NYT letter to editor re: David Tuller article

[Sean]

When White et al talk about their cohort's 'disability'- it's in the above context, as 'mentally disabled' not physically. This is a key issue and their getting all protective and caring for their cohorts' 'disability' deflects attention away from the lack of physiological impairment that would be found say, in patients fulfilling the Canadian criteria!

Good point.

But they also have to deliver on the employment front. They have to justify the economics of this approach to disability. If they are not translating those (minor) subjective 'improvements' into substantial numbers of patients substantially increasing (and sustaining) their genuine paid work hours (ie being less dependent on welfare), then they and their model will not hold favour with the medical, political and economic establishment forever.

 

[Ember]

In the "Protocol for the PACE trial," I found the answer to my earlier question about the "two other definitions of the illness" that were used. On visit 2, participants were assessed according to (among other things) the CDC criteria for CFS (2003) and the London criteria for ME (1994).

These references are cited:

Reeves WC, Lloyd A, Vernon SD, Klimas N, Jason LA, Bleijenberg G, Evengard B, White PD, Nisenbaum R, Unger ER: The International Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Study Group Identification of ambiguities in the 1994 chronic fatigue syndrome research case definition and recommendations for resolution.
BMC Health Services Research 2003., 3(25).

The London criteria, quoted in The National Task Force. Report on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), Post Viral Fatigue Syndrome (PVFS) and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) Bristol, Westcare; 1994.

 

[Angela Kennedy]

In the "Protocol for the PACE trial," I found the answer to my earlier question about the "two other definitions of the illness" that were used. On visit 2, participants were assessed according to (among other things) the CDC criteria for CFS (2003) and the London criteria for ME (1994).

These references are cited:

Reeves WC, Lloyd A, Vernon SD, Klimas N, Jason LA, Bleijenberg G, Evengard B, White PD, Nisenbaum R, Unger ER: The International Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Study Group Identification of ambiguities in the 1994 chronic fatigue syndrome research case definition and recommendations for resolution.
BMC Health Services Research 2003., 3(25).

The London criteria, quoted in The National Task Force. Report on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), Post Viral Fatigue Syndrome (PVFS) and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) Bristol, Westcare; 1994.

But- as I explained in previous posts, it's really not as simple as that.

 

[pamb]

Much to my surprise, I received a personal thank you email from David Tuller after I emailed to thank him for the article. My email (as recommended here) was short and sweet and I thanked him for the article, the reply to White, and for his intelligence and integrity.

Pretty classy to email back to me I thought.