Per Fink and Schroeder criticize the IOM report, Clayton responds

[Never Give Up]

From the JAMA "To The Editor" section:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2382974

Glad to see Dr. Clayton is still on the case!

 

[A.B.]

The new diagnostic proposal does not answer the question the important question of whether patients who have multisymptomatic ME/CFS have the same illness as patients with few symptoms.

Yea it doesn't, but neither does babbling around a bit then claiming that it's all the same.

And we don't need just need more research, but biomedical research because that can actually provide answers based on objective reality unlike psych research which is just well dressed opinion.

 

[jimells]

I found Dr Clayton's reference to the DSM to be rather amusing. I certainly appreciate that she is pointing out the hypocrisy of the psychobabblers' demand that the SEID criteria meets a standard we seldom see in the DSM.

At the same time, the DSM is such a low-quality document that I wouldn't want my shiny new million-dollar criteria associated with it in any way.

I'm not at all impressed with Dr Clayton's claim that they listened to patients, advocates, clinicians, and researchers who clearly want the industry to use the Canadian criteria or a variation thereof. If they were really listening, then they must need new hearing aids.

 

[halcyon]

Amusing criticism, especially coming from the 'bodily distress syndrome' dynamic duo. Clayton completely shuts them down with the objective findings part. This is the true science that these asshats love to ignore while attempting to shove CFS/FM/etc into their imagined somatoform disorder bucket.

 

[jimells]

Amusing criticism, especially coming from the 'bodily distress syndrome' dynamic duo.

Too bad the abstract doesn't include the criteria for their "disease". Methinks perhaps being alive qualifies one for this silliness. Or maybe the "Journal of Psychosomatic Research" is really a satire, and the joke's on us?