Talk:Encephalomyelitis

Not too happy with the statement on M.E. suggesting it is an obselete term (and by corollary, disease). That makes no sense whatsoever since both the World Health Org. and the state-of-the-art 2003 Canadian Consensus Definition (CCD) still use encephalomyelitis. That the CDC (Centres for Disease Control) 1994 and Oxford 1991 CFS definitions still unfortunately extant, are synonymous with ME/CCD-CFS is also disputed, since international opinion is that CFS is heterogenous construct which as research charity MERGE say requires to be "unpacked", and as many published experts attest, is over-inclusively defined via subjective symptomatic criteria only -- at least until the CCD is operationalised. Additionally the majority of patients want the stigmatising name (and CDC definition of course) "CFS" changed, with a reversion to M.E. being most supported.

"There are many references in the medical literature to inflammation of the CNS in ME and in ICD-CFS (37),(38),(39),(40),(41),(42) but such CNS inflammation is not found in all variants of CFS. It is incorrect to deny the existence of CNS inflammation in ME / ICD-CFS. In some cases of ME, as in multiple sclerosis, there is evidence of oligoclonal bands in the cerebrospinal fluid. (43),(44)"

Professor Hooper

Though they try not to publicise it, UK psychologists have admitted more than once that a small proportion of CFS sufferers (by their definition) fit the criteria of an ME-like illness.

"This definition is clearly a vast improvement over the CDC's 1994 Fukuda criteria, which led to misunderstanding in both research and treatment modalities by making "fatigue" a compulsory symptom but by downplaying or making optional the disease's hallmark of post-exertional sickness and other cardinal ME/CFS symptoms."

"The specificity of the CFS case definition should be improved to define more homogeneous groups of patients for the purposes of treatment and research."

"The author suggests that the definitional criteria and epidemic history of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (M.E.) and the inclusion criteria are significantly different from the CDC definitions and history."

"In conclusion, the 1994 criteria increased the number of patients classified as CFS; however, those who fit only the 1994 criteria were less likely to have an acute symptomatic onset and signs and symptoms suggestive of an infectious process"

...etc.

Experts condemn the CDC definition

So, it's not exactly NPOV, is it?

A disambiguation page is not the place for detailed background or commentary. I'm reverting your edits here; please feel free to add any necessary information to the chronic fatigue syndrome article. |Hob 15:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

As for your complaint on wording: I don't see anything in the current text that says myalgic encephalomyelitis is an "obsolete" term. By saying "once thought", it does imply that that particular theory of the etiology of CFS is out of date, which isn't the same thing. There is obviously disagreement among various health organizations over the overlap between ME and CFS, but it only needs to be mentioned here, not detailed; I'll try to come up with a good sentence. Note that myalgic encephalomyelitis is currently just a redirect to chronic fatigue syndrome, but there's nothing stopping you from changing it into an independent article. |Hob 15:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Can't remember exactly what I was suggesting now but could hardly have been that detailed, the information above was background info. Anyway it's better now, I suppose as good as we'll get as long as the current politico-medical mess of ME, CFS, continues to obfuscate and delay good science, translational medicine, social and financial support . "Once thought", "out of date" and "obselete" are pretty much equivalent in most people's views so that's some wriggling there. Semantics games have often been used as a distraction in ME politics.

Re "nothing stopping you from changing it into an independent article". Try creating an independant ME page yourself, and see how long it lasts! Believe me, it's been tried many times by different people, but it's always deleted (an inflammatory act in itself). The main culprits are the self appointed cabal of 24/7 resident CFS page watchdogs who use unilateral, aggressive, bad faith editing to push their own POV at variance with the WHO and in promotion of a controversial CBT model of CFS, but it could just as likely be one of the 50% or so of British BMJ voters who "don't believe" in M.E. and never have their preconceptions challenged by getting to read the mostly non-British evidence base or attend an accredited ME conference (such as IIME's). It wouldn't surprise me if there are attempts to get ME removed from here or revert to something indicative of obselesence despite the new international M.E. criteria published recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vespadrun (talk • contribs) 16:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)