usedtobeperkytina
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,479
- Location
- Clay, Alabama
I want to help out here. "ME" refers to myalgic encephalomyelitis. It is the name given the Royal Free outbreak. That disease, as described, is now understood to have occurred before. It has been given names of "atypical polio," "Iceland disease," etc. The physician's guide that goes with criteria for the disease say this.
When the news media got a hold of another outbreak in the U.S., the CDC decided to come up with their own name for the disease and a way to diagnose it for research purposes. The outbreak that had been thought to be chronic EBV turned out not to be that, so someone had to correct the terminology and make clear EBV testing was not required to diagnose it. As we know, there was dispute in either the 1988 or 1994 time (forgot which one) between a few involved because a few said it should be named as "ME." But the evidence was not conclusive for inflammation in spinal cord and brain at that time, and being scientists with reputations, the majority went with accuracy of what they knew at the time.
But, the outbreaks in the US and subsequent other cases reported to them after news media reports were the same disease. Just because they made up a different name and did a new version of a symptom list does not mean it's a different disease. If a man sees an elephant and describes it as grey with big ears and another man describes it as grey with a hose for a nose, it doesn't mean they are describing different animals. One man says, "I'll call it 'big-eared heavy animal' " and another says, "I'll call it the 'hose-nosed skinny tail animal.' "
You can argue whether they are good or bad, precise or imprecise. But both are attempts to describe the same animal. Now, let's say a big controversy erupts. Two camps. On one side you have those who think the "hose-nosed" label is more accurate. And you have others who think the "big-eared" label is more accurate. How would you communicate to both groups that you are saying something about that animal? You might use both terms with a slash. This is actually recommended when there are labeling controversies. From Wikipedia:
So, to avoid taking sides in a nomenclature controversy but to indicate what you are referring to, it's proper to use both terms with a slash. So, you wouldn't have three terms all referring to different people: "Assyrier," "Syrianer" and "Assyrer/Syrianer" with a person choosing which one. It's all just different names for the same thing. Maybe one term is not as good as the other, in your opinion. Maybe one term has had associated descriptions that are vague, not distinct enough, even if it used more often. But that doesn't mean it refers to a different group.
And so, to show that the US "CFS" and the European "ME" is the same, the one disease, the Canadian Criteria used both terms with a slash to not take sides, to show the criteria is for what has previously been referred to as either "ME" or "CFS." And their criteria was intended to replace all previous ME and CFS criteria. It was not intended to create a third disease.
When the news media got a hold of another outbreak in the U.S., the CDC decided to come up with their own name for the disease and a way to diagnose it for research purposes. The outbreak that had been thought to be chronic EBV turned out not to be that, so someone had to correct the terminology and make clear EBV testing was not required to diagnose it. As we know, there was dispute in either the 1988 or 1994 time (forgot which one) between a few involved because a few said it should be named as "ME." But the evidence was not conclusive for inflammation in spinal cord and brain at that time, and being scientists with reputations, the majority went with accuracy of what they knew at the time.
But, the outbreaks in the US and subsequent other cases reported to them after news media reports were the same disease. Just because they made up a different name and did a new version of a symptom list does not mean it's a different disease. If a man sees an elephant and describes it as grey with big ears and another man describes it as grey with a hose for a nose, it doesn't mean they are describing different animals. One man says, "I'll call it 'big-eared heavy animal' " and another says, "I'll call it the 'hose-nosed skinny tail animal.' "
You can argue whether they are good or bad, precise or imprecise. But both are attempts to describe the same animal. Now, let's say a big controversy erupts. Two camps. On one side you have those who think the "hose-nosed" label is more accurate. And you have others who think the "big-eared" label is more accurate. How would you communicate to both groups that you are saying something about that animal? You might use both terms with a slash. This is actually recommended when there are labeling controversies. From Wikipedia:
The slash is also used to avoid taking a position in a naming controversy, allowing the juxtaposition of both names without stating a preference. An example is the designation "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" in the official U.S. census, reflecting the Syriac naming dispute. The Swedish census has come to a similar solution, using "Assyrier/Syrianer" to refer to the same ethnic group.
So, to avoid taking sides in a nomenclature controversy but to indicate what you are referring to, it's proper to use both terms with a slash. So, you wouldn't have three terms all referring to different people: "Assyrier," "Syrianer" and "Assyrer/Syrianer" with a person choosing which one. It's all just different names for the same thing. Maybe one term is not as good as the other, in your opinion. Maybe one term has had associated descriptions that are vague, not distinct enough, even if it used more often. But that doesn't mean it refers to a different group.
And so, to show that the US "CFS" and the European "ME" is the same, the one disease, the Canadian Criteria used both terms with a slash to not take sides, to show the criteria is for what has previously been referred to as either "ME" or "CFS." And their criteria was intended to replace all previous ME and CFS criteria. It was not intended to create a third disease.
Last edited:
