Ann Romney: I'll be the first to lobby against Trump's cuts to NIH

[Jennifer J]

Ann Romney voiced her opposition Tuesday to cutting funds for the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

"I will be the first one down lobbying against this if someone will sign me up for that," Romney said during an interview with Yahoo News.

Romney, who is living with multiple sclerosis, said it's important that NIH continue receiving funding so that progress can be made and people can eventually be treated using new research.

"Nothing comes from nothing. If you don't have that funding, there will be nothing," she said.

"There will be no new treatments, there will be no new drug therapies. Progress in medicine will come to a halt."

Romney said she doesn't believe members of Congress think funding that goes to NIH is wasted spending.

"I'm not sure it would be such a hard sell for me to go to Congress and say do not defund NIH, because I'm sure a lot of those people will understand how significant that funding is," she said.

"But people just need to be educated on it and understand that if we are going to be leading with advancements in science and in helping people break through with these horrific diseases...then NIH is absolutely critical to making that happen."

The president's proposed federal budget cuts nearly $6 billion from NIH. The Trump plan proposes a "major reorganization" of the institutes and centers at NIH to "help focus resources on the highest priority research and training activities."

(Above, whole article is quoted, divided into quotes to emphasize parts.)

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...the-first-to-lobby-against-trumps-cuts-to-nih

 

[ahimsa]

Thank you for posting this! Since Ann Romney has MS I'm sure she understands the importance of medical research.

We need to have bi-partisan support for NIH funding and against the NIH cuts. After all, diseases don't ask your political views before they hit you!

There was a recent article in the Washington Post about not being prepared for a pandemic (key posts still vacant, budget proposal with cuts to NIH & CDC, etc.) I was happy to see Republicans also making public statements against cuts to health agencies:

Many Republican lawmakers have criticized the requests, saying Congress is unlikely to approve such deep cuts to health agencies.

“You can have the best people in the world, but if you’re slashing the NIH budget by 20 percent, and presumably the same thing to CDC, then I don’t care how good your people are, they’re not going to be nearly as effective as they need to be,” said Rep. Tom Cole, (R- Okla.), who chairs the House Appropriations subcommittee on labor, health and human services, education, and related agencies.

full article => https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...a5314b56a08_story.html?utm_term=.ad2f82f894ba

 

[Sushi]

This thread has been moderated due to political comments from members. It will have to be closed if the discussion veers away from the specific topic discussed in the opening post--funding of the NIH.

 

[Alvin2]

The thread itself is political, if politics is verboten then the thread itself is in violation is it not?
I understand the position that politics can get out of hand, but if kept in hand then it can be valuable

 

[Undisclosed]

The thread itself is political, if politics is verboten then the thread itself is in violation is it not?
I understand the position that politics can get out of hand, but if kept in hand then it can be valuable

Please read the rules.

Yes it is political and we do allow discussions that are related to ME and cuts to the NIH will definitely affect patients so sticking to how cuts will affect ME patients is fine.

Generic political comments that are unrelated to the thread topic will be removed. General comments slurring one political party or another are not allowed as members who belong to the slurred party will feel insulted. If members can't handle this, then I guess a no politics allowed at all rule will have to be instituted.

 

[Sushi]

Note, I see @Kina has posted while I was writing my post--I'll just add:

The thread itself is political, if politics is verboten then the thread itself is in violation is it not?
I understand the position that politics can get out of hand, but if kept in hand then it can be valuable

Here is the wording of our rule:

Do not post about general politics or religion in threads, Conversations, blogs or in the chat rooms.

Views on religion and politics are personal and important to each of us. This forum is not the place to discuss general politics or religious beliefs. This type of discussion can be divisive and can easily lead to misunderstandings, animosity and unintended offense.

Political discussion directly related to ME/CFS is allowed. Supportive threads in the Spirituality and ME/CFS Forum are welcome as long as they are not used to promote your own religious views, to offer explicit spiritual advice, or to critique other members' beliefs.

Therefore, please, no religious or political (unless related to ME/CFS) debate or commentary on this website. Any such posts or threads will be removed.

In this case the funding of the NIH (and its funding for ME/CFS research) are relevant to members of this forum.

The opening post quotes Anne Romney adding her voice to the discussion ("Romney, who is living with multiple sclerosis, said it's important that NIH continue receiving funding so that progress can be made and people can eventually be treated using new research.") This is a news item, and is relevant to us...but discussion of political ideology is out of bounds here because members will have very different opinions.

 

[ahimsa]

Thank you to the moderators for getting this thread back on track!

I think it goes against our own interests to depict support of NIH, CDC, ADA, etc. as being associated with a single party or political view. I applaud anyone who supports more research funding for ME/CFS (of course!) and also anyone who supports more NIH research in general.

Isn't it better to try persuade more folks to support NIH funding (and fight proposed NIH cuts) rather than assuming they will be against it?

It may sound Pollyanna but I'd rather light a single candle than curse the darkness.

This is why I worked to get my US Representative to sign that recent letter (see http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...-for-me-deadline-april-4th.50422/#post-837750 )

If nothing else it helped spread information about ME/CFS. Just think of all those staff members who listened to calls or read emails from constituents who have ME/CFS. And I put in some extra links in my email (e.g., a link to recent blog post by NIH director).

PS. I thought I'd add this abbreviation list for those who need it:

NIH = National Institutes of Health
CDC = Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
ADA = Americans with Disabilities Act
(lists what accommodations for disabilities are required but some companies must be sued to conform to rules)

 

[alex3619]

Funding on medical research is already focused on what committees and other review groups consider the most important. I don't recall what the actual ratio is but only a small percentage of studies get funded.

From an economic view I consider health funding to be an investment in nation building. It does not just make money in the long run, it makes the population more productive.

Take ME and CFS, at about twenty five billion dollars per year in the US. What would a cure be worth, not in profits, but to the US economy? That is just one (or several) disease/s.

Chronic diseases have a huge economic burden. If there were to be a change in focus it should be toward chronic disease, with an aim to investigating specific disease mechanisms then ways to target those mechanisms. Palliative care addresses the social and personal cost, but does not address the economic cost.

Long ago I proposed the 0.1% rule. That is the percentage of economic burden that should be the minimum of what is spent in any advanced country. More if there is to be a focus on a specific problem, of course. That would put a floor of $25 million on ME and CFS research in the US, and would indicate most advanced nations are not doing enough in this area. Other nations need to get involved.

I hope that protecting the NIH will indeed receive bipartisan support. The economic arguments do not support cuts. A goal for efficiency here means better targeting, not budget cutting. That can be achieved by setting objectives. I would suggest chronic diseases and especially underfunded diseases should be a priority.

 

[Shoshana]

I'd rather light a single candle than curse the darkness.

Thanks for reminding me of that positive inspiration. I had not heard that in many years.