A Hummingbirds Guide to M.E. :: Information on Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

Home

Hummingbirds

What is M.E.?

M.E: The Medical Facts

The M.E. Symptom List

The M.E. Ability Scale

The Terminology Explained

Activism and Advocacy

Smoke and Mirrors

The Myths about M.E.

A Million Stories Untold

Problems with the use of 'ME/CFS' by M.E. advocates

Problems with the use of 'ME/CFS' by M.E. advocates This paper looks at why it is not in our best interests as M.E. patients and advocates to use or support the use of 'ME/CFS.'

This page features the full-length 5 page text (plus the large extra quotes section).

A summarised 3 page version of this text is also available, see: Problems with the use of 'ME/CFS' by M.E. advocates: Summary

See the Downloads section below to download this paper in Word or PDF format.

A 'Relevant quotes by other M.E. advocates and experts' section is also available below.

Problems with the use of the term 'ME/CFS'

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (M.E.) is a debilitating neurological disease. In recognition of the overwhelming amount of compelling scientific evidence available, M.E. was formally classified as an organic neurological (CNS) disease in the World Health Organisation’s International Classification of Diseases in 1969 with the code G.93.3. M.E. has several unique features but is also similar in a number of significant ways to diseases such as multiple sclerosis, Lupus and poliomyelitis (polio). In some cases M.E. disease is fatal.

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis is a distinct, scientifically measurable and testable, acute onset, organic neurological disease. ‘CFS’ in contrast, is not a distinct disease. The man-made financially motivated ‘CFS’ definitions describe no distinct patient group and so a diagnosis of ‘CFS’ is merely a wastebasket diagnosis; it just means that the patient has a gradual onset fatigue syndrome which is usually due to a missed major psychological or non-psychological disease. Every diagnosis of ‘CFS’ is a misdiagnosis. ‘CFS’ doesn’t exist.

The use of the mixed term ‘ME/CFS’ by some former M.E. advocates (and others) makes no sense at all, but is unfortunately becoming far more common.

Many of those M.E. advocates who use the term ‘ME/CFS,’ say, (correctly!) that the distinct neurological disease M.E. and the man-made bogus disease category of ‘CFS’ are NOT the same. But they then often also say things like; 'ME/CFS is a serious disorder which occurs in epidemic and sporadic forms, is initiated by a virus (most likely an enterovirus), and is defined by severe fatigue...’ etc. which incorrectly imply that the name and definition of ‘CFS’ is synonymous with authentic M.E.

‘ME/CFS’ advocates often (bizarrely) pour scorn on the Wessely school’s use of the term ‘CFS/ME’ and complain about how ridiculous it is that anyone could think that ‘ME/CFS’ and ‘CFS/ME’ were the same thing. You also sometimes read comments like; ‘This recent (M.E.) CFS study showed that patients had....’ The term M.E. is put into brackets next to the term ‘CFS’ which implies again, that ‘CFS’ is just another name for M.E. and that research done under the name and definitions of ‘CFS’ is entirely relevant to M.E. patients.

If you read an article that contained these types of illogical and contradictory uses of terminology about any other illness (for example a Migraine advocate who wanted to point out that Migraines and Headaches were not the same but used the term ‘Migraines/Headaches’ throughout, and so on) what would you make of it? You’d probably think that the two entities really were just the same and that it was just about one patient group merely preferring a different or more serious sounding term perhaps, but nothing to do with actual definitions. NONE of the points being made about how different the two entities were would sink in at all. How could they?

You just can't argue that M.E. and ‘CFS’ are not the same, and then use the term ‘ME/CFS’ (or ‘ME-CFS’ or ‘CFS/ME’) and expect to be taken seriously or to get the points across that we desperately need to. Using these terms CONTRADICTS whatever else you say about M.E. and ‘CFS’ not being the same. It makes what you are saying absolute gibberish. Just completely nonsensical and illogical.

That ‘ME/CFS’ is confusing and illogical is only the start of the problem however.

So why are so many former M.E. advocates starting to support ‘ME/CFS’? Why have some advocates and advocacy and research groups who fought so hard against us accepting these mixed terms initially, now started using them; when all the problems with the use of these terms remain unchanged since they were first proposed? Why too are so many of us in the M.E. community so accepting of this illogical use of terminology and the mixing of the definitions of M.E. and ‘CFS’ by those meant to be fighting against these exact same problems?

Why is ‘ME/CFS’ being used so much more often?

It seems like using ‘ME/CFS’ is really just about popularity, very often, sadly. That it is just about playing both (or all) sides and so keeping the maximum number of people superficially happy generally, and superficially happy with the individual advocate or group. These mixed terms are accepted by many propaganda supporting ‘CFS’ researchers and ‘advocacy’ groups, by people misdiagnosed with ‘CFS’ who don’t have M.E. as well as by some genuine neurological M.E. patients. So supporting these vague mixed terms makes an advocate or advocate group popular with the largest possible number of patients and patient groups (and funding bodies) etc. But is that really a good enough reason to work against the best interests of the patient group (or groups) they claim to be advocating for? (Is our own mere popularity really what should be our main priority as advocates? What about truth? What about not compromising on the FACTS? What about putting ethics and patient welfare FIRST, before your own personal interests or the interests of your group? What on earth is the POINT otherwise??)

None of the justifications made by individual advocates or advocacy groups for using the term ‘ME/CFS’ hold up. These are some of the most common;

The claim that we have to use the term ‘CFS’ (and so ‘ME/CFS’) because some of the recent research (at least partly) involving M.E. patients has been done under the name ‘CFS’ is bogus.

Of course we should reference such research that is relevant, but this could very easily be done by writing a short explanation of the confusion between M.E. and ‘CFS’ (and why some research done under the name ‘CFS’ does relate at least in part to M.E. but why the vast majority does not and that M.E. and ‘CFS’ should not be considered synonymous terms and that the ‘CFS’ definitions do not define M.E. and that M.E. is neither ‘medically unexplained’ nor defined by mere ‘fatigue’) and including this in each article or piece of research. This is the type of vital basic information that even without the terminology issues, we need to get out there as a first priority anyway. To say this notification has to be done with the terminology itself is ridiculous. Yes the term ‘ME/CFS’ lets you claim some of the relevant to M.E. ‘CFS’ research, but you also blindly claim the other 95% (or more) of ‘CFS’ research which isn’t relevant to M.E. and which directly harms M.E. patients (etc.). You imply incorrectly that M.E. and ‘CFS’ are the same, and so on, which is a major cause of our entire problem.

