Is that how everyone understood the ICC Criteria? I am finding all of this very confusing
Foxglove explained what I think, too.
I am not sure, though, if muscle fatiguability is the same as muscle weakness. When reading peripheral neuropathy papers, muscle fatiguability was defined as part of muscle weakness.
From a mathematical point of view, and from an intellectual property viewpoint, the formulation in the ICC could be clearer. As Foxglove correctly said, in point 1 there is "and/or" meaning an option: physical fatiguability OR cognitive fatiguability. (And is muscle fatiguability part of physical fatiguability??) Point 5 contains "and": physical AND mental fatiguability. From an intellectual property view, due to point 5, in point 1 only "and" holds (because point 5 does not include the scope of "or" and ALL points 1-5 have to hold).
From a mathematical viewpoint: OR includes "and", so in point 1 "or" would suffice (in intellectual property this does NOT hold). But point 5 doesn't include "or". I would view it as ill-defined, because there is "and/or" and "and"; on the other hand, the denominator is "and". So "and" would hold. But honestly, I would have to discuss this with a mathematician.
In intellectual property, the entire text defines the invention, not just the claims. And the ICC text details a bit if muscle fatiguablity is required. Throughout the entire text, muscles are a topic.
All in all I need to conclude that muscle fatiguability/muscle issues are mandatory for an ME diagnosis.