• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

TELL HHS THAT YOU OPPOSE ANY EFFORT TO REDEFINE ME

Bob

Senior Member
Messages
16,455
Location
England (south coast)
Denise, I've taken the liberty of copying and pasting the letters from your post, and formatted them so that people will be able to read them, and copy them more easily. Hope that's OK with you.


Emails should be sent to:

Kathleen.Sebelius@hhs.gov

CC:
howard.koh@hhs.gov; txf2@cdc.gov; Tomfrieden@cdc.gov; Marilyn.Tavenner@cms.hhs.gov; margaret.hamburg@fda.hhs.gov; Mary.Wakefield@hrsa.hhs.gov; collinsf@mail.nih.gov; richard.kronick@hhs.gov; MEACTNOW@yahoo.com

There is another letter here:
http://speakupaboutme.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/just-say-no-to-tapioca/



Dear Secretary Sebelius,

I am writing to voice my strong opposition to any HHS mechanism for developing “clinical diagnostic criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome” that does not include the ME community.

I am a member of the ME community and have witnessed firsthand the devastation of this disease. I am extremely concerned that you plan on doing this behind our backs with no input from us. Note that I am purposely using the term “ME” to distinguish the disease that has affected me from the overly broad “CFS”.

Two peer-reviewed consensus case definitions, developed by experts in this disease, already exist – the 2003 Canadian Consensus Criteria (CCC) and the 2011 ME International Consensus Criteria (ME-ICC), which used the CCC as its baseline. The CCC has been used both clinically and in research. Both are accompanied by clinical guidelines for medical practitioners, and are well regarded by patients, ME doctors, and ME researchers. Given that expertly defined and accepted consensus clinical criteria already exist, anything other than officially adopting one of these definitions wastes scarce taxpayer dollars and is unnecessary.

HHS has inexplicably refused to accept the CCC or the ME-ICC and even questions the hallmark symptoms of ME. Instead, it has promoted an overly broad view of the disease called “CFS”, which does not require the hallmark symptoms. This has confounded ME with depression, deconditioning and non-specific chronic fatigue, has severely impeded research, and is the direct cause of the medical skepticism and inappropriate or harmful treatment recommendations to which patients are subjected.

While you no longer appear to be seeking a contract with the IOM to develop a consensus definition, the fact remains that this effort was progressed in secret, apparently for many months and without consultation with key ME stakeholders. The timing of the announcement before a holiday weekend and the short response time indicate that HHS was not looking for input from the ME experts and ME community.

I have no confidence in the manner in which you are handling this matter, and frankly, don't see the need for anything but the obvious: Officially adopting one of the existing, expert consensus criteria.

Sincerely,
<Your Name>



second letter is below the dashed line
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Secretary Sebelius,

I applaud the Department of Health and Human Services' decision not to proceed with the wasteful and unnecessary contract for the Institute of Medicine to redefine, yet again, "ME/CFS" and to develop consensus diagnostic criteria. However, I am troubled that HHS wishes to continue "to explore mechanisms to accomplish this work."

An excellent set of consensus guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of the specific disease was developed and published in 2003 by the Canadian Consensus Criteria panel. Unfortunately, the US Centers for Disease Control has chosen to ignore the CCC guidelines and has continued to mislead and to misinform the medical community about the disease for the last ten years. The CDC is still dispensing inaccurate diagnostic criteria and treatment recommendations based on the overly broad 1994 Fukuda chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) research case definition.

The CCC guidelines were updated in 2011 by the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria document developed by a panel of the world's leading ME experts with jointly over 500 years of clinical experience. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02428.x/full

A useful Primer for Medical Practitioners, based on the ME ICC, has been published and is ready for distribution to doctors, hospitals, medical schools, professional medical societies, and medical support personnel. http://www.hetalternatief.org/ICC primer 2012.pdf

Developing yet another set of diagnostic criteria will not only be wasteful but will only serve to confuse the field further. There is still a need, however, to develop standard ME research criteria with objective measures, based on the ICC, so that the scientific era in ME research can finally begin.

I urge HHS simply to adopt the existing ME ICC guidelines as the starting point so that research, diagnosis, and treatment of the actual disease may progress.

Sincerely,
<Your Name>
 

mezombie

Senior Member
Messages
324
Location
East Coast city, USA
UPDATE: The first paragraph of the sample email has been changed.

In addition, it would be helpful to use the subject heading, "Stop Your Attempts at Redefining ME" in the emails.

Thanks to all participating in this campaign!


Dear Secretary Sebelius,

I understand that HHS has cancelled the IOM contract but will “continue to explore mechanisms to accomplish this work”. While I appreciate that the Department has responded to the public by cancelling this contract, I object to the Department continuing to explore other mechanisms to define criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome”. The experts have already defined this disease.

I am a member of the ME community and have witnessed firsthand the devastation of this disease. I am extremely concerned that you plan on doing this behind our backs with no input from us. Note that I am purposely using the term “ME” to distinguish the disease that has affected me from the overly broad “CFS”.

Two peer-reviewed consensus case definitions, developed by experts in this disease, already exist – the 2003 Canadian Consensus Criteria (CCC) and the 2011 ME International Consensus Criteria (ME-ICC), which used the CCC as its baseline. The CCC has been used both clinically and in research. Both are accompanied by clinical guidelines for medical practitioners, and are well regarded by patients, ME doctors, and ME researchers. Given that expertly defined and accepted consensus clinical criteria already exist, anything other than officially adopting one of these definitions wastes scarce taxpayer dollars and is unnecessary.

