VA: CFS is a "Medically Unexplained Chronic Multi-Symptom Illness"

[justinreilly]

Below is an excerpt from the US Code (laws written by Congress) mentioning "CFS" as a "medically unexplained CMI." It seems to me almost certain that this was drafted by VA for Congress. It seems like there is a concerted effort afoot at VA to cement this nomenclature of "medically unexplained CMI" for all so called functional somatic syndromes including "CFS" and GWI. (thanks to Ren for finding this)

I guess this is to make them all seem vague and also to go along with the Wessely School/DSM 5 effort to make it seem like they are all just one vague mental illness- somatization/ somatic symptom disorder.

This makes me even more wary now of Mulrow since Deb Waroff found out that she was previously employed by VA.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=VA-2010-VBA-0026-0001

"medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illness (such as chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and irritable bowel syndrome) that is defined by a cluster of signs or symptoms"

 

[Ecoclimber]

Good find. It pretty much tells what the end game will be and the eventual alignment of the U.S. policies with the U.K.

 

[SilverbladeTE]

And we know from the Whistleblowing doctor who testified in front of Congress, that there Is a cover up

all those involved should be tried for murder and treason and EXECUTED in the USA.

 

[Iquitos]

From the link above, which is dated 2010:

"Finally, § 3.317(a)(2)(ii) exempts “[c]hronic multisymptom illnesses of partially understood etiology and pathophysiology” from being considered medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illnesses. To further clarify this exclusion, we have added the specific examples “diabetes” and “multiple sclerosis.” This clarification does not alter any existing rights under the current regulation, but merely provides examples to better illustrate the current regulation. The two listed examples, diabetes and multiple sclerosis, were cited by Congress in the legislative history of the authorizing legislation as examples of conditions that would not be within the scope of the statutory term “medically unexplained chronic multipsymptom illnesses.” See Joint Explanatory Statement, 147 Cong. Rec. at S13,238. When VA issued the rule currently in § 3.317(a)(2)(ii), we similarly explained that diabetes and multiple sclerosis were examples of conditions that would not meet the statutory and regulatory definition of “medically unexplained chronic multipsymptom illnesses.” 68 FR 34539, 34540 (June 10, 2003). We believe that including this information in the text of the regulation will be helpful to readers."

Since me/cfs has SOME (actually a great deal) pathophysiology that is understood, this should pave the way to EXCLUDING it from the definition of "medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illness."

If multiple sclerosis is excluded from that definition, then so should me/cfs be.

 

[justinreilly]

Iquitos, great find. This just makes VA's position and strategy clearer. I completely with you agree of course.

 

[xchocoholic]

Under supplementary information paragraph 8, it states that physical abnormalities don't support disability level. It's in the middle of that paragraph. ( My apologies for not being able to provide a link and quote. Also I hope I counted the paragraphs correctly. It's a pain on a small phone. )

That's not true for many of us who've seen doctors who knew what to look for.

While not specific to me/cfs, I have Hashimoto's, celiac, ataxia, etc etc.

I just wonder how many of us need to see better doctors in order to find physical signs of illness. Patting patients on the head and telling them not to worry isn't cutting it anymore.

tc ... x

 

[justinreilly]

Here it is:
"the term “medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illness” as currently defined in § 3.317(a)(2)(ii): “A diagnosed illness without conclusive pathophysiology or etiology, that is characterized by overlapping symptoms and signs and has features such as fatigue, pain, disability out of proportion to physical findings, and inconsistent demonstration of laboratory abnormalities.” This existing definition is based on the Congressional Joint Explanatory Statement that accompanied the introduction of medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illnesses into 38 U.S.C. 1117. See Explanatory Statement on House Amendment to Senate Amendments to H.R. 1291 [enacted as the Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act of 2001], 147 Cong. Rec. S13,235, S13,238 (Dec. 13, 2001)" [emphasis added]

 

[justinreilly]

Though this doesn't have any big or binding impact on our lives (unless you are a veteran) it is gross to see this language (the term, not the explanation) "enshrined" in a Federal Statute with the accompanying inaccurate 'explanatory statement.'

 

[Seven7]

From the link above, which is dated 2010:

"Finally, § 3.317(a)(2)(ii) exempts “[c]hronic multisymptom illnesses of partially understood etiology and pathophysiology” from being considered medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illnesses. To further clarify this exclusion, we have added the specific examples “diabetes” and “multiple sclerosis.” This clarification does not alter any existing rights under the current regulation, but merely provides examples to better illustrate the current regulation. The two listed examples, diabetes and multiple sclerosis, were cited by Congress in the legislative history of the authorizing legislation as examples of conditions that would not be within the scope of the statutory term “medically unexplained chronic multipsymptom illnesses.” See Joint Explanatory Statement, 147 Cong. Rec. at S13,238. When VA issued the rule currently in § 3.317(a)(2)(ii), we similarly explained that diabetes and multiple sclerosis were examples of conditions that would not meet the statutory and regulatory definition of “medically unexplained chronic multipsymptom illnesses.” 68 FR 34539, 34540 (June 10, 2003). We believe that including this information in the text of the regulation will be helpful to readers."

Since me/cfs has SOME (actually a great deal) pathophysiology that is understood, this should pave the way to EXCLUDING it from the definition of "medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illness."

If multiple sclerosis is excluded from that definition, then so should me/cfs be.

Nice logic??? Any way this can be included in the comments or accounted for in the IOM committee.