Recalibrating the Demographic Landscape of ME/CFS in the United States

Authored by: Cynthia Adinig

Executive Summary

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) has long been portrayed in U.S. literature as concentrated among white patients, a view driven by who was studied and who reached specialty care rather than underlying biology (Komaroff et al., 1996; Jason et al., 2004; Dinos et al., 2009). Early tropes such as “yuppie flu” shaped recruitment, messaging, and program design and helped freeze a skewed picture in place (Dinos et al., 2009). Using CYNAERA’s US-CCUC™ framework, we present a corrected profile that includes undocumented immigrants and ancestry-linked biology. The model indicates that roughly half of Americans with ME/CFS are nonwhite, with several groups likely carrying higher true prevalence once baseline intolerance patterns and post viral progression are considered (Jason et al., 2004; Jason et al., 2021; Hornig et al., 2015).

Historical misclassification and narrow sampling

Legacy estimates placed 70–90 percent of diagnosed cases among white patients, reflecting clinic access and recruitment patterns, not population burden (Komaroff et al., 1996; Jason et al., 2004). Black patients presenting with fatigue were more often routed to psychiatric labels, which diverted them from physiologic workups (FitzGibbon et al., 1997; Daugherty et al., 2019). Hispanic and Indigenous patients experienced lower specialist access and geographic barriers, further depressing case capture (Jason et al., 2004; KFF, 2020). These inputs then fed study pipelines that recruited mostly white, middle-class cohorts and reinforced the same signals back to the field (Dinos et al., 2009).

Undocumented populations and invisible burden

Undocumented immigrants are absent from claims-based datasets and underrepresented in surveys, yet many work in physically demanding jobs with high exposure to infections, heat, pollutants, and indoor molds, and often live in housing with dampness and ventilation issues that amplify flares (Bullard et al., 2007; Belcourt et al., 2016). Language barriers and low coverage reduce diagnostic capture, and symptoms are frequently coded as stress related rather than post viral illness (Sacks et al., 2021). CYNAERA’s US-CCUC-U™ overlay adds an estimated 0.40–0.55 million cases nationally to restore this missing population to the U.S. total.

Light formula, US-CCUC-U™ Corrected Prevalence (Undocumented) = Population × Base Prevalence × U_adjwhere U_adj calibrates for coverage gaps, care-seeking lag, occupational exposure, and local policy environment. A full specification is provided in the Comprehensive ME/CFS Overview paper.

Ancestral nutrition and biological consistency

Ancestry and diet add a biologic lens that supports recalibration. Population variations in milk protein tolerance and related gastrointestinal responses are well described, with many African American and Asian American groups showing higher rates of intolerance than white groups (O’Keefe et al., 2015). In pediatric cohorts, food sensitivities and gastrointestinal complaints commonly co-occur with autonomic problems and connective-tissue features, patterns linked to greater risk for post infectious chronic illness (Rowe et al., 2019). The Africa–U.S. crossover diet experiment demonstrated that African Americans placed on a traditional African high-fiber diet rapidly improved gut inflammatory markers, while rural Africans placed on a Westernized diet developed adverse metabolic and inflammatory shifts within weeks, highlighting how diet–ancestry mismatch can drive immune and barrier dysfunction (O’Keefe et al., 2015). Taken together, these signals support upward recalibration for several groups even before accounting for healthcare access effects.

CYNAERA-adjusted demographic estimates (2025)

Baseline adults with ME/CFS: ~14.4 million, consistent with the validated US-CCUC™ harmonized range of 15–21.5 million once known gaps are incorporated (Jason et al., 2021; internal CYNAERA harmonization).

Race/Ethnicity	Legacy share (diagnosed)	CYNAERA-adjusted share	Estimated cases
White (non-Hispanic)	~75–85%	~55–60%	~8.16M
Black / African American	~5–7%	~15–20%	~2.48M
Hispanic / Latine	~6–10%	~12–15%	~1.92M
Asian American / Pacific Islander	~2–4%	~5–8%	~0.92M
Native American / Alaska Native	<1%	~3–4%	~0.50M
Multiracial / Other	~1–2%	~3–5%	~0.21M
Undocumented (all groups)	N/A	+0.40–0.55M	~0.48M

Note: The core race/ethnicity rows sum to about 14.2 million. Adding the US-CCUC-U™ correction yields roughly 14.6 million. This sits just below the validated national range of 15–21.5 million, which tightens further when LGBTQ+ undercount is incorporated, as outlined in the Comprehensive ME/CFS Overview.

Methods, light view

To generate adjusted estimates, CYNAERA applies US-CCUC-R™ and US-CCUC-U™ to legacy diagnosed counts and population denominators, with weights informed by published undercount ratios, environmental exposure profiles, and care-access indicators (Jason et al., 2004; Jason et al., 2021; Belcourt et al., 2016; KFF, 2020).

