Only a few days to go: We’re raising £25,000 to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can hold their elected representatives to account.

Donate to our crowdfunder

Reporting a comment

Here's the annotation you're reporting. Please enter a brief reason why you think it should be deleted in the form beneath. Thanks for your help!

Jane Birkby
Posted on 7 Jun 2007 9:58 pm

The answer given by Ivan Lewis contains no specifics, and disassociates the Department of Health from the process, therebye avoiding responsibility for the outcome.
This is totally unacceptable to me as a patient with M.E./Myalgic Encephalomyelitis.
NICE have been in the business of avoiding, and sidelining the issue, including all the wealth of research done around the world, from which a definitive set of diagnostic tests can be constructed.
It is to be hoped that the Clinical Case definition guidance, will be the most up to date Canadian Criteria, and not the outdated PACE and Fukuda criteria.
Three years, is two and a half years too long to have been deliberating this issue, and the Department of Health should be earning their salaries by putting pressure on NICE to expedite the matter.
There is also no mention of funding for the second part of Dr Jonathan Kerr's genetic work, which could offer a solution to this troublesome and debilitating condition.

Why should this annotation be deleted?
Check our House Rules and tell us why the annotation breaks them.