It seems strange to me that you object and attempt to silence my contribution on definitions and or their application to epidemics, on the basis of relevancy to this thread but have no qualms whatsoever in continuing to post your own views on the definitional aspects in this thread.
I'm sorry if that's what you understood me to be saying. I meant for you to carry on, but I wanted to check and see if the others on the thread (particularly the "owner" of the thread, heapsreal) felt this part was disruptive to the GB discussion, and if so, the continued conversation (including your part which I assumed you would continue also) could be moved. It appears from what you said that this conversation is pertinent to GB, however. Speaking of which, GB is associated with multiple sorts of infections and not only enterovirus. Why is that ok for GBS and not ok for ME?
You mentioned CFS in the "historical literature." Did you mean some disease other than ME, prior to the name of CFS being handed out? Or are you saying the Lake Tahoe cohort did not have enterovirus even though a number of experts have stated that they evidently had ME? I'm just trying to understand what you are telling me. I haven't been following the definition threads because I don't have the time/energy to be here at PR much right now (which also explains my delay in getting back to you; sorry about that).
I just don't see that CFS denotes any particular disease by any of the CFS definitions (not counting Canadian ME/CFS definition), and I don't know of any serious researcher who thinks any of these inclusions do, as written, denote any particular condition. I don't know what disease you mean by CFS that isn't ME, unless you mean any prolonged (as opposed to a normal case of monocucleosis or something like that) post/chronic infectious disease that's non-enteroviral.
Kerr's genomics subset studies do indicate good evidentiary support for subsets or different diseases if you prefer (my preference is to keep us all together, partly because we've been formed a cohesive group by reason of being mistreated together, but even more so because we seem to have the same NK cell dysfunction which would indicate same/similar disease by Klimas' studies and the same post-exercise dysfunction in terms of oxidative stress, cardiopulmonary dysfunction, ion channel dysfunction, etc.) but when it comes down to it, it's sort of sematics whether we have ME-I, ME-II, etc. or whether we have ME and two to twelve other diseases. It's also kind of sematics that there are a couple of different kinds of Lupus, diabetes, etc.
