Can anyone tell me more about this? If it is so, is ILADS going to correct this with their new guidelines?

What does having the ILADS guidelines on the online National Guidelines Clearinghouse actually mean?

I realize that the politics of academic publishing can be fierce, and that journal editors with a strong viewpoint can and will refuse to publish articles that have a premise with which they don't agree, or that are not ammended to their satisfaction. What I don't know is how common this is, and if it is a factor for ILADS.

My PCP, when I gave him the guidelines, appeared to be much less concerned about who published the guidelines than who wrote it. The first thing he did was to read down the list of authors. He recognized many of the names, from conferences, other publications, and personal contacts, and that is what seemed to give the guidelines their credibility for him. (I know he later made some calls and did more research on his own.) He incorporates a lot of non-allopathic treatments in his practice; it wasn't the same situation as confronting the neurologist or other docs.

I'd just like to be forewarned...

This will bring some question marks by these who are strictly biomedical.

Basically, those folks would not touch this with a ten foot pole.