like @
alex3619 ,
the rules they will be operating under are perhaps even more important than the committee makeup. Even if more people than not already are, or become, convinced it's an important and biomedical disease, if the rules say they have to throw out everything that is not a huge trail replicated x number of times, or an RCT (EMB was usually intended for treatment trials, not for definitions--as Alex said, this is a Category Error), they will end up with next to nothing.
maybe PACE, which they might or might be allowed to grade as low quality, and maybe a handful of other studies.
In the end perhaps the most honest thing this effort could do would be to come to no conclusion. But if they mail THAT to everybody, that does not bode well.
This is why they should FIRST fund research, and ONLY THEN engage in more redefinition efforts, especially if they want to rely on hard science more than clinical expertise.
Other diseases get clinical expertise as initial definitions, then science, then refine the clinical definitions but somehow, that is "not good enough" in our case. We "have to prove" the unproveable.
Because the result will be nothing and then they can go on blythely discriminating against us. But now they can claim it is "evidence-based" and put a NAS seal on it.
We still need to see the contract. If they cannot show the contract, or the contract is poor, it has to be canceled.