Hi @Mithriel
Yes, chronic EBV was the flavour of the day; looks like the concept of post viral fatigue syndrome was involved in the mix.
Page 71 of the Health and Welfare Canada document (link below) added to the Holmes definition: "From the Proceedings of our workshop we can abstract the following recommendations:
1. Modifications to the case definition of Holmes et al. (Ann Intern med 1988; 108:387-9)
(1) We recommend that chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) be considered as consisting of 2 types:
Type 1 - CFS with no pre-existing or co-existing major depressive syndrome.
Type 2 - CFS with (a) pre-existing or (b) concurrent major depressive syndrome as defined by the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-III-R).
(2) It is the experience of the workshop that one-quarter to one-third of CFS patients will qualify as CFS Type 1.
(3) We consider that in addition, CFS is a triphasic syndrome...." This quote continues as above under post #17.
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/aspc-phac/H12-21-1-17-S1-eng.pdf
You are probably more than aware of the 1980s reaction from NIH and CDC re EBV not being the cause.
Late activist, Craig Maupin did so much for our community, including requesting a copy of a letter from Dr. Stephen Straus to Dr. Kieji Fukuda about the concept of a "discrete form of fatiguing illness" evaporating.
Craig's website may have been taken down, however, I found a portion of this letter on Gabby Klein's website:
In this letter Dr. Straus says:
"Now that the definition is revised we could project at leisure what will come of it. I’d be very interested in your frank opinion on the matter when convenient. My own sense is that a few years of use in the field will once again verify that there is no demonstrable or reproducible differences between individuals who meet the full CFS criteria and those who can be said to suffer Idiopathic Chronic Fatigue. This would beg the question of whether additional revisions to the definition are warranted, or its entire abandonment.
I’ve felt for some time, Kieji, that those that have CFS are at a certain point along a continuum of illness in which fatigue is either the most dominant symptom or the most clearly articulated by virtue of impression on the part of the patient or physician that such a complaint is important. I predict that fatigue itself will remain the subject of considerable interest but the notion of a discrete form of fatiguing illness will evaporate. We would then, be left with Chronic Fatigue that can be distinguished as Idiopathic or Secondary to an identifiable medical or psychiatric disorder. I consider this a desirable outcome."
Here is a link to Gabby Klein's website.
https://relatingtome.net/2019/03/22/cdc-the-puppeteer-and-the-uk-bps-connection-to-bury-me/
Yes, chronic EBV was the flavour of the day; looks like the concept of post viral fatigue syndrome was involved in the mix.
Page 71 of the Health and Welfare Canada document (link below) added to the Holmes definition: "From the Proceedings of our workshop we can abstract the following recommendations:
1. Modifications to the case definition of Holmes et al. (Ann Intern med 1988; 108:387-9)
(1) We recommend that chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) be considered as consisting of 2 types:
Type 1 - CFS with no pre-existing or co-existing major depressive syndrome.
Type 2 - CFS with (a) pre-existing or (b) concurrent major depressive syndrome as defined by the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-III-R).
(2) It is the experience of the workshop that one-quarter to one-third of CFS patients will qualify as CFS Type 1.
(3) We consider that in addition, CFS is a triphasic syndrome...." This quote continues as above under post #17.
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/aspc-phac/H12-21-1-17-S1-eng.pdf
You are probably more than aware of the 1980s reaction from NIH and CDC re EBV not being the cause.
Late activist, Craig Maupin did so much for our community, including requesting a copy of a letter from Dr. Stephen Straus to Dr. Kieji Fukuda about the concept of a "discrete form of fatiguing illness" evaporating.
Craig's website may have been taken down, however, I found a portion of this letter on Gabby Klein's website:
In this letter Dr. Straus says:
"Now that the definition is revised we could project at leisure what will come of it. I’d be very interested in your frank opinion on the matter when convenient. My own sense is that a few years of use in the field will once again verify that there is no demonstrable or reproducible differences between individuals who meet the full CFS criteria and those who can be said to suffer Idiopathic Chronic Fatigue. This would beg the question of whether additional revisions to the definition are warranted, or its entire abandonment.
I’ve felt for some time, Kieji, that those that have CFS are at a certain point along a continuum of illness in which fatigue is either the most dominant symptom or the most clearly articulated by virtue of impression on the part of the patient or physician that such a complaint is important. I predict that fatigue itself will remain the subject of considerable interest but the notion of a discrete form of fatiguing illness will evaporate. We would then, be left with Chronic Fatigue that can be distinguished as Idiopathic or Secondary to an identifiable medical or psychiatric disorder. I consider this a desirable outcome."
Here is a link to Gabby Klein's website.
https://relatingtome.net/2019/03/22/cdc-the-puppeteer-and-the-uk-bps-connection-to-bury-me/
