- Messages
- 13,774
what exactly would the highest standard review from the IOM look like? The only examples we have so far are damning.
I've never really understood what good for patients could come out of the IOM process, and that has made me deeply cynical and concerned about the whole process. I wonder if I was wrong to be thinking of it in scientific/medical terms though, and maybe the IOM could be like a useful brand to attach to a CFS criteria in order to make funding for CFS research seem more respectable? Maybe the IOM could be a 'good' thing, even if it just leads to another criteria which is marginally worse that what we already have (and none of them are great)?
I don't want to get carried away in positivity here, and I certainly think that it's important that more work is put into understanding the backgrounds of the people on this committee, as well as ongoing oversight of their work, remit, attention to patient concerns, etc... but those names do not look like a stitch up to me.