I have attempted to summarize below the salient facts and objections to the IOM contract. Hopefully this can be of help to anyone struggling to understand it from all the different threads or to anyone in need of a simple way to explain it to others.
Please let me know if you have any suggestions.
Please let me know if you have any suggestions.
What Is Happening?
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has recently contracted with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to redefine Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS).
In October 2012, the CFS Advisory Committee (CFSAC) recommended a workshop to create an improved consensus definition for CFS research and clinical practice. This workshop was supposed to 1) involve CFS stakeholders, 2) be in consultation with CFSAC members, and 3) start discussion with the 2003 Canadian Consensus Criteria (CCC) for ME/CFS [1].
The IOM contract completely circumvents this recommendation by violating all three criteria. Furthermore, after learning of the contract, 35 experts on CFS (clinicians and researchers) signed a joint letter to HHS Secretary Sebelius urging cancellation of the contract and reiterating the need to build upon the CCC [2]. Secretary Sebelius has not even acknowledged this letter.
Despite government shutdown, the HHS is acting with haste and secrecy in pushing forward with the IOM contract in an apparent attempt to head off organized opposition from the CFS community. The HHS has also co-opted the acquiescence of two CFS advocacy organizations (CFIDS Association of America (CAA) and Pandora) to usurp and misrepresent the voices of many patients who are opposed and want the contract cancelled.
Why Is This Contract Bad?
Patients are opposed to this contract for many reasons:
- The great haste and secrecy with which the HHS has set up this contract, which has precluded patient input and timely objection and belies an ulterior motive.
- The precedent set by a similar IOM contract for Gulf War Illness (GWI): The result was a costly panel consisting entirely of non-experts and psychologically-biased participants that ignored research on biological abnormalities and redefined GWI as Chronic Multisymptom Illness (CMI), officially recommending only psychological interventions for a devastating physical disease.
- The IOM’s infatuation with evidence-based medicine (EBM), while laudable in some ways, is inappropriate for the task. EBM is inadequate when confronted with medical ambiguity and will likely serve as a filter that overstates the value of pseudoscientific psychogenic research due to its disproportionately biased funding, as was the case with GWI.
- The IOM’s stated commitment to disallowing “biased” panel members will plausibly be used to exclude expert CFS clinicians and researchers.
- The disrespectful refusal of the HHS to acknowledge or respond to the joint objection from CFS experts.
- The deliberate circumventing of the CFSAC recommendations by the HHS.
- The estimated cost of the contract ($1 million plus) is a waste of the limited and inadequate taxpayer resources allocated to CFS.
Given these concerns and others, there is little reason to believe that the HHS is acting in good faith. And even if HHS is acting in good faith, the secrecy and haste have prevented us from ascertaining whether the process and methodology being used will necessarily produce a biased outcome.
- The general mistreatment and marginalization that CFS patients have endured from the HHS over the past 30 years.
It is inconceivable that the IOM will proceed differently this time with respect to CFS when doing so would highlight and invalidate their reckless and irresponsible work with GWI. Patients anticipate that this contract, if it proceeds, will result in a similarly “official” mischaracterization of CFS as psychosomatic, creating further devastation and setback for CFS patients.
[1] http://www.hhs.gov/advcomcfs/recommendations/10032012.html
[2] http://bit.ly/15npS9B