The claim that ‘ME/CFS’ is about getting those M.E. patients misdiagnosed with ‘CFS’ to be able to find information about M.E. also doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

Again, yes, this is something that it is very important that we do, but it is misleading to suggest that this can only be done using the main terminology we use. It could be done so simply and so much more clearly with a short explanation (a few carefully written paragraphs) which is briefly referred to at the top of the page where you first use the term M.E. and included in full at the bottom of the page (or included in full at the top of the page) and repeated as much as necessary. This way you would also avoid giving patients misdiagnosed with ‘CFS’ who DON’T have M.E., the mistaken (and harmful) idea that they do have M.E. and that M.E. and ‘CFS’ are the same, and so on. You’d avoid reinforcing any of the myths about M.E. and ‘CFS.’

The claim that ‘ME/CFS’ is a temporary term, and that eventually the ‘CFS’ part will just drop off and our only chance for change is gradual change is false.

This exact strategy has been tried and tried again for the last 20 years and it has failed totally. We are worse off now than 20 years ago, if anything. Trusting that if we compromise ourselves now (by mixing M.E. and ‘CFS’) that we will be rewarded with something that we want to happen but which harms the interests of the vested interest group involved – without any type of force being exerted on our part – is just fanciful, unfortunately. These groups are never going to willingly admit the truth about M.E. when doing so means they lose millions or even BILLIONS of dollars (as well as having to admit that they have acted dishonestly and criminally).

The claim that we have to use this term because it is used in the 2003 Canadian ‘ME/CFS’ definition is also bogus.

Yes, specific parts of the paper are relevant to M.E. to some extent and worth supporting, but this is NOT a pure M.E. definition, it is at best a mix of M.E. and ‘CFS’ and does not select a 100% M.E. patient group. For each good part of the paper there is also another scientifically questionable and psychologically biased part, and overall it also strongly suggests incorrectly that M.E. and ‘CFS’ are the same and that M.E. is defined by ‘medically unexplained fatigue’ and so on. It reinforces some of the most harmful myths about M.E. Yes parts of it deserve our qualified support, but it certainly does not justify the widespread use of the term ‘ME/CFS’ by M.E. advocates.

(It should also be noted that in some ways this definition is even more dangerous than the ‘CFS’ definitions, which were not M.E. definitions at all. This mixed ‘ME/CFS’ definition has unfortunately made many patients misdiagnosed with ‘CFS’ mistakenly think they have M.E. (or think they have something called ‘ME/CFS’ which doesn’t actually exist). It also leaves the door wide open for research to be done on non-M.E. patient groups, which can then be more convincingly incorrectly said to relate to M.E. patients. Something we need to keep in mind.)

‘ME/CFS’ just doesn’t make sense. The reasons given for supporting ‘ME/CFS’ by those pushing so hard for its use seem to be just excuses, not reasons. The real reasons remain obscured, which is of real concern. For every problem ‘ME/CFS’ supposedly solves, it creates many more far worse problems, and these same primary problems can all be solved so simply in other ways that have NO HUGE DOWNSIDES!

So who does benefit from Myalgic Encephalomyelitis being mixed with ‘CFS’?

Whose interests does ‘ME/CFS’ primarily serve? That is the real question we should all be asking. The answer of course is, yet again, powerful financial vested interest groups such as the medical insurance industry, the vaccine industry, the government and others who are directly saving themselves millions or even billions of dollars through this obfuscation. (See the new paper; ‘Who benefits from ‘CFS’ and ‘ME/CFS’?’ for more information). The groups that benefit from ‘ME/CFS’ are the same groups that benefited from the creation of ‘CFS.’

It is hardly a coincidence that Professor Simon Wessely – the most powerful and influential of the group of doctors who have made themselves the tools of insurance companies – is the person credited with inventing the mixed term ‘CFS/ME.’ The mixing of M.E. and ‘CFS’ in this way serves vested interest groups well. This is why so many of the very worst government reports (and so on) in the UK, Australia and the Netherlands which talk about patients as if they were mildly ill malingerers who could easily improve if not recover from their ‘fatigue’ if only they could be convinced to try CBT or GET, and so on, (a) often use terms such as ‘CFS/ME’ or ‘ME/CFS’ in the titles and throughout and (b) very often mix in some of the facts about M.E. (ie. symptoms, history, severity/disability etc.) with bogus information about ‘CFS’ while of course the entirety of the all important CONCLUSIONS given (ie. aetiology, psychological status, improvement of symptoms, response to treatments and recovery rates) are drawn exclusively from non-M.E. ‘CFS’ patient groups. ‘ME/CFS’ and ‘CFS/ME’ lets these groups have it both ways. They get to continue happily with their unscientific and unethical ‘CFS’ obfuscation agenda, and they get to do so with far less opposition from the patients they’re harming, or even with the support of some of these patient groups;

Because a small proportion of the legitimate symptoms and other characteristics of M.E. are often listed, along with the information on ‘CFS,’ it is far easier for these groups to argue that the entire paper/study relates to M.E. than it would be if it was focused entirely on ‘CFS.’ So yet again, these vested interest groups are able to produce more bogus ‘evidence’ that M.E. can be improved by exercise or is caused by stress etc. (Conclusions which could never be claimed if there were actually M.E. patients involved in the study and the study were conducted scientifically).

So long as a paper or study uses the term ‘ME/CFS’ and talks about physical findings (eg. gene abnormalities) it is accepted by many in the M.E. community as involving M.E. patients (and being for our benefit), even if there is no evidence at all for this, and patients have been selected merely because they qualify for a ‘CFS’ misdiagnosis (ie. on the basis of ‘fatigue’).

The fact that a small part of a paper relates to M.E. is enough to mislead some sufferers and advocates into thinking that; ‘At least it mentions some of the real facts of M.E. so it’s a step in the right direction at least. Finally we are getting somewhere. This should be applauded as a real step in the right direction.’ So they offer far less opposition – or even overwhelming support – for a mixed M.E. and ‘CFS’ paper than they would for an entirely ‘CFS’ based one. This is despite the fact that the bottom line of these papers remains unchanged from the ‘CFS’ insurance scam agenda and that yet again the result will be abuse, mistreatment and neglect for M.E. patients through the confusion between M.E. and ‘CFS’ and the mixing of very different patient groups etc.

This is why articles and studies which mix together facts about M.E. and ‘CFS’ are even more dangerous in many ways than pure ‘CFS’ ones. The issue is not that ‘ME/CFS’ just isn’t a very good solution that will not do much good, as many have been arguing. There is so much more than that at stake here. Not only will ‘ME/CFS’ not help, it can make things so much worse for us all. It will bury the truth about M.E. even deeper (by hiding it in plain sight) and make it harder than ever for anyone to separate M.E. out from the vague mess of ‘CFS’ or for those misdiagnosed as ‘CFS’ to be given a correct diagnosis and their basic right to appropriate treatment.

