CFS section of GWS manual

[Andrew]

I am looking only at the section of the GWS treatment guide that says it addresses CFS. It begins on page 97. I was not able to do the entire section. I only picked two things out of the treatment section that I know the most about.

Graded exercise:
They recommend graded exercise. And to support this, they reference three web sites that offer no citations to back up their claims. The IOM also cites two journal articles. The first is called The Neuroendocrinology of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. It says nothing about graded exercise helping CFS patients. The second paper, called Endorphins and Exercise, doesn’t even deal with CFS. The IOM panel also fails to mention the studies that show negative effects from exercise.

Pharmaceuticals:
They only mention pain control and sleep. In contrast, the Canadian Consensus document includes a section on pharmaceuticals for a much wider range of symptoms. I also know of two books that cover a wide range of pharmaceuticals along with citations.

I've seen better work from high school students.

Here's what the IOM says about their review process.

This report has been reviewed in draft form by persons chosen for their
diverse perspectives and technical expertise in accordance with procedures
approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The
purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments
that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible
and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards of objectivity,
evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and
draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative
process. We thank the following for their review of the report:
Niloofar Afari, University of California, San Diego
Melvin S. Blanchard, Washington University School of Medicine
Paul W. Brandt-Rauf, University of Illinois at Chicago School of
Public Health
Sandro Galea, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health
Naomi L. Gerber, George Mason University
Thomas V. Holohan, Clinical Evaluation, LLC; formerly Veterans
Health Administration
David R. Nerenz, Henry Ford Health System
Eliseo J. Perez-Stable, University of California, San Francisco
Karen S. Quigley, Northeastern University and Edith Nourse Rogers
Memorial VA Medical Center
Sandra J. W. Smeeding, Veterans Affairs Salt Lake City Health Care
System
Nancy Fugate Woods, University of Washington School of Nursing
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive
comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions
or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its
release. The review of the report was overseen by Lynn R. Goldman, Dean,
the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health
Services, and Enriqueta C. Bond, President Emeritus, Burroughs Wellcome
Fund. Appointed by the National Research Council and the Institute of
Medicine, respectively, they were responsible for making certain that an
independent examination of the report was carried out in accordance with
institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered.
Responsibility for the final content of the report rests entirely with
the authoring committee and the institution.
The review of the report was overseen by Lynn R. Goldman, Dean,
the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health
Services, and Enriqueta C. Bond, President Emeritus, Burroughs Wellcome
Fund. Appointed by the National Research Council and the Institute of
Medicine, respectively, they were responsible for making certain that an
independent examination of the report was carried out in accordance with
institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered.
Responsibility for the final content of the report rests entirely with
the authoring committee and the institution.

I added the bold lettering above. What this means is they accept no responsibility for the final product.

 

[SickOfSickness]

I wonder if we could have a campaign to write each of those people 20,000 emails with real data about "CFS".

 

[minkeygirl]

What a bunch idiots. I have one working brain cell and I can make more sense than them.

 

[alex3619]

I think we need to be careful in interpreting reviewers involvement. Reviewers see the report produced by the panel and produce comments and suggestions. They are not part of the panel. As a result they have no control over the report aside from their suggestions.

Having said that the commentary looks like something you could cook up using Wikiepedia for a few hours. "Evidence" based in this case means uncritical cherry-picking of unsubstantiated claims?

 

[justinreilly]

Here's what the IOM says about their review process.

I added the bold lettering above. What this means is they accept no responsibility for the final product.

They say this also in the section you quote:
"Responsibility for the final content of the report rests entirely with
the authoring committee and the institution."

So IoM does take some responsibility for the report, contrary to what Kate Meck said in response to David Egan. (also of course they do bear responsibility, no matter what they claim)