That's what the heading of the message mentions.
Not sure if that's the best term. I've heard Nancy Klimas say it should be called the International Consensus definition (or something to that effect) as there were all sorts of people involved in writing it, not just Canadians.
The distinction I'm making is between the definiton and the "Canadian guidelines" which is a big document (around 100 pages) (or the Overview - around 20 pages). These cover all sorts of issues on clinical management and suggestions for treatment. I think the Overview is excellent but have a few qualms about some of the things in the few guidelines. But if people are talking about clinical practice, one has to be clear what exactly one is talking about e.g. what Canadian doctors are doing/not doing. Some people might say "the British medical establishment are not going to accept the Canadian guidelines" - I think if you are talking about the full "100 page" document "lock stock and barrel", there is something to do that - they're not necessarily going to accept everything. Accepting the definition is a much smaller and simpler issue. Sometimes people talk about the "Canadian guidelines" but what they are referring to is the Canadian criteria rather than the full document. So things can get confusing if one is not clear.
Yes, I see that.
Nevertheless, we are talking about the 'criteria' or 'case definition' here for research purposes only, and I know that I've been using that term when discussing all 'CFS' criteria (Fukuda, Oxford etc.). 'Canadian' is only a shorthand use, because it is difficult to use full terms when discussing 'CFS' criteria at length and having to repeat them frequently in one paragraph, for example. I've seen others do similar.
Either way, scientists such as Wessely, White, Kerr, and charity reps such as Charles Shephard are aware that, when the term 'Canadian' criteria or case definition is made in regards to research, it is those, not the Guidelines as a whole. There is enough evidence of that, even in recent pronouncements from Shepherd, for example, on the UK XMRV research.