The ‘ME/CFS’ concept: (a) is confusing, (b) is illogical, (c) strongly reinforces the same misinformation which is the cause of our problem (ie. that M.E. and ‘CFS’ are the same), (d) benefits the interests of the same vested interest groups which benefit from ‘CFS’ in the exact same way, (e) reinforces the position of vested interest groups that ‘CFS’ is a real disease and that their bogus ‘CFS’ work/research is scientifically valid, (f) does nothing to counter the real problems which are the definitions of ‘CFS’ and the involvement of vested interest groups in what should be a purely scientific discussion, (g) greatly reduces the credibility of M.E. by aligning it with the bogus disease category of ‘CFS,’ (h) lessens the impact of the legitimate facts about M.E., (i) can work to cut M.E. off from its 70 year history, previous case studies, research and definition, and its correct WHO classification and so on; just as ‘CFS’ does, (j) harms M.E. patients and those misdiagnosed with ‘CFS’ who don’t have M.E. in the same way ‘CFS’ does, and (k) holds back the fight for justice and recognition of authentic neurological Myalgic Encephalomyelitis immeasurably.

The mixing of M.E. and ‘CFS’ was invented by these vested interest groups and it is a tool they use to good effect and as much as possible. It shouldn’t be hard to work out therefore that legitimate M.E. advocates using THE SAME TWISTED AND OBSFUCATING STRATEGY is not a good idea and is only going to further their interests instead of ours. We have to stop supporting our abusers, and their strategies, if we want to get anywhere.

What can Myalgic Encephalomyelitis advocates learn from how other diseases have gained recognition and justice finally?

It seems a lot like us using ‘ME/CFS’ now is as short-sighted as it would have been for HIV and AIDS activists years ago, when the name was "Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome’ or GRIDS (or even the ‘Gay plague’), to have pushed for the acceptance of ‘HIV/GRIDS’ or ‘AIDS/GRIDS.’ Or if multiple sclerosis advocates had pushed for the acceptance of MS/Hysterical paralysis years ago instead of just MS, or if Down syndrome advocates had accepted a term like Down syndrome/Mongoloidism, instead of fighting (justifiably) hard to have the offensive term ‘Mongoloid’ dropped completely. People pushing now for the so-called ‘compromise’ of ‘ME/CFS’ is just the same – just as unwise – except of course that M.E. advocates pushing for the acceptance of ‘ME/CFS’ is many times even more counter-productive.

This is because our problem isn’t just that the term ‘CFS’ is offensive and inaccurate. That is only a very small part of the problem, and a largely irrelevant one at that (compared to the bigger issues). The real issue is that the term ‘CFS’ is inextricably linked, and synonymous with the DEFINITIONS of ‘CFS’ which are in no way M.E. definitions and which define a completely different, unrelated, vague and heterogenous patient group. This fictional ‘CFS’ disease construct is, along with the unethical involvement of groups with financial vested interests in what should be a purely scientific discussion, the cause of our entire problem!

If the aforementioned groups had not chosen to fight hard for what was scientifically correct and right, instead of settling for the same sort of unnecessary hijacking of reality that ‘ME/CFS’ advocates are suggesting… then who knows how much this may have held these patient groups back, or for how many years or decades their positive outcomes may have been delayed because of it? It is certainly something to think about.

Successful patient advocacy groups/campaigns have achieved success in the past through guts, determination, a willingness to fight selflessly for the facts and what is scientifically and ethically right, refusing to compromise (or sell) themselves and their integrity. We have to do the same if we want the same type of success.

This isn’t just about terminology, it is about definitions

The terminology is often used interchangeably, incorrectly and confusingly. But the DEFINITIONS of M.E. and ‘CFS’ are very different and distinct, and it is the definitions of each of these terms which is of primary importance. Having said that, very often, advocates that have compromised with the terminology have also compromised and warped the definition of M.E. too. So very often, where there’s smoke there’s fire!

It should not be assumed that when the term ‘ME/CFS’ is being used that it is authentic Myalgic Encephalomyelitis as per Ramsay, Dowsett and Hyde etc. and the long history of M.E. and M.E. outbreaks that is being referred to – as this is most often not the case. It should also not be assumed that ‘ME/CFS’ research necessarily involves M.E. patients, just because the study talks about various physical abnormalities. (People with a vast array of unrelated non-M.E. physical illnesses are all commonly misdiagnosed with ‘CFS.’ Just because someone qualifies for a ‘CFS’ misdiagnosis and is physically rather than mentally ill, it doesn’t mean they have the distinct neurological disease M.E. That is absurd.)

When people use the term ‘ME/CFS’ it should set alarm bells ringing for you to be very wary that they haven’t also ‘compromised’ and warped the definition of M.E. and the known scientific facts about M.E. and that they don’t now consider people with Fibromyalgia, various post-viral fatigue syndromes or Lyme disease as ‘ME/CFS’ patients or as so-called ‘ME/CFS sub-groups’ or support any other of the ‘CFS’ myths as relating to M.E. Most often when the term ‘ME/CFS’ is used, the text refers to a bizarre mix of facts relating to both M.E. and ‘CFS’ or instead purely facts relating to any of the various bogus ‘CFS’ definitions.

(The same applies to the terms ‘CFS/ME,’ ‘CFIDS’ ‘and Myalgic ‘Encephalopathy’ etc.)

In conclusion…

It just doesn’t make sense to use or support ‘ME/CFS’ and all the reasons given for doing so just don’t add up. Why weaken our position so much for no good reason? – because make no mistake, the unadulterated facts about M.E. (the outbreaks of M.E. and the links to the polio outbreaks (and vaccine), how much we know about M.E. now and how much we knew way before ‘CFS’ was invented, who is behind ‘CFS’ and why, and all the needless deaths and abuse knowingly caused by the ‘CFS’ scam) are a far more compelling true story than any wishy-washy, confusing and contradictory tales defending the bogus disease category of ‘CFS’ or ‘ME/CFS.’

We really have to learn to see past the SUPERFICIAL and be far more critical about which information we accept as being scientifically sound, relevant to us, and in our best interests too. The fact that an article might merely mention some facts about M.E. along with a lot of ‘CFS’ propaganda, or say that ‘CFS’ or ‘ME/CFS’ is ‘real’ or ‘is not psychological’ or merely mention some physical abnormalities or implicate various viruses in some way, or use the term ‘ME/CFS’ or ‘CFS/ME’ is nowhere near good enough. It isn’t at all even a step in the right direction. (Most of the very worst articles and reports do many or even all of these things!)

Many supporters of ‘ME/CFS’ have some sort of tie to the big vested interest groups involved, while others are clearly motivated primarily by their own vested personal interests (or group interests), or by concerns over funding from financial stakeholders. Undoubtedly, some M.E. patients are simply too severely ill and disabled to do more than very basic reading or to engage in any type of critical thinking and so have been persuaded to support ‘ME/CFS’ by other advocates they’ve trusted to steer them in the right direction – and have had that trust cruelly abused. It is probably also true that the acceptance of ‘ME/CFS’ by many of us has to do with the severe physical effects of M.E., and the way the illness profoundly affects our ability to analyse information critically. There are no doubt many different reasons for the rise in ‘ME/CFS.’ But regardless of the different motivations, the results will be just the same unfortunately. That’s the problem. That’s the tragedy.

