be combined. These two names describe the same disease. The difference i=
s in the defnitions, not the symptoms. The Fukuda definition is 17 years o=
ld, out of date in relation to the research that has been done during those=
years, and was wrong in the first place in that it did not exclude psychol=
ogical causes. This disease does not change from one country to the next. =
It is called ME in Europe and called CFS here. The symptoms of "CFS" were j=
ust never properly prioritized or even fully comprehensive in the Fukuda de=
finition. =20
=20
However, if we use the best definition to date - the International Concensu=
s Criteria of July 2011 - and also read the long rationale for why that gro=
up of experts (far more distinguished and experienced than anyone in the CD=
C) settled on ME, there can be no doubt that about what disease they are de=
scribing. It is what we have known with the hated name of CFS. Attached i=
s the ICC definition and the rationale for it. Only the defnition and abst=
ract appeared in online in the Journal of Internal Medicine.
=20
In addition, Dr. Nancy Klimas' recent statement makes eminent sense as to w=
hy ME/CFS is the name that should be used, for pragmatic as well as diagnos=
tic reasons. We cannot go to ME in one fell swoop - it would cause too much=
confusion. But we certainly can recognize the new defintion as the correct=
one and use its reasoning to start referring to "CFS" as ME/CFS. (I even p=
refer ME/cfs, but that is just my opinion.)
=20
Dr. Nancy Klimas said to other CFSAC members: "The concept here is that Opt=
ion 1=20
was, in the feeling of our subcommittee, the best of the options to be=20
lumpers rather than splitters on the terminology of ME/CFS and post=20
viral syndrome, put that all together, with the idea that we are moving=20
toward name change and the name change is likely to not be multiple=20
names. And to have multiple divisions is going to be rather difficult=20
when we have this ICD-10 thing come upon us for quite some time. If we=20
could put things under a single code, I think we are going to be more=20
successful in our name change effort"
=20
Let us not be at each other's throats over this. The ME/CFS community has e=
nough enemies as is. But let us come together with a sensible name that can=
be used by all medical professionals for diagnosis and treatment. Dr. Klim=
as has it right (not surprisingly).
=20
One more thought:=20
All studies done using the Fukuda definition can be considered flawed. A ba=
d or incomplete defintion means invalid selection of study participants whi=
ch means skewed and unreliable data. Garbage in, garbage out.
=20
Billie Moore
New Jersey
---------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------
