Yes, it does seem contradictory, doesn't it. First they say that it would be 'difficult' to claim that CFS is a mental health condition, and then they say that "CFS can alternatively be defined as neurasthenia", which is categorised as mental health in ICD-10. But, according to the ICD-10, CFS is not alternatively named as neurasthenia. 'Fatigue Syndrome' is listed under neurasthenia, but not CFS. In the index of the ICD-10, CFS links to ME. And 'Postviral fatigue syndrome' (under which ME is categorised) is excluded from the 'neurasthenia' category in the ICD-10. I'd like to see their justification for claiming that CFS is equivalent to neurasthenia. I wouldn't have thought that it would stand up in a court, if an insurance company refused payment by trying to claim that CFS is neurasthenia. Especially in the UK, where the NHS uses the name 'CFS/ME'. It's interesting to see evidence of (small 'p') politics at play, and why names and categorisations make a big difference for financial vested interests.