don't seem to be picking up on it)
In David Tuller's recent excellent article, "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
and the CDC: A Long, Tangled Tale" (http://bit.ly/tL67n6 i.e.
http://www.virology.ws/2011/11/23/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-and-the-cdc-a-lo=
ng-tangled-tale/)
it says: "Three major ongoing CDC studies have samples selected
through use of the empiric criteria."
This is just after a quote from Dr. Unger (see extract below). I
presume this must be based on what Dr. Unger said or some other source
within the CDC - I'm not sure other people would know exactly how many
studies the CDC were doing, using this criteria.
On the CFSAC website, there are documents like:
http://1.usa.gov/vwfWLl i.e.
http://www.hhs.gov/advcomcfs/meetings/presentations/cfsac-recommendations-c=
hart_201105-updated-20110726.pdf
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
CFSAC recommendation:
Multiple case definitions currently are used for CFS. The CFSAC
rejects the empirical case definition and the terminology of =93chronic
un-wellness=94, both of which are endorsed by the CDC, and recommends
that DHHS recognize a need for and commit to support a national effort
to arrive at a consensus definition of CFS that is accurate,
standardized, and reflective of the true disease. (10/09)
----
Progress: Yes
"The CDC uses the 1994 International Research Case definition. The
term =93chronic unwellness=94 is not a CFS case definition component and
is not used as such by the CDC."
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
This is clearly written to give the impression that the empirical case
definition is not being used.
Tom
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Don't support the Reeves/empirical definition/criteria for CFS?
Sign the petition at: http://CFSdefinitionpetition.notlong.com
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=93Given the CDC=92s stature and respect in the scientific world, this new
definition might be widely used by investigators and clinicians,=94
wrote Dr. Jason and his co-authors. =93This might result in the
erroneous inclusion of people with primary psychiatric conditions in
CFS samples, with detrimental consequences for the interpretation of
epidemiologic, etiologic, and treatment efficacy findings for people
with CFS.=94 The authors also noted pointedly that the population
prevalence for CFS calculated using the empiric definition was close
to that for major depressive disorders.
Although the empiric case definition was published six years ago, it
has not found any favor outside the CDC, raising questions about the
comparability of CDC data derived from its use to results from other
studies. Dr. Unger wrote in her e-mail response that she knew of no
other researchers who had adopted the empiric criteria, although she
noted that =93others have started applying case definitions using
instruments as tools, recognizing the improved ability to get
consistent results.=94 Three major ongoing CDC studies have samples
selected through use of the empiric criteria.
---------------------------------------------
Send posts to CO-CURE@listserv.nodak.edu
Unsubscribe at http://www.co-cure.org/unsub.htm
Select list topic options at http://www.co-cure.org/topics.htm
---------------------------------------------
Co-Cure's purpose is to provide information from across the spectrum of
opinion concerning medical, research and political aspects of ME/CFS and/or
FMS. We take no position on the validity of any specific scientific or
political opinion expressed in Co-Cure posts, and we urge readers to
research the various opinions available before assuming any one
interpretation is definitive. The Co-Cure website <www.co-cure.org> has a
link to our complete archive of posts as well as articles of central
importance to the issues of our community.
---------------------------------------------