THINK about it logically, please, all of you. Don’t use ‘ME/CFS’ and mix the M.E. and ‘CFS’ definitions just because others are. If you open your mind and forget for a minute about how commonly ‘ME/CFS’ is used and about all the justifications you’ve been given for it – and look at it logically – it really is hard to come to any other conclusion than that ‘ME/CFS’ can only impede our fight for justice and recognition.

The time for hoping for non-confrontational gradual change, compromising ourselves for our abusers and trying endlessly to work within the completely bogus nonsense ‘CFS’ framework ON THEIR TERMS has to be over. 20 years is enough. There has been more than enough needless death and abuse. The definition of INSANITY is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

It is time that we fought for authentic Myalgic Encephalomyelitis in name, definition and World Health Organization classification, without compromise. It is also time we all fought for the bogus financially motivated disease category of ‘CFS’ to be completely abandoned – without compromise – for the sake of every patient group involved; M.E. patients and all those misdiagnosed with ‘CFS’ who do not have M.E. alike.

We need some success finally, and to get that we have to stop using ‘ME/CFS’ and mixing M.E. and ‘CFS’ and stop supporting anyone else who does, as much as possible.

Let’s do exactly what these vested interest groups are hoping we WON’T do!

For more information

For more information see the new papers (available early-mid 2008) ‘Who benefits from ‘CFS’ and ‘ME/CFS’? and Problems with the US ‘ME/CFS’ name change campaign
For more information on the vast difference between M.E. and ‘CFS’ and the important difference between definitions and mere terminology, see: The Terminology and Definitions Explained and What is Myalgic Encephalomyelitis? and Why the disease category of ‘CFS’ must be abandoned
For more information on all aspects of M.E. see: What is Myalgic Encephalomyelitis?

Additional notes:

M.E. is a distinct recognisable well-defined entity, with several unique features, which can very easily be distinguished from various chronic fatigue states, and other unrelated fatiguing illnesses which may qualify for a ‘CFS’ misdiagnosis. People with M.E. must be diagnosed with M.E. and treated for M.E., based on research which also involves M.E. patients again, finally. The M.E. community does not need to wait for official ‘permission’ to fight to renew the name and scientifically and historically correct definition of M.E., these rights exist today (as they have since 1969) under the WHO ICD and based upon a significant body of M.E. research spanning over 70 years, and so on. For more information about what defines M.E. see: What is Myalgic Encephalomyelitis?, Testing for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and The Nightingale Definition of M.E.

A note on so-called ‘subgroups’ of ‘ME/CFS’: Adding M.E. to ‘CFS’ doesn’t give ‘CFS’ more credibility, it just DESTROYS the credibility of M.E. ‘ME/CFS’ is just a diversion that these vested interest groups are hoping we will fall for, nothing more. The same is true of ‘sub-grouping ME/CFS.’ It is a nonsense that makes a mockery of legitimate activism. The only relevant subgroups here are M.E., and not M.E. People with Fibromyalgia have FM, and should be diagnosed with FM. To say that FM is a subgroup of ‘CFS’ or ‘ME/CFS’ is ridiculous. The same is true of post viral fatigue syndromes caused by Glandular Fever/Mononucleosis, Hepatitis or EBV and so on.
Sub-grouping different types of ’CFS,’ refining the bogus ‘CFS’ definitions further or renaming ‘CFS’ with some variation on the term M.E. would achieve nothing and only create yet more confusion and mistreatment. The problem is not that ‘CFS’ patients are being mistreated as psychiatric patients; some of those patients misdiagnosed with CFS actually do have psychological illnesses. There is no such distinct disease/s as ‘CFS’ – that is the entire issue. Sub-grouping or renaming ‘CFS’ is nothing more than a diversion or a political stunt; designed to appease (justifiably) angry patients and make them feel like something is being done finally – but not to actually deal with the real problems or effect any real change.
The fact that ‘ME/CFS’ and the bogus ‘ME/CFS subgroups’ idea is being supported and pushed for by a whole host of patients (and patient groups) who do not have M.E. but who are aiming at taking the term M.E. for themselves anyway – despite the fact the name M.E. is already is taken by a very well-defined patient group – should make it really obvious that this is not something genuine M.E. advocates should be offering any support for. The name M.E. is already taken, and has been for over 50 years, by US! We need to be fighting against these ignorant or uncaring ‘CFS’ groups and what they are trying to do to us and to the name and definition of M.E., not supporting it!
I’m aware of at least one group that argues strongly that M.E. and ‘CFS’ are not the same and that they should not be mixed in any way, but uses the term ‘ME/CFS’ as shorthand to refer to the two patient groups. It goes without saying that this practice has to stop. It really isn’t that hard to instead refer to ‘M.E. and ‘CFS’ patients’ or ‘M.E. patients and patients who qualify for a (mis)diagnosis of ‘CFS’’ and it would avoid so much confusion! (It is also not helpful or accurate to refer to M.E. and ‘CFS’ as being ‘similar illnesses’ or ‘related illnesses.’)

A further note on ‘ME/CFS’: It should also be noted that sometimes some of these advocates that use the term ‘ME/CFS’ also reference ‘CFS’ information from groups like the CDC (groups well-known for disseminating information under the name ‘CFS’ that not only has nothing to do with genuine M.E. patients but which is also directly and extremely harmful to M.E. patients) as if anything that they say about ‘CFS’ has any relevance to M.E. Again this implies that M.E. and the bogus disease category of ‘CFS’ are indistinguishable, and that these groups are giving out reputable information about M.E. under the name ‘CFS’ when neither is true. You cannot claim to be a legitimate advocate for M.E. patients and support the ‘CFS’ information created by unscientific propaganda groups like the CDC (or Wessely, Sharpe, Lloyd, Hickie and so on); the two are mutually exclusive.

A final note…and a sincere plea… to current ‘ME/CFS’ advocates and supporters; It is never to late for YOU to abandon ‘ME/CFS’ and to start fighting for M.E. in name and definition. We need you fighting hard and strong for M.E., yesterday! Any type of blame for the past is irrelevant and unhelpful. (Like many advocates, I was unfortunately sucked in by ‘ME/CFS’ in the past. But when I knew better, I did better. What else can you do? Plus, some advocates that have done some really great advocacy work for M.E. in the past are sadly amongst those who are now supporting ‘ME/CFS.’) So blame is unimportant, truly. What matters is now, and stopping things becoming even worse. The need is so urgent. Let’s do exactly what these vested interest groups are hoping we WON’T do! Let’s do it NOW, together, and try to make some real progress.

