Hi ME agenda aka Suzy, Thanks once again for the great help! Some points to go before I sleep... You mean the ICD-10-CA, right? This is almost exactly what we want to see in the next American ICD version! Good for the Canadians! I hope the ICD-11 turns out to be at least this good too. One complaint we would have, I guess, is the use of the word "benign" for ME, and I'd like to know how they define that. (How does the WHO "define" anything? What case definitions does it use?) Also, I would have expected ME to be the first disease listed and PVFS (whatever that is) and CFS listed under "includes". Makes more sense that way, and prevents some confusion about the necessity of viral pathogenesis. Yes, that's something we definitely need to look for. Do we have any good websearchers out there? Kennedy is right of course, but I blame those psychiatrists for this misconception. They keep using the term somatoform disorder, which confuses people, and worse still they encourage using it interchangeably with functional somatic syndromes (or symptoms). The worst propaganda device in this regard is Wikipedia, which has been hijacked by the Wessely school in their areas of interest. That's why the Wikipedia entry on CFS sucks so bad. But in the area of psychosomatic medicine they have completely re-written science and gotten away with it (because it's Wikipedia, and it can be infiltrated). Just look up "functional somatic" and you will get referred first to somatization disorder (NOT the same thing), then to things like "functional symptom". Here's where it gets even worse - the definition Wikipedia uses for functional symptom is: A functional symptom is a medical symptom in an individual which has no identified cause (etiology) despite extensive diagnostic assessments. By default, a functional symptom often is judged to have causes that are neither physical nor physiological, but rather psychological or psychiatric. Historically, functional symptoms tend to be reclassified as organic as investigative techniques improve. That is the the WORST attempt at a definition of ANYTHING I have ever read!! It is so laughably illogical...why would a functional symptom be seen as psychological "by default" if they "tend to be reclassified as organic as investigative techniques improve"?? If that's the how 'psychological science' actually looks at things, it isn't science at all, but a 'faith'! Yet I don't think that's (completely) the case, as this entry's ONLY reference, a British Medical Journal article by Richard Mayou and Andrew Farmer, states that: "Many of the somatic symptoms that they present with—such as pain, weakness, and fatigue—remain unexplained by identifiable disease even after extensive medical assessment. Several general terms have been used to describe this problem—somatisation, somatoform, abnormal illness behaviour, medically unexplained symptoms, and functional symptoms. We will use the term functional symptoms, which does not assume psychogenesis but only a disturbance in bodily functioning." So where did Wikipedia get it's definition? Not from its sole reference, apparently. And notice that even these authors point out that many psychologists use terms that DO imply psychogenesis for these "unexplained" symptoms. THAT, folks, is the source of our problems with the psychological profession: the scandalously unscientific, blatantly illogical ideology that anything that cannot be explained by current (even just standard) medical tests is all in the patient's head. How such practitioners do not get stripped of their licenses or at least laughed out of their profession is beyond me. And those are the people who dictate policy in the UK and have made inroads here in the US -- and yes PETER WHITE is one of the most influential ones. (And btw, one of the referenced authors in some of these twisted Wikipedia comments is his buddy and ours, Simon Wessely.) ------ Fresh eyes - I'll get back to you on the ME ICD thing when my brain stops hurting! ------- ETA - The article that Brenda linked to in the previous post is chock-full of the kind of psychiatric doublespeak that we have to be wary about. It's similar to the YouTube video link I gave in the CAA brochure/ Peter White thread, which is utterly shocking. Just watch Part 4, if you watch only one of the four parts (though you'll want to see 'em all). Anyone who defends using the terms CBT or GET on this site should be REQUIRED to watch it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvArXvqAMiA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They have so corrupted the meanings of traditional psychological terms and of the terms CBT and GET that none of them are useable anymore.