Yet STILL people are being brainwashed into parrotting the same old anti-ME establishment-pleasing rhetoric. Sophia Mirza must have been misdiagnosed or had a comorbidity! they cry. I guess it's more comforting to believe a nice lie than an unpleasant truth. And why should the amount the time Dr SHepherd has been around make any difference? Wessely has been around since "before some people were born" as well. That's not an argument, it's a wretched appeal to emotion. Prof Nancy Klimas has also stated that there's "massive" CNS inflammation -- itis. Is she so inept she'd get that wrong -- I don't thnk so. All else being equal I'll take a Prof over a Doc, someone who's an expert in AIDS. You won't find Charly boy saying that he'd rather have AIDS than ME, indeed, he wrote in his book that there's no reason most pwME can't have a good quality of life! Autobiographic? Then of course Shepherd himself wrote an e-BMJ response stating there WAS evidence of inflammation, before the wind changed direction. Maybe it will blow back again one day -- though probably too late because they've already committed to a new name, enhancing "nominative fatigue" among the medical community. WHO does this scientific inaccuracy benefit? The argument that ME-opathy is less offensive to psychologists... Hell yeah, that's why it's called appeasement, though the irony is it's too late since they managed to inviegle CFS or "CFS/ME" into every corner so that doesn't wash. The MEA seem to think it's the reason why ME isn't accepted; clearly it's not, as besides 'opathy' not having made a jot of difference, ask any cynic and they will give you a whole ragbag of excuses (some criticising "myalgic") demonstrating the real reason is institutionalised prejudice/ignorance. Trying to naively fight that by changing a few syllables is like trying to fight slavery by getting rid of the Afro. I don't really understand these overbearing tribal, emotional allegiances people have to certain people in the field, as if it's somehow fated they can do no wrong, ignoring any evidence to the contrary, ignoring the repeated betrayals and selling-outs. If you want a zero tolerance stance (and why wouldn't you?) you wont find it in CS since he supports GET when it suits him, signed the crappy CMO report (that recommeds GET) which was condemned by MERUK, excuses the rash of psychosocial clinics and never wastes an opportunity to rubbish many biomedical findings (the RNase L researchers are just in it for the money you see; ME doesn't cause this finding or that finding). People are resting "too much" and being threatened by "excessive" investigations, and there's too much emphasis on pain and sleep problems when they should be doing "sleep hygeine". The issue of CBT/GET remains the great white elephant in the room which too many so-called advocates are fudging, pretending the somatising/deconditioning vs infection/disease issue is over or that by paying lip service to words like "physical", "neurological" that will somehow compel people to change their beliefs and actions. The most recent bad taste he's left is in furthering the fantasy where sufferers are to blame for the lack of biomedical research. Unforgivable.