Downloads and printer-friendly versions

This full-length 5 page (plus 7 extra pages of notes and quotes) text can be downloaded in a printer friendly Word format, PDF format or as a Large-print PDF

The summarised 3 page text can also be downloaded in a printer friendly Word format, PDF format or as a Large-print PDF

Permission is given for these documents to be freely redistributed by e-mail or in print for any not-for-profit purpose provided that the entire text (including this notice and the author’s attribution) is reproduced in full and without alteration. Please redistribute this text widely.

Relevant quotes by M.E. experts and advocates

‘Do not for one minute believe that CFS is simply another name for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (M.E.). It is not. The CDC definition is not a disease process. It is (a) a partial mix of infectious mononucleosis /glandular fever, (b) a mix of some of the least important aspects of M.E. and (c) what amounts to a possibly unintended psychiatric slant to an epidemic and endemic disease process of major importance.’ Dr Byron Hyde M.D. 2006

‘Any disease process that has major criteria, of excluding all other disease processes, is simply not a disease at all; it doesn't exist. The CFS definitions were written in such a manner that CFS becomes like a desert mirage: The closer you approach, the faster it disappears.’ Dr Byron Hyde M.D. 2006

‘Thirty years ago when a patient presented to a hospital clinic with unexplained fatigue, any medical school physician would search for an occult malignancy, cardiac or other organ disease, or chronic infection. The concept that there is an entity called chronic fatigue syndrome has totally altered that essential medical guideline. Patients are now being diagnosed with CFS as though it were a disease. It is not. It is a patchwork of symptoms that could mean anything’ Dr Byron Hyde M.D. 2003

The current confusion over the name in the US is that CFS, the fabricated condition that somehow became officially synonymous with the real disease Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, is to be cunningly renamed Myalgic Encephalopathy. The problem is that both names share the initials ME, and since Myalgic Encephalopathy will retain the terribly misleading CFS criteria this name is nothing more than a clever diversion to draw our attention away from the real issues. John Anderson, M.E. advocate

The entire concept of a "New Name" is wrong. There is no need for a "new name" for an "old falsehood". There already IS a correct name, Myalgic Encephalomyelitis with a correct ICD code. We need the correct name and the proper definition, not a new face on an old lie that still functions to obscure and deny the reality of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. We need to educate ourselves, families, doctors, social service people, politicians, journalists, etc about the existing disease Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. Not fall into yet another ploy of those who have hidden the truth. M. Beck, M.E. patient since 1983

Now this question may sound very odd, but consider: How would you Disguise a Disease ? I doubt there could be too many ways . . . But if that were your intent, Let's see, where would you start -- Camouflage! First declare it is a New illness. (Brilliant!) Declare that there is no epidemic! (Tremendous) Spread the word it is not serious. (Spectacular!!!) Create a smokescreen by using a vague definition so that you can mix in many non-cases, and thus claim it is very hard to identify; then… Cover your tracks! Give the Disguised Disease a variety of New names. (Yes, a trivial absurd name, splendid!) Disassociate it from its previous established name, research, case studies, descriptions and diagnostic ICD classification. (Fantastic) Lets see what else could we do to disguise a disease… Create Confusion! We could tell Drs that this disease is "mysterious" and that there is no need to investigate, "Don't do any testing" (you won't find anything) It’s a Mystery... Cesar Quintero, M.E. advocate

A recent editorial states: "'ME' has historically been used to describe 'Myalgic Encephalomyelitis' (nervous system inflammation involving muscle pain) - a term that does not accurately describe the disease process in all patients." That misses the crucial point that they have been studying broadly defined CFS patients and not strictly defined ME patients - this false assertion can only be a calculated gamble that patients will fall for such propaganda!

The experts who first named the disease Myalgic Encephalomyelitis some 50 years ago did so based on all the evidence at the time including autopsies which demonstrated inflammation of the spinal cord, and this has been confirmed again as recently as 2006 in a horrifying case of medical neglect and psychiatric abuse in the UK, while in the US an autopsy on a young man revealed viral inflammation of the heart! How many more lives will it take? Why do politics dictate medical inquiry?

ME does not need renaming - it must be reinstated as the only medically justified term for the disease at this time - and CFS must be abandoned if respect and funding are the priority. Myalgic Encephalomyelitis has officially existed for 50 years and together with its previous name Atypical Poliomyelitis provides a continuous historical record of the illness spanning a staggering 70 year period. The only other justified change at this point would be to remove the word "benign" from the WHO-ICD, and the public rightfully alerted to this most pertinent fact. John Anderson, M.E. advocate

If these so-called ME organisations lack unity and agreement on so many of the basic facts including the historically correct name, how can we expect governments to take them seriously? Too many of these groups are operating under various names such as CFS, CFIDS, or CFS/ME [or ME/CFS] and using the outdated and unscientific Fukuda et al definitions and varying descriptions of the CFS invention that do not describe the serious neurological and multiple system disease ME, which clearly is a notifiable pandemic.
This is a serious public health issue, patients are suffering and dying without appropriate medical treatment, and more will succumb to this disease while the organisations that are supposed to be advocating for us can't even agree on the scientifically verifiable facts - Myalgic Encephalomyelitis is a clearly defined and diagnostically testable disease with a history of epidemic contagion, while CFS was a cleverly designed illness construct to hide the ME pandemic. John Anderson, M.E. advocate

Here are some pretty obvious things that need to STOP happening:
. STOP taking Reeves and the Wessely School seriously.
. STOP including anything to do with psychological, psychosocial, primary affective, somatic, mood disorder, or depression, etc.
. STOP using the terms 'CFS' CFIDS, CFS/ME, ME/CFS and chronic fatigue (cf).
. STOP lumping together ME, CFS, MCS, IBS, FM....
. STOP focusing on FATIGUE!!!
. STOP saying ME is caused by Epstein Barr, CMV, HHV6A. The incubation periods make that impossible.
. STOP saying people diagnosed with any of the above became ill suddenly and have any/all of the bodily systems damage that people with ME do. This is simply not true.
Here's a new game plan we can all START today:
. START recognizing ME!!!! It's been on the books for decades!
. START using the term ME when referring to those who meet the critieria for it (i.e., patients whose illness started with a 'sudden onset viral event' that started in the BRAIN -- hence the WHO's G93.3, Neurogenic classification--and then quickly moved to the CNS, and then throughout the body.)
. START demanding peer-reviewed articles in widely known and accepted publications.|
. START listening to, reading, and working with Dr. Byron Hyde. He understands the illness far better than any other individual, due to years and years of hands-on time with actual ME patients.
. START dedicating adequate resources to ME studies.
. START a national/worldwide database to start tracking this illness and gathering relevant data.
. START doing BIOMEDICAL research on these patients.
. START understanding that people with ME: DO NOT RECOVER! They suffer horribly for years, and then die.
LK Woodruff, M.E. advocate