HHS has inexplicably refused to accept the CCC or the ME-ICC and even questions the hallmark symptoms of ME. Instead, it has promoted an overly broad view of the disease called “CFS”, which does not require the hallmark symptoms. This has confounded ME with depression, deconditioning and non-specific chronic fatigue, has severely impeded research, and is the direct cause of the medical skepticism and inappropriate or harmful treatment recommendations to which patients are subjected.

While you no longer appear to be seeking a contract with the IOM to develop a consensus definition, the fact remains that this effort was progressed in secret, apparently for many months and without consultation with key ME stakeholders. The timing of the announcement before a holiday weekend and the short response time indicate that HHS was not looking for input from the ME experts and ME community.

I have no confidence in the manner in which you are handling this matter, and frankly, don't see the need for anything but the obvious: Official adoption of one of the existing, expert consensus criteria.

Sincerely,
<Your Name>
 

Denise

Senior Member
Messages
1,095
Hoping someone here can help me....
Can the thread title be altered (and if so how) to read?

TELL HHS THAT YOU OPPOSE ANY EFFORT TO REDEFINE ME
 

Lynn

Senior Member
Messages
366
thanks for this Denise. I sent out my letter. I did think the last sentence of the letter is very antagonistic so I changed it to:

"I frankly don't see the need for anything but the official adoption of one of the existing, expert consensus criteria."

Lynn
 

Denise

Senior Member
Messages
1,095
Continue to email DHHS, telling DHHS to stop attempting to redefine ME


Kathleen.Sebelius@hhs.gov
CC: howard.koh@hhs.gov , txf2@cdc.gov , Tomfrieden@cdc.gov , Marilyn.Tavenner@cms.hhs.gov , margaret.hamburg@fda.hhs.gov , Mary.Wakefield@hrsa.hhs.gov , collinsf@mail.nih.gov , richard.kronick@hhs.gov , MEACTNOW@yahoo.com
There is a Facebook event page https://www.facebook.com/events/705280782832088/ that has sample letters and aslightly different sample letter (feel free to adapt any of them) is posted below.
Each of these letters reflects the cancellation of the proposed solicitation and urges DHHS to stop attempting to redefine ME.

Dear Secretary Sebelius,

I understand that HHS has canceled the IOM contract but will “continue to explore mechanisms to accomplish this work” While I appreciate that the Department has responded to the public by canceling this contract, I object to the Department continuing to explore other mechanisms to define criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome”. The experts have already defined this disease.

I am a member of the ME community and have witnessed firsthand the devastation of this disease. I purposely use the term “ME” to distinguish the disease that has affected me from the overly broad “CFS”.

Two peer-reviewed consensus case definitions, developed by experts in this disease, already exist – the 2003 Canadian Consensus Criteria (CCC) and the 2011 ME International Consensus Criteria (ME-ICC), which used the CCC as its baseline. The CCC has been used both clinically and in research. Both are accompanied by clinical guidelines for medical practitioners, and are well regarded by patients, ME doctors, and ME researchers. Given that expertly defined and accepted consensus clinical criteria already exist, anything other than officially adopting one of these definitions wastes scarce taxpayer dollars and is unnecessary.

HHS has inexplicably refused to accept the CCC or the ME-ICC and even questions the hallmark symptoms of ME. Instead, it has promoted an overly broad view of the disease called “CFS”, which does not require the hallmark symptoms. This has confounded ME with depression, deconditioning and non-specific chronic fatigue, has severely impeded appropriate research, and is the direct cause of the medical skepticism and inappropriate or harmful treatment recommendations to which patients are subjected.

While you no longer appear to be seeking a contract with the IOM to develop a consensus definition, the fact that this effort was progressed in secret, apparently for many months and without consultation with key ME stakeholders is extremely disconcerting. In addition, the timing of the announcement before a holiday weekend and the short response time indicates that HHS was not looking for input from the ME experts and ME community.


I do not see the need for anything but the official adoption of one of the existing, expert consensus criteria.


Sincerely,
<Your Name>
 

jspotila

Senior Member
Messages
1,099
HHS is going ahead with the IOM contract and plans to sign in by September 30th. They are pursuing this course without any input from the voting CFSAC members, and over the objections of the community.

I have seen the confirmation that they plan to do this. This is not a drill. This is the real deal. Our only hope is to try and stop them from signing the contract by the 30th. The fiscal year resets on October 1, and they would have to find the substantial funds all over again for FY2014.

Details and a sample email are here: http://www.occupycfs.com/2013/09/17/insult-meet-injury/

Mine is not the only sample email. I link to several others from that blog post. I hope you will speak up as well!
 

Sasha

Fine, thank you
Messages
17,863
Location
UK
HHS is going ahead with the IOM contract and plans to sign in by September 30th. They are pursuing this course without any input from the voting CFSAC members, and over the objections of the community.

I have seen the confirmation that they plan to do this. This is not a drill. This is the real deal. Our only hope is to try and stop them from signing the contract by the 30th. The fiscal year resets on October 1, and they would have to find the substantial funds all over again for FY2014.

Details and a sample email are here: http://www.occupycfs.com/2013/09/17/insult-meet-injury/

Mine is not the only sample email. I link to several others from that blog post. I hope you will speak up as well!


I think this needs a new thread, Jennie, to bring to people's attention that there's a new action, so I've set one up:

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...o-send-hhs-re-iom-action-as-of-17-sept.25331/

Thanks for keeping on top of this!