• Phoenix Rising needs funds to operate: please consider donating to support PR

What do you think of the IOM's new name for ME/CFS? VOTE!

What do you think of the IOM's new name for ME/CFS: SEID

  • Better than the status quo, but I wouldn't endorse it myself

    Votes: 27 16.9%
  • Better than the status quo, patients should get behind this

    Votes: 32 20.0%
  • No better than the status quo (most reseachers/clincians use CFS, occasionally ME/CFS)

    Votes: 19 11.9%
  • A waste of time

    Votes: 58 36.3%
  • Better than the status quo, but I'm unsure at this time whether I would endorse it myself.

    Votes: 24 15.0%

  • Total voters
    160
  • Poll closed .

justy

Donate Advocate Demonstrate
Messages
5,524
Likes
12,262
Location
U.K
@Simon - you have exercise instead of exertion in your post. This I think is an important point - many people will mistake exertion (which can include physical and mental exertion and perhaps even the exertion of merely being alive such as eating, breathing and speaking) with exercise. What about the neurological and immune aspects - these are the most abvious parts of my illness.
 

rosie26

Senior Member
Messages
2,441
Likes
5,237
It's still not the right name of course, though better than CFS. The new name doesn't really cover the mild ME's. I remember when I first started showing signs of ME in the 90's, I was still able to work full-time. And I wasn't able to recognize in those years that I was getting symptoms from exertion. So it would have been hard getting a diagnosis with the symptoms I was having back then. It was only when I collapsed into severe ME that things became horribly clear. I haven't read the report yet. But my first reaction to the new name was some disappointment to be honest.

I hope that out of all this we will get more funds for research - that's what we really need and then we'll get the 'right' name a lot quicker.
 

CBS

Senior Member
Messages
1,513
Likes
849
To me the PROPOSED name is not the most important aspect of today's report - mostly I think the proposed name is confusing. More importantly, I doubt anyone knows the full impact of changing the diagnostic criteria. We now have exactly ZERO validation (or any other type of) studies of S.E.I.D. If the new criteria unintentionally pulls in patients with primary depression (or other illnesses that aren't ME), then the ease of four simple symptoms (half as many as eight) would come at great cost to us.

And all of this for a cool $1 million! As long as we're not going to spend that on research, we probably could have gotten a much bigger bang by simply hiring a PR firm (and by PR firm, I'm not talking about the CDC).
 
Messages
3,788
Likes
14,822
Location
Monmouth, UK
@Simon - you have exercise instead of exertion in your post. This I think is an important point - many people will mistake exertion (which can include physical and mental exertion and perhaps even the exertion of merely being alive such as eating, breathing and speaking) with exercise. What about the neurological and immune aspects - these are the most abvious parts of my illness.
Thanks for pointing out, corrected now. Show's I can't remember the new name - it ain't easy
 

Scarecrow

Revolting Peasant
Messages
1,904
Likes
5,333
Location
Scotland
@Simon - you have exercise instead of exertion in your post. This I think is an important point - many people will mistake exertion (which can include physical and mental exertion and perhaps even the exertion of merely being alive such as eating, breathing and speaking) with exercise. What about the neurological and immune aspects - these are the most abvious parts of my illness.
I don't think Simon will be the last person to make that mistake.
 

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
Likes
23,071
I do think SEID is a more accurate description than CFS. Changing the name from CFS to SEID will help prevent some victim blaming coming from the general public, but probably not much from doctors. Preventing some victim blaming is better than nothing, so I voted that patients should get behind it. Doctor attitudes will gradually change with education, objective tests, and treatment options becoming available. To hope that the right name would change doctor attitudes is unrealistic.

Edit: and there are more important advocacy projects than changing name yet again.
 
Last edited:

GracieJ

Senior Member
Messages
761
Likes
1,765
Location
Utah
I think it is going to cause more confusion, but more questions as well. People are not going to research the history or the disorder. They will take the sound byte moment and run with it. It is significant that patients here are already referring to ME/SEID. Not a complete picture, just saying SEID. There are rumblings that the word brings up interesting :eek: things when Googled.

We still have a fight ahead, but this gives us some ammunition.

I am pleasantly surprised at this report. It could have been far worse, more like the redefinition of Gulf War Syndrome. As much as the muddle continues, and what it translates to for individuals, it also translates to further awareness, and perhaps a better approach as the next wave of patients comes into doctors' offices. My hope is that fewer and fewer nightmare scenarios ensue for patients from day one, whether with the physicians, families, or society. I would like to see the collective eye-rolling we know too well becoming a thing of the past.

Confusion aside, having this report out will add to the change that is building. We are building momentum, and I am sure the tipping point will come. In my lifetime, I do hope, but it will come. There are too many of us for the truth to not fully emerge.
 
Messages
2,239
Likes
16,213
I haven't yet had time to read this IOM report in any detail - so it's possible that these comments may be a bit too critical of what is being proposed regarding nomenclature.

CFS/chronic fatigue syndrome is an absolutely dreadful name for a serious and debilitating neurological illness. It is the equivalent of saying someone with dementia has a chronic forgetfullness syndrome. So CFS needs to be dumped into a medical dustbin as soon as possible.

But I'm not feeling very excited about what is being proposed today by the IOM.

If the international medical community now wants to put a thick red line through the name ME/myalgic encephalomyelitis (due to the probable pathological inaccuracy of the E in ME) I would suggest that we could have another go at promoting the term ME/myalgic encephalopathy - which is consistent with the structural and functional neurological abnormalities that have been reported in the medical literature and cannot be seriosuly challenged.

If the docs won't accept ME in either format, I would far prefer a new name that emphasises the neurological and immunological components of ME/CFS - perhaps something along the lines of chronic neuroimmune dysfunction disease.

My gut feeling is that this IOM proposal is not going to gain sufficient support from either the international patient community, or the international medical community.

SEID is not therefore going to be the solution regarding nomenclature that we desperatelyneed.

These are rapid personal opinions - I have not yet had time to discuss this report with MEA trustees.
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,801
Likes
37,625
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
All research on ME and CFS is in question anyway, there have always been cohort questions. I predict this name wont last, and I am not fully sure it will be adopted. In any case it will become tainted by dissenting psych opinion in particular, within years.

What this does have is that while there are no diagnostic tests, there are tests for most of the key diagnostic features. They do not have to be subjective.
 

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
Likes
23,071
If the international medical community now wants to put a thick red line through the name ME/myalgic encephalomyelitis (due to the probable pathological inaccuracy of the E in ME) I would suggest that we could have another go at promoting the term ME/myalgic encephalopathy - which is consistent with the structural and functional neurological abnormalities that have been reported in the medical literature and cannot be seriosuly challenged.
Is it even possible to get the IOM to change the name at this point? Would this even have a chance of success?