Jonathan Edwards
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
As Diane points out, the IOM is considerably more authoritative than any of the people saying ME/CFS is psychosomatic.
It depends on what you mean by authoritative I think. If it just means 'eminent' then as you say, it is just an argument from authority which cuts no ice.
If it means better informed and more cogent in interpreting the available evidence I am not very sure either. The IOM report as I remember it is not a very clearly argued statement. I think they talk of thousands of articles on biomedical research - but the great majority of the are negative or not reproducible so numbers means nothing much.
There are statements about ME being multi system or biomedical, but it is not clear how that is arrived at. It sounded to me like the opinions of a lot of people involved in biomedical research all bundled up together without any clearly argued thread.
People like White and Wessely actually are very well informed about the available evidence and they have made useful contributions to the biomedical side in terms of negative findings. I certainly disagree with their favourite theories but then I disagree with the favourite theories of most of the IOM people.
I realise that a lot of US advocates like to believe that the IOM report is authoritative. However, if I were to ask people who I consider really authoritative, and likely to give an honest answer, which might include James Baraniuk, Luis Nacul, Chris Ponting, Simon McGrath and some other members here, I am not sure that they would rate the IOM statement that highly. It is a propaganda piece. Propaganda has its place but not at the centre of scientific or ethical debate.