- bearing in mnd that the mildly affected being in a minority are atypical too and like all other atypical minorities not representative of the whole cohor,t but the degrees of severity are included in the respective diagnostic criteria for ME / CFS and / or LC
- the other atypical symptom descriptors are not incliuded for a disgnosis unless the MEA and associates have in mind to redfine ME / CFS and / or LC for ipurposes of research and tools
taking each point from
@richie and
@Jonathan Edwards might they both agree to some verion of:
- the host of atypical symptoms which are NOT in the diagnostic criteria for ME / CFS or LC could be listed for the avoidance of mission creep (inwards ANi outwards) but only if very clear that these defined SUB-COHORTS report atypical symptoms which are NOT relevant to our diagnoses BUT are apparently associated in some diagnosed cases, so not the cohort but the symptomatic sub-cohorts
- which will become clearer when the next MEA research (epidemiology) is secured (depending on the current design of its input and output, current design as in oddly coincident to this trail of adminstrative woe we are resolving by lette
- meanwhile may we accurately say associated in a minority of cases
Then maybe MEA AND the wider ME / CFS & LC communities CAN agree to classify atypical
sub-cohorts in the format offered by
@Cinders66 as "atypical disturbance
(unattributed or attirbuted). Its may be easier to agree if we do not do attributions, just symptom descriptors, ad=nd for now aviding the words for allergy, intolerance and sensitivity which are still blurredr in NHS practice
so diifficulty is better, the concept offered by
@Jonathan Edwards as in "hard to tolerate environment, foods etc.
I would put difficulty with food and environmental input into an atypical bracket as some cases happily do not have these difficulties.
- But I think difficulty with exertion is a major diagnostic criteria. Here it makes more sense to say "hard to tolerate", because there are many types of exercise difficulty and sloppies don't difeerentiate between exercise and exertion
- I very much like being able to say "hard to tolerate", but its too easily taken up and run into intoerance, which technically i am not diagosed with)
- our tolerance-failures are such a major factor it needs to be flagged and described in a required universal language, but is it safe to say typically intolerant of exertion and atypically may be intolerant also of some or all foods, some environmental substances, sound, light, touch and this is in now way avoidant etc
- if necessarily attributed (and attibutable - which a doctor must advise) then eg to hepato-biliary, gi, gu, nutrition. reactivities, pulmonary, heart, neck, neurology, neuromuscular, musculo-skeletal, movement,orthopaedic, bone density, abnormal involuntary movement +/- trigger +/- exacerbation during flares eg - eg shakes / tremor / twitch / voiding / reflux, orthopaedic, bone density, rheumatoid, malnutrition, dehydration (but not deconditioning and frailty as these have other domains), etc (with any report of immunology and / or infectious diseases to be referred promptly to a specialist instead and immuology for outpatients vastly expamnded again, thanking you Wes Streeting)
- without appending diagnostic labels which would be too problematical due to each having spawned several different species, so where one of our atypical symptoms is within diagnostic criteria for another condition then its label may stay there
Domains must be differentiated and ours must be defended
SO these are the "possible differentials or co-morbidities" a phrase proposed by
@richie - i think co-morbidities may be jumping the gun as warned, so maybe the doctors can agree on differentials and drop the co-morbidiie word as the NHS is not agreed on it. Some atypical suymptoms are no atti=ribiutale anyway, and somehave no name at, or are just a symptom mame like diarrhoea. (darrhoea is a common sub-cohort of flu and covid too.
-
Could all doctors agree that
- the atypical symptoms will mount to the hundreds because the MEA is now including LC in its new epidemiology
- the atypical symptoms are not included in - and are not to be included in - the definition and diagnostic criteria for the either of the two ME/CFS * LC cohorts
From a medical point of view the issue is what is legitimate to include in a syndrome category such as ME/CFS. The vast majority of people with ME/CFS do not have abnormal ,,,, but do have similar problems such as ....
I noticed that a carer of a person with severe feeding difficulties referred to neurological complications as being a risk with ME/CFS and as far as we know this is not the case. I worry that it gives patients and carers a distorted picture of the illness that may cause significant harm.
- we would not have a distorted picture if the literature made clear distinctions between the sub-cohorts defined by degress of severity, a fluid situation involvinh 4-5 minorities some claiming to be a majority hence the blur I suppose
- my heart sank when I read a wondeul full description of what a GP needs to do to accomodate a person with most severe M.E on a home visit, i thought some of our GPs reading this would be taxed and vexed and totally resistant and as it could be too easily seen as representative of all cases and also not at all consistent with the mild cases seen in clinic
- and yes very scary to a mild case if not clearly differentiated so that everyone can without fear, let or hindrance report their own case - accurately once offered consensus on the terminology still at large and in the wild making claims
- and for some off reason may i note although the nation is now familiarised with vivid glimpses of severe ME ? CFS we still have no such picture whatsoever of the mild cases of ME / CFS which we do not want to scare and who are still claiming to be the majority for purposes of a national programmed ME/CFS delivery budget maybe squeezed in under the [return to health and work talking therapy for mild anxiety/depression, longterm conditions and other rehab integrations]
- is it correct to say that with some feeding difficulties people like me found some odd neurological (spinal) sensations once weight first dropped below 7.5 stone, but no such thing occurred the 2nd time when it also dropped further to below 7 stone, so maybe there is anothe ractor or the diet manageable was lacking someting the first time though less adequate the 2nd time
re the arguable co-morbid labels - if there is diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS then its ME/CFS with atypical symptoms as defined (in ME/CFS clinics and research and literatuers, , and in th other clinics etc its the other with ME / CFS symptoms ? ?
... shaking ... sometimes referred to in strong cases as twitching or tremors.
- possible differentials or co-morbidities.
- Twitching ... abnormal involuntary movement +/- trigger, .