For 20+ years they have obfuscated to an extreme extent. How can the masses keep falling for their bunk? ME has been documented for many, many years. It's been classified--differently--by the WHO since 1969. Those who have it are horrifically ill and suffering horribly. They die. They are not just 'fatigued' for a variety of reasons. Everyone needs to stop worrying about being polite, and start asking: WHY ARE THESE PATENTS BEING IGNORED, while the focus remains on those 'fatigued' ....
I don't care if those diagnosed with 'CFS' (Fukada, et al) want to keep Reeves/CDC/CAA playing around with 'fatigue' issues... But it is decades past time for some highly qualified and impeccably scientific researchers to get serious about ME and move forward from the work of Dowsett, Ramsey, Hyde and more..... I will not stop until they do, or until I breathe my last breath. And unfortunately, in the existing climate, the latter will most likely occur first. And I find that to be unconscionable and criminal. LK Woodruff, M.E. advocate

Far too many Drs, researchers and even (often self-claimed) experts are continuing to lump ME, a neurogenic illness classified by the WHO under G93.3, with 'CFS' (Fukada, et al), which is based on 'fatigue' and is referred to as 'ill-defined', etc. Understanding the significant differences is not difficult, when one is familiar with ME and knows what to look for. PLEASE do all that you can to rectify this untennable situation!! Please share this information--and all that I have previously sent you--with others and implement a workable plan, collaboratively. Too many years have been wasted already...too many lives already lost. YOU can do this, if you just decide to. LK Woodruff, M.E. advocate

Modern technology has now served to confirm and to detail the meticulous clinical and scientific observations made about ME before 1988! We can rest assured that this serious disability can arise (like polio) from an initially trivial infection which has epidemic and pandemic potential but we need to give further thought to any name change. We should, instead, be making maximum use of modern and effective means of diagnosis, prevention and management. Dr Elizabeth Dowsett (on the use of the term ‘Myalgic Encephalopathy’)

ME has already been called the ‘Disease of a Thousand Names’, yet, in the Spring of 2001, one of the ME Charities has just applied to the Charities Commission for another change. This time, it is from Myalgic Encephalomyelitis to Myalgic Encephalopathy, that is: from muscle pain accompanied by inflammation of the brain and spinal cord to muscle pain and damage to the brain and spinal cord of unknown origin. This clumsy euphemism will not only bloom less sweetly than it’s predecessors but does not fit the facts. Moreover, this change will not benefit research nor relieve the confusion and disbelief which blocks access to standard medical care for these patients. Dr Elizabeth Dowsett (on the use of the term ‘Myalgic Encephalopathy’)

To the very few physicians still practicing today who began seeing patients with this illness some 40 years ago and who have continued to record and publish their clinical findings throughout, the current enthusiasm for renaming and reassigning this serious disability to subgroups of putative and vague "fatigue" entities, must appear more of a marketing exercise than a rational basis for essential international research. It was not always so unnecessarily complicated! Dr Elizabeth Dowsett

Following successful immunisation against poliomyelitis in the early 1960s and the removal of 3 strains of polio virus from general circulation in the countries concerned, the related non-polio enteroviruses rapidly filled the vacancy. By 1961, the prevalence of diseases (such as viral meningitis) caused by these agents soared to new heights. In the mid 1980s, the incidence of ME had increased by some seven times in Canada and the UK, while in the USA a major outbreak at Lake Tahoe (wrongly ascribed at first to a herpes virus) led to calls for a new name and new definition for the disease, more descriptive of herpes infection. This definition based on "fatigue"(a symptom common to hundreds of diseases and to normal life, but not a distinguishing feature of myalgic encephalomyelitis) was designed to facilitate research funded by the manufacturers of new anti-herpes drugs. Dr Elizabeth Dowsett

"There are actually 30 well documented causes of ‘chronic fatigue’. To say that ME is a ‘subset’ of CFS is just as ridiculous as to say it is a ‘subset’ of diabetes or Japanese B encephalitis or one of the manifestly absurd psychiatric diagnosis, such as, ‘personality disorder’ or ‘somatisation’. ME is a systemic disease (initiated by a virus infection) with multi system involvement characterised by central nervous system dysfunction which causes a breakdown in bodily homoeostasis (The brain can no longer receive, store or act upon information which enables it to control vital body functions, cognitive, hormonal, cardiovascular, autonomic and sensory nerve communication, digestive, visual auditory balance, appreciation of space, shape etc). It has an UNIQUE Neuro-hormonal profile" Dr Elizabeth Dowsett

‘There has been a tendency by some individuals and organizations to assume that M.E. and CFS are the same illness. Over the course of two International Association of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (IACFS, formerly the American Association of CFS) conferences, there have been suggestions that the name CFS be changed to M.E., while retaining the CFS definitions as a basis for such change. This does not seem to me to be a useful initiative: it would simply add credence to the mistaken assumption that M.E. and CFS represent the same disease processes. They do not. M.E. is a clearly defined disease process. CFS by definition has always been a syndrome. At one of the meetings held to determine the 1994 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definition of CFS, in response to my question from the floor, Dr. Keiji Fukuda stated that numerous M.E. epidemics he cited the Los Angeles County Hospital epidemic of 1934, the Akureyri outbreak of 1947-48 and the 1955-58 Royal Free Hospitals epidemics-- were definitely not CFS epidemics. Dr. Fukuda was correct.’ Dr Byron Hyde M.D.

The physician and patient alike should remember that CFS is not a disease. It is a chronic fatigue state as described in four definitions starting with that published by Dr. Gary Holmes of the CDC and others in 1988 (Holmes, Kaplan, Gantz, et al., 1988; Holmes, Kaplan, Schonberger, et .al., 1988). The definition created by Lloyd, Hickie, Boughton, Spencer, and Wakefield (1990) is also widely used in Australia. There are two subsequent definitions. The Oxford definition of 1991 (Sharpe et al., 1991) and the 1994 NIH/CDC definitions (Fukuda et al., 1994) are basically, with a few modifications, copies of the first definition. Where the one essential characteristic of ME is acquired CNS dysfunction, that of CFS is primarily chronic fatigue. By assumption, this CFS fatigue can be acquired abruptly or gradually. Secondary symptoms and signs were then added to this primary fatigue anomaly. None of these secondary symptoms is individually essential for the definition and few are scientifically testable. Despite the list of signs and symptoms and test exclusions in these definitions, patients who conform to any of these four CFS definitions may still have an undiagnosed major illness, certain of which are potentially treatable.
Although the authors of these definitions have repeatedly stated that they are defining a syndrome and not a specific disease, patient, physician, and insurer alike have tended to treat this syndrome as a specific disease or illness, with at times a potentially specific treatment and a specific outcome. This has resulted in much confusion, and many physicians are now diagnosing CFS as though it were a specific illness. They either refer the patient to pharmaceutical, psychiatric, psychological, or social treatment or simply say, "You have CFS and nothing can be done about it." Dr Byron Hyde M.D.

