"Those who sacrifice liberty for
security deserve neither."
-- Benjamin Franklin
explains it to Congress
2. How about the
DSM-5? Take the
3. What is M.E.?
It still is the case that sleeping remains quite
difficult for me. This also makes my life rather difficult, at the
Anyway. Today it is weekend, and I do less, and shift - so to speak -
somewhat: I'll concentrate on general expositions, that also are clear
For the moment, I'll offer three: About Snowden's revelations; about
the DSM-5; and about M.E. It is categorized in the crisis-section because of the first section, that also will
concern the most.
1. Alan Grayson explains
it to Congress
First, here is Alan Grayson, who is a Democratic
Congressman, who explains the Snowden revelations to Congress, and does
so in a clear and understandable way, and in under 25 minutes:
If you've paid attention
to what I wrote the last week, you will not learn very much, but even
so it is well worth
seeing, since it keeps things simple and clear, and it is a good speech.
Oddly - or perhaps not, in view of the NSA's recordings! - it has been
seen only 3406 times as I am writing this.
How about the DSM-5? Take the ICD!
Next, the DSM-5. I think I have explained it quite well,
in my DSM-5 series, and
e.g. on July 16 last year and on May 28 2012, but few
seem to care - or at least I am not told people care, or if I am, then
does not reach me .
So here is a link to another site that has the
merit of explaining it all quite clearly:
Then about my question +
answer that form the title of the section.
There is no need to buy the DSM-5 and there also is no
need of any kind to follow it - after all, it is the very bad work of a
very private organization most of whose members must be regarded as deceivers. Then again, what are you to do if
you are a psychiatrist, psychologist or GP? If you need to know the appropriate
codes for the diagnoses you make? In fact, there is considerably better
than the DSM-5:
Not only is it better; not
only is it the original source of the appropriate codes; not only is it
by the World Health Organization: it also is quite free. If you
press the last link and save it, you've got it. 
What is M.E.?
Finally. One of the many
things I have not done the last year is to revise my
I am sorry, but I have tried, and I could not do it
with the qualities of my eyes. Then again, it still is one of the best
resources. Two other real good ones are here:
Note both are extensive
sites, of which I give you only one page for each: If you are
interested, you should see more on these sites.
Finally, the best explanation, in one file, is the following, which was
not compiled by psychiatrists but by, and I quote:
Consensus Panel, consisting of clinicians, research investigators,
teaching faculty, and an independent
They compiled this:
educator, represent diverse
backgrounds, medical specialities and geographical regions.
Collectively, the members of the
• diagnosed and/or treated
more than 50 000 patients who have ME;
• more than 500 years of
• approximately 500 years of
• authored hundreds of
peer-reviewed publications, as well as written chapters and medical
• several members have
co-authored previous criteria.
This the latest and the best. 
I have merely on my least visited site almost 5 1/2 million hits,
compiled by nearly 1 million visitors. I hardly get mail. I find this a
 This is not to say I agree with it, for
I think there are too many diagnoses in it, but even so: It is shorter,
much better written, and has all the codes that matter, so there really
is no need to shelve out $ 149 for the awfully bad DSM-5.
 I do think so, although I think
PEM i.e. Post-Extertional Malaise is a better name than PENE i.e. Post-Extertional Neuroimmune Exhaustion,
because the former is empirically
so, while the latter has a theoretical
component. But it is a small criticism. Overall, this is the book
patients with M.E. and their doctors need.
ME/CFS (that I prefer
to call M.E.: The "/CFS" is added to facilitate search
is a disease I have since 1.1.1979: