Canadian Consensus Criteria not suitable: PACE trial minutes

Anyone got the follow-up info on this? A record of the communication and issues with the CCC (according to the author's views)?
Which authors were contacted? Carruthers?

From one of the PACE trial steering committee and data ethics committee meetings it states:

From Monday 28th Sept 2004 from post by @Esther12 https://www.s4me.info/threads/pace-trial-tsc-and-tmg-minutes-released.3150/page-12#post-58563

__________
Yet there has of course been research done using the CCC definition of ME.

 

Would be good to hear from the CCC authors if this is true.
They are listed here: https://me-pedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Consensus_Criteria

 

I wonder what they consider an "intrusive" procedure. From what I can see, diagnosis might involve an EKG and a sleep study (if you don't take the patients word that they have disrupted/reversed sleep patterns). Likewise, you could pretty much check off "irritable bowel syndrome" based on symptoms without doing some scope-based procedure. Add to that there are "non-intrusive" alternatives on the checklist for these and I get the feeling that they may have just been looking for reasons not to use the CCC.

 

The criteria are too good at discerning ME from Depression and other non ME diseases so they could not have their results point away from their pre conceived conclusion. They would never in 10 lifetimes admit this of course.
It was in their interests to have many diseases classified as ME so their results could be 'scientifically' falsified

 

Would such a procedure go under the name "Simon says"?