Light formula, US-CCUC-R™ Corrected Prevalence (Race-adjusted) = Diagnosed Cases × (1 + R_adj) where R_adj captures diagnostic suppression documented across Black, Latine, Asian, and Indigenous populations, triangulated from referral differences, claims under-capture, and survey nonresponse (FitzGibbon et al., 1997; Daugherty et al., 2019; Jason et al., 2004). A fuller specification is published in the Comprehensive ME/CFS Overview.

Post COVID signals confirm the recalibration

Groups that experienced higher COVID-19 hospitalization and mortality also faced lower access to antivirals and post acute care, a pattern consistent with higher post viral chronic illness burden and later detection (CDC, 2021; Khullar et al., 2022). Essential workers, heavily represented by Black, Hispanic, and Asian American adults, absorbed repeated exposures with limited recovery time (BLS, 2020). Pollution and damp-housing clusters overlap with neighborhoods that already carry higher inflammatory load, reinforcing risk for post infectious syndromes (Tessum et al., 2021; Belcourt et al., 2016). These signals match the upward adjustments in the US-CCUC model.

Why these numbers matter now

Research

Trial cohorts that mirror only legacy clinic populations risk missing biology that is common outside those cohorts; inclusive sampling improves biomarker discovery and response profiling (Hornig et al., 2015; Natelson et al., 2020).Policy. Disability adjudication, surveillance, and funding allocation require credible baselines that include undocumented and hard-to-sample groups (KFF, 2020).

Clinical practice

Embedding ME/CFS screening and PEM recognition in primary care increases accurate capture for patients who formerly received stress or mood labels (Rowe et al., 2019; FitzGibbon et al., 1997).

Global link

CYNAERA’s Global-CCUC™ applies the same tiered logic internationally, weighting prevalence by diagnostic capture, environmental burden, social supports for rest, clinical awareness, and pandemic history, with country-level ranges reported separately. A fuller specification is published in the CYNAERA Global-CCUC™ white paper.

Conclusion

ME/CFS in the United States spans every community. The pattern that emerged in early studies reflected access and recruitment, not biology. By restoring undocumented populations to the count and by integrating ancestry-linked biology alongside published undercount signals, CYNAERA’s US-CCUC™ model brings the national picture closer to reality. The practical path forward is clear. Build studies and clinics around who is actually sick, not only who arrived at specialty centers in the past. Align surveillance and program design to current burden. Retire outdated baselines, and plan with numbers that reflect real-world ME/CFS dynamics.

References

1. Belcourt, A., et al. (2016). Environmental exposures and health disparities in Native American communities. Environmental Health Perspectives, 124(10), 1476–1483.

2. Bullard, R. D., et al. (2007). Toxic wastes and race at twenty: 1987–2007. Environmental Justice, 1(1), 1–10.

3. CDC. (2021). COVID-19 hospitalization and death by race and ethnicity. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data

4. Daugherty, S. L., et al. (2019). Racial disparities in diagnostic evaluation of chronic fatigue. Journal of Health Disparities Research and Practice, 12(3), 45–56.

5. Dinos, S., et al. (2009). A systematic review of chronic fatigue syndrome: Do not assume it is depression. British Journal of Psychiatry, 195(5), 395–400.

6. FitzGibbon, E. J., et al. (1997). Racial differences in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 12(4), 211–216.

7. Hornig, M., et al. (2015). Distinct plasma immune signatures in ME/CFS are present early in the course of illness. Science Advances, 1(1), e1400121.

8. Jason, L. A., et al. (2004). A community-based study of chronic fatigue syndrome among different racial/ethnic groups. Ethnicity & Disease, 14(2), 247–253.

9. Jason, L. A., et al. (2021). Estimating prevalence, demographics, and costs of ME/CFS using large-scale claims data. Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior, 9(1), 1–13.

10. Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). (2020). Health insurance coverage by race and ethnicity. https://www.kff.org

11. Khullar, D., et al. (2022). Racial and ethnic disparities in access to COVID-19 treatments. Health Affairs, 41(2), 234–241.

12. Komaroff, A. L., et al. (1996). Health status in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome 10 years later. American Journal of Medicine, 101(3), 281–290.

13. Natelson, B. H., et al. (2020). Clinical trials in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: Current status and future directions. Journal of Translational Medicine, 18(1), 1–10.

14. O’Keefe, S. J., et al. (2015). Fat, fibre and cancer risk in African Americans and rural Africans. Nature Communications, 6, 6342.

15. Rowe, P. C., et al. (2019). Diagnosis and management of ME/CFS in children. Pediatrics, 144(5), e20191527.

16. Sacks, T. K., et al. (2021). Medical gaslighting and patient-reported harm. Social Science & Medicine, 273, 113756.

17. Tessum, C. W., et al. (2021). PM2.5 sources disproportionately affect people of color. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(8), 4711–4722.