M.E. appears to be in this same family of diseases as paralytic polio and MS. M.E. is definitely less fulminant than MS but more generalized. M.E. is less fulminant but more generalized than poliomyelitis. This relationship of M.E.-like illness to poliomyelitis is not new and is of course the reason that Alexander Gilliam, in his analysis of the Los Angeles County General Hospital M.E. epidemic in 1934, called M.E. atypical poliomyelitis. Dr Byron Hyde M.D.

Under epidemic and primary M.E. there is no consensus as to the viral or infectious cause. Much of this lack of consensus may be due to the non-separation of acute onset from gradual onset patients. Primary M.E. is always an acute onset illness. Doctors A. Gilliam, A. Melvin Ramsay and Elizabeth Dowsett, John Richardson of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, W.H. Lyle, Elizabeth Bell of Ruckhill Hospital, James Mowbray of St Mary’s and Peter Behan all believed that the majority of primary M.E. patients fell ill following exposure to an enterovirus (Poliovirus, ECHO, Coxsackie and the numbered viruses are the significant viruses in this group). I share this belief. In my tests in Ruckhill Hospital in Glasgow, I found confirmation of enteroviral infection only in acute onset patients and not in any gradual onset [ie. CFS] patients. Few physicians realize that almost all cases of poliovirus recovered from poliomyelitis victims came from cadavers. At the very least, these enteroviruses must be recovered from patients during their onset illness and this has rarely been done. An exception is in the case of the Newton-le-Willows Lancashire epidemic where Dr. W. H. Lyle’s investigation recovered ECHO enterovirus. Enteroviruses are one of the most likely causes of M.E. If this belief is correct, M.E. could be vanquished by simply adding essential enteroviral genetic material from these enteroviruses to complement polio immunization. Dr Byron Hyde M.D.

Psychiatric treatment is very useful and essential for psychiatric patients. Primary M.E. patients are simply not psychiatric patients. Unfortunately, it is not only psychiatrist physicians that have made themselves the tools of insurance companies. Dr Byron Hyde M.D.

All definitions which wear the 'f' word (ie. fatigue) in their name are not M.E. nor neurological. They are definitions of fatigue conditions. And when these definitions were written it was not neurological M.E. which they were attempting to define. The Committee for Justice and Recognition of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

When CFS Holmes et al. 1988 was written - the condition which they were trying to define was Chronic Epstein Barr Virus. The principal symptom was 'fatigue'. It is interesting to note that those who were familiar with M.E. on the committee refused to sign off on this definition - as they pointed out that it was not a definition of M.E. The Committee for Justice and Recognition of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

With the rapid development of technology and access to international publication, the UK retained its reputation as a leading centre of M.E. research and remained able to report clinical studies backed up by molecular biology, brain imaging, sophisticated hormonal and other biochemical studies. At this point, with sound evidence of an infective cause, the way in which such infection is spread and the pathogenisis of the disease, why were we urged to adopt the "fatigue definitions" inflicted upon M.E. sufferers by USA scientists? Dr Elizabeth Dowsett

"Myalgic Encephalopathy is not the same as Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. Encephalopathy can mean 'brain abnormal state' and this meaning would therefore endorse treatments such as CBT and GET - which do not work in those with neurological M.E. (which meets the Ramsay criteria). This change of name to 'opathy' can therefore be seen to endorse psychological therapies as treatment." The Committee for Justice and Recognition of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

"The crucial differentiation between ME and postviral fatigue syndromes lies in the striking variability of the symptoms not only in the course of a day but often within the hour. This variability of the intensity of the symptoms is not found in post viral fatigue states" Dr Melvin Ramsay

Criticism of the name, Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: The reason why these physicians were so sure that they were dealing with an inflammatory illness of the brain is that they examined patients in both epidemic and endemic situations with this curious diffuse brain injury. In the epidemic situation with patients falling acutely ill and in some cases dying, autopsies were performed and the diffuse inflammatory brain changes are on record.
Recently an M.E. patient's spine has been examined in the UK and the inflammatory nature was also discovered. Myalgic Encephalitis is a diffuse inflammatory injury of the capillaries at the level of the basement membrane of the brain. It makes no sense to rename the horse and call it Myalgic Encephalopathy. All brain pathologies involving brain tissue are encephalopathies. Let us stop fussing around and get back to the real problem and that is investigating the patients, segregating them into sub-type injuries and working on the treatment of these children and adults.
Were these epidemics that I have spoken about cases of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis? They were. I have personally visited all of these cases except for the Cumberland epidemic and Wallis left us such a good description of that epidemic that there can be no doubt. I have personally gone to Los Angeles and examined patients from the Los Angeles epidemic. I have gone to Iceland and examined patients from the Akureyri epidemic. I have examined patients from the Royal Free Hospital epidemics, from the Newcastle sporadic illnesses. Many are the same or similar and many of them had been rejected or shunned because they were not true poliomyelitis. However they were all cases of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. Dr Hyde M.D.

By 1986 HHV6 was already known to have an incubation period of 9 days due to human experimentation when the actual virus was injected into several children. See (Gorbac, Second Edition, Infectious Diseases, page 1335). When acquired by random infection, the incubation period of HHV6 Roseola was more like 12 days. So once again anyone with access to a library or a computer would have soon dispelled any view that HHV6 was a cause of M.E. epidemics where the incubation was approximately 7 days or less. Is it possible that Steven Strauss and the other intelligentsia of the National Institute of Health (NIH) in Bethesda and CDC in Atlanta and elsewhere didn't have access to libraries and the Internet? Maybe we should start a public request to ask for donations for them. Dr Hyde M.D.

Associating the Lake Tahoe epidemic with Epstein Barr Syndrome was frankly ridiculous and you will see why almost immediately. Anyone who realizes that infectious mononucleosis is caused by the herpes family virus, Epstein Barr Virus (EBV), and that the incubation period of this illness is approximately 40 days, should have realized that you simply cannot have a rapidly spreading viral epidemic with a virus with a latent period of 40 days. Neither Dr Straus nor Dr Holmes, senior government physicians, should have fallen into such a trap. They only had to go to the excellent CDC library to realize that rather than spending half a million dollars or so on a publication that they should have known would not have incriminated EBV. Yet this epidemic somehow spread the myth that this illness was caused by EBV. Such is the perseverance of error. Dr Hyde M.D.

