Cort, Thanks for the interview, but the ME-ICC is not about reinventing
CFS or whatever you want to call it. This definition states that ME
should be removed.
And the question remains: does the CFIDS Association of America or
Pandora, MCWPA (and all the related/inter-related groups) support
the new ME-ICC definition? Seems there has only been rather tepid,
superficial mention of it. They ban and censor on their sites and
do not allow these questions, and if anything comes up they
say they will review it. It is odd as it has been 2 months.
(Yet they spend time trying to reclassify CFS, and saying
that CFS will somehow disappear?)
Claiming to be patient advocacy groups, they must be aware that
ME patients want recognition and that many patients have
erroneously been given a CFS diagnosis. This is not about
semantics, but it is very dangerous as recommendations
for CFS are very harmful. Trying to make them the same and
keeping the connection will only continue the same problems
and misinformation, which has literally contributed to the
iatrogenic worsening of the condition and in some cases even death.
Jill
-----
A wonderful, wonderful interview!
Thank you for doing this.
I was wondering...
Is there a comparison chart (or table) that exists and which shows all of the definitions, authors and dates? It would be helpful when comparing them.
I was diagnosed with the CCC in 2006.
I was wondering how similar or different the ICC is and does it make a difference for Canadians diagnosed with CFS (or CCC patients)?