Sign Petition NOW! -New CDC Definition

[Guest guest]

Mary Schweitzer _marymsch_ (marymsch)

 

 

Sign petitionagainst new CDC

definition of CFS now

 

 

We're close....!

 

The petition to kill the new Reeves definition for CFS now has 968

signatures - that means just a few more will put us over

the top into four digits for the CFSAC meeting on Wednesday.

 

 

32 more people.

 

We can do that!

 

Go sign it now if you haven't.

 

Ask your friends and families to sign it.

 

 

_http://CFSdefinitionpetition.notlong.com

 

 

_ (http://cfsdefinitionpetition.notlong.com/) What the petition is about:

In 2005, with very little fanfare, the CDC researchers on CFS led by Bill

Reeves changed the definition they had been using since 1994 (the Fukuda

definition). They have replaced it with a definition that greatly resembles

the psychiatric one used in England.

 

 

What would be the result of that?

 

 

Studies that show that we our physical malfunctions are due to

" deconditioning " (from staying in bed " playing the sick role " ) and

" cognitive behavior therapy " as the main treatment to offer, that would be

the result.

 

 

Research on biomarkers and real treatment would be stifled by the CDC's

insistence on trying them out with this group of patients, most of whom don't

have anything resembling what we have. The CDC would do a quick study and

say - there's no evidence that biomarker is useful.

 

 

It would hold back research for even MORE decades - and worse, it could

lead to cognitive behavior therapy, Prozac, and graded exercise as the only

treatments for CFS that private insurance or Medicare would pay for.

 

 

 

IT WOULD BE AN UNMITIGATED DISASTER.

 

 

This " new " definition, which was named in the best Orwellian

bureaucrateze: " empirical " (as if they had actually studied the symptoms that

we have,

which they did not), would be an unmitigated disaster for all patients with

a diagnosis of CFS - and it wouldn't do much for patients with depression

who would find themseles misdiagnosed as having CFS, either.

 

 

The reason we didn't hear much about the definition is that Reeves isn't

selling the definition to the medical profession - he is selling the

questionnaires, and suggesting that they would match the old CFS-Fukuda

definition.

 

 

But research by Dr. L. Jason suggests otherwise:

 

 

when he tried the questionnaires out on patients from the Chicago study,

he found that they omitted the sickest patients entirely.

 

Even worse, 30 percent (about 1/3) of the so-called " CFS " patients

diagnosed using the Reeves questionaire did not have CFS-Fukuda, but

did have major depression.

 

 

As Tom Kindlon has also noted, Reeves would only require one month of

" fatigue " for the diagnosis - again, a shift in definition (from six months)

that would make it easier for patients with other problems to be diagnosed as

having CFS.

 

 

The FIRST priority of the new CFSAC MUST BE to stop the distribution of

those questionnaires, get rid of all references to the Reeves definition on

the CDC's CFS website, and return to both the Fukuda definition and the

Fukuda goal of defining subsets using objective measures and biomarkers.

(An apology would be nice but I'm not holding my breath.)

 

 

*** IF YOU HAVE BRAINFOG THIS IS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ***

 

 

" CDC CFS research should not involve the empirical definition (2005) "

 

 

means

 

 

GET RID OF THE NEW REEVES DEFINITION AT CDC!

 

 

Go sign the petition:

 

 

 

_http://CFSdefinitionpetition.notlong.com

 

 

 

 

 

_ (http://cfsdefinitionpetition.notlong.com/) Mary Schweitzer

 

 

 

 

~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Send an Email for free membership

~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:

>>>>> Help ME Circle <<<<

>>>> 24 May 2009 <<<<

Editorship : j.van.roijen

mail scanned by Comodo I. Security

~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~