So the requirement of a panelist is that they may not be a clinician who sees patients with ME/CFS. They may not be a researcher who performs research on ME/CFS. They could be a clinician who treats pain disorders. They could be an oncologist who treats cancer-related fatigue. They could be an expert in a research area that has recently undergone a case definition or case definition review, such as a polycystic ovary syndrome. So they can… they are highly regarded experts in their field. They just are not ME/CFS experts.
That content comes from the speakers at the workshop. That’s where those people will make their case. Think about this. It’s a jury model. Okay? You have the defense. You have a prosecution. They both know the case really well. They know the details, they know what’s going on, they know all the nuance, they know what’s going on in the media. Your jury is sequestered. They don’t know. They don’t know anything.
“I’ve heard of that, but I’m not sure. I don’t know about that trial." The jury hears the evidence and they make their decisions based on the evidence. That’s essentially what the panel is—the difference between the workshop speakers, the evidence report and the panelists—get it.
I made a transcript of Susan Maier's presentation and the Question and Answer period which followed, and it is now located in the forum Wiki here: http://www.mecfsforums.com/wiki/NIH_P2P_Presentation_by_Susan_Maier_at_IOM_Open_Meeting_1/27/2014
« Last Edit: February 12, 2014, 07:00:56 PM by Wildaisy »
"Hell is empty. All the devils are here." ~ William Shakespeare, THE TEMPEST
Me: They are at the IOM/HHS/NIH/CDC/CAA/PANDORA/WPI