Actually, I didn't catch her explicitly saying she supports the Reeve's criteria. From what I understood, she says they are looking at forming an objectively based criteria. So she must not be too attached to it.
What I heard her say was she was involved in forming the criteria because just asking about fatigue did not seem to include others that seemed to have the illness. (how they can know that these people have the illness, I don't know. Seems circular reasoning to me.)
What I heard her stand by, asked by Jason, is the figure. She stands by the figure. But they are looking at getting objective measures to define illness.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, folks, I just checked again, but the CFS diagnostic criteria put out by CDC now does not say anything about emotional problems. I know a different standard was used for research. And that is a crying shame. It is bad science, for sure.
But that should have no bearing on clinicians diagnosing CFS appropriately. On the CDC Web site, it says major depressive disorder has similar symptoms but is a different illness. "Diagnosis of any of these conditions would exclude a definition of CFS unless the condition has been treated and sufficiently and no longer explains the fatigue and other symptoms." (I know a certain internist, who shall remain nameless, who needs to read this.)
Don't get me wrong, I think CDC has lots of splainin to do. There is no logical reason why a private lab was able to find in two years what CDC should have found in over 20 years of research. But I don't know how much of that can be laid at Unger's feet. And maybe they are headed in the right direction now, although too slow, even in government time.
Tina
but we do take into account context which is what Martlett was trying to point out. We don't have and don't want a rule to cover everything. We could have a rule in which you can use really big fonts if you're happy but not if you're posting something angry....but that obviously wouldn't work. We have to go by context sometimes.