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis is different form all other illnesses and as is very clearly pointed out above, M.E. is different from all the definitions of CFS. Concerned that there may be attempts to confuse ME with other conditions, in 1989 Dr. Ramsay wrote a concise statement to clarify that M.E. is distinct and identifiable and is not to be confused with other forms of debility or flu or fatigue or post flu.
     As we know, ME has many, many, many symptoms but Dr Ramsay presents this statement to clarify how ME is different from all other conditions, and a definite case can be recognized clinically by a triad of particular muscle, brain and circulatory dysfunctions that are characteristic.
     We are indebted to Dr Ramsay, an outstanding infectious disease specialist who devoted much effort to the investigation of our disease from the time that he was confronted with the epidemic at the London hospitals in the 1950’s. Dr Ramsay is the recognized authority in ME, established upon his direct personal involvement in the investigation of the epidemics, research and scientific studies and the examination and treatment of individual patients for over 30 years. Dr. Ramsay’s fame and standing are no accident and we can see that his descriptions of what make this disease unique are accurate and Ramsay’s M.E. is the same disease we have today.
     It is clear that attempts at confusion and name changes would serve to obscure its history and also its origins. So we must never forget Ramsay. The worldwide epidemic we have today is the same disease that Ramsay encountered many years ago. The Committee for Justice and the Recognition of M.E.

Dr Melvin Ramsay and others further defined the illness, and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis became the recognized term for this neurologic infectious disease. A number of distinguished doctors continued to study and report on ME outbreaks, including Wallis, Acheson, Richardson, Parish, Henderson, Shelokov, Dowsett, Ryll, Behan, and Hyde. Their writings have brought us a wealth of information about Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, and a continuous historical record of our disease over many decades. Perhaps most impressive among them, Dr Richardson could attest that the cases he saw in the year 2000 have the same disease as patients that he and Dr Ramsay encountered in the 1950s: the neurological disease defined as Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. The Committee for Justice and the Recognition of M.E.

The BOTTOM LINE is that NONE of us who have ME are willing to sit back and allow our illness to continue to be highjacked by patients 'fatigued' for a myriad of reasons (Lyme, thyroid, mono, depression, Q-fever, or whatever).
The FACTS
The Terms,
The Defintions,
The Criterias
ALL must be adhered to. Doing anything less is just plain sloppy and indicates a level of ignorance that must be rectified immediately, before even more damage is done to the patients.
     This ridiculous and preposterous and and ~relatively new within the last several years~ (since the creation of the 2003 ME/CFS Canadian Criteria) 'blending' and 'lumping' of 2 entirely DIFFERENT THINGS is just a continuation of the games being played by vested interests, who exist to keep the disability numbers LOW.
     We ALL need to move beyond that crazy mixed notion and START DEMANDING CORRECT ILLNESS IDENTIFICATION, followed closely by rigid, strict, precise, well-planned and well-coordinated LARGE SCALE scientific research efforts on EACH illness seperately.
     Any unwillingness to do so is just another sign of illness obfuscation done by those who benefit from keeping the truth hidden. And that would not be the patients, now would it??????
Think carefully.
Think clearly.
Think fully.
Use logic.
DEMAND BETTER. And stop this foolishness and nonsense once and for all.
Because YOUR lives and health depend upon it. And remember this, too:
Studies done on mixed patient groups only produces mixed results (data). And that makes the data irrelevant. It's a waste of time, money and effort. It helps no one. Which is exactly what the past 20 years have been all about. LK Woodruff, M.E. advocate

Please, all of you, go through these various criterias - compare them, look at what the focus of each is, note the exclusions, and pay attention to whom the authors of each are. Then determine which one fits you. -->If you don't fit any of them precisely (close doesn't count), and you don't fit the ME criteria, then you and your doctor(s) need to go back to the drawing board to figure out specifically and definitively what illness you actually do have. You owe it to yourselves to get to the truth. LK Woodruff, M.E. advocate

‘Dr. Manu's note that preceded his CV and explained his views on ME, left me wondering what qualified him to pass an opinion at all. Not that he actually referred to ME. He prefers the title, chronic fatigue syndrome ( CFS) - a condition, concocted by self-serving members of his profession and a condition which bears no resemblance to Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME). This issue is not about a concocted disorder, the definition of which is determined by conflicts of interest and nothing else. It is about a scientifically proven, and a WHO accepted physical disease that is both life-destroying and life-taking.’ Gurli Bagnall, M.E. advocate

'At one time, sick people recuperated or convalesced. Now according to a group of megalomaniacal brain-washers and self-elected "law-makers", they are expected to rehabilitate along with murderers, rapists and thieves. The law which states that a person can only be sectioned if he is a danger to himself and/or others, has been swept aside by the above mentioned self-serving monsters masquerading as doctors. Many will dismiss this as fanciful rubbish. After all, we live in civilized societies where such things could never happen. Unfortunately, they can and they do. It happened to the recently deceased [M.E. patient] Sophia Mirza.' Gurli Bagnall, M.E. advocate

the illness ALREADY HAS a name - myalgic encephalomyelitis

the illness already has a definition (Dr. Byron Hyde, Nightingale Definition of M.E., 2006)

any other name (and definition) distances the illness from original research (Ramsey, Richardson, Dowsett)

'CFS' is meaningless, denies the biomedical reality of the illness, denigrates patients as psychologically ill and discredits their claims for medical treatment and welfare benefits

the above consequences were just what the CDC intended in creating 'CFS' (i.e. intended to discredit the illness and evade financial responsibility for the ill)

combining 'ME' with 'CFS' makes the composite term meaningless

the 'ME' part is meaningless if it means 'ME-opathy' (no such thing)

the 'ME' part cannot stand for two terms at once - this is sloppy and will breed more confusion
Lesley, M.E. advocate

GENETICS AND M.E. by Gurli Bagnall 'If science is to follow this line of inquiry, then let it be honest with realistic terms of reference. As it stands, it could well be another route to the psychiatric dustbin. In fact, with the endorsement of people like Simon Wessely, it is a certainty.’

It will be up to those countries using the name CFS or ME/CFS, to get the CFS and ME mess sorted out and distinctly separate CFS from ME - and also distinctly separate the diseases and conditions covered by the CFS umbrella term from each other. Because of the worldwide confusion about ME and CFS amongst physicians and health authorities - and patients for that matter - it is of vital significance to clarify and emphazise the difference between these two. We need a new era where correct medical information about what ME is - and certainly is not - is highly needed. Lajla Mark, M.E. advocate

Research workers must be encouraged and appropriately funded to work in this field. However they should first be directed to papers published before 1988, the time at which all specialised experience about poliomyelitis and associated infections seem to have vanished mysteriously!Dr Elizabeth Dowsett

Myalgic encephalomyelitis is a common disability but frequently misinterpreted. Amongst 6,000 patients referred for general microbiological diagnosis between 1975 and 1987, 420 cases were recognized. This illness is distinguished from a variety of other post-viral states by an unique clinical and epidemiological pattern characteristic of enteroviral infection. Prompt recognition and advice to avoid over-exertion is mandatory. Dr Dowsett and Dr Ramsay

'The physician and patient alike should remember that CFS is not a disease. It is a chronic fatigue state. The one essential characteristic of M.E. is acquired Central Nervous System (CNS) dysfunction, that of CFS is primarily chronic fatigue.' Dr Byron Hyde M.D.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to all those M.E. advocates who offered valuable criticism and suggestions as I was writing this paper. In particular, a big thank you to Lesley.