then our patients diagnosed. Those things are really not available to the general clinical population. If they were pushed out, just say,
11.0
2
a simple way is to validate the Institute of Medicine criteria, for example. Many clinicians don't do orthostatic testing. They don't do cognitive testing.
10.0
3
They don't know what to look for in sleep studies. We do have made some progress on how to measure post exertional malaise with good questionnaires from Lenny.
13.0
4
But it wouldn't take very long, I think, from our group of experts to come up with a small panel and then do a few small studies to validate and then really widely push that out to clinicians.
11.0
5
Vicky Whittemore: Thank you, Cindy. Lots of people agreeing with that comment. Night invite anyone else on the panel to turn
12.0
6
your cameras on and join the conversation or ask questions. Jarred, you had a comment? Jarred Younger: Related to an earlier I was just interested with our panel.
13.0
7
The question came up of, is there something that divides up your population? Is there something that creates subgroups? I know some people on here have some interesting things including Cindy,
11.0
8
I'm sure I don't know what it is, but I'm sure she has some. Things that divide up the sample and create meaningful subgroup. Just as an example,
8.0
9
if I run 100 people with ME/CFS, there's a subgroup that has just weird elevated C-reactive protein, but it's not high enough to cause any physicians to be alarmed,
10.0
10
but it's around 10 level. No one knows what to do with it, but something's going on in a little higher erythrocyte sedimentation rate and so about a third of them look like they have some kind of systemic inflammatory thing.