• 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, 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.

Dr. Collins wants to mend fences - my call with him

Anne

Senior Member
Messages
295
Collins also asked me to figure out how the NIH and the advocacy community can have a more productive relationship. I think the criticism NIH has received in the past was warranted. But I hope today's announcement marks the start of a new relationship between patients and the NIH. They are not the enemy. Things are moving forward, and there will be more opportunities soon for patient advocates to be involved in how NIH studies this illness.

Brian

Firstly, many, many thanks to you, @viggster and to everyone else who has been advocating so hard for this! There is hope!

I think an excellent first step of a new and better relationship between NIH and stakeholders in the ME/CFS community - with researchers and clinicians as well as patients - would be for the NIH to use the Canadian Consensus Criteria when selecting ME/CFS patients for their in-house study, as well as make CCC a requirement in the RFA.

Does anyone know if this is being done? (What the IOM report did was come up with clinical criteria, not a research definition, so the CCC stould still be the best research criteria we have: with obligatory PEM and a very strong endorsement from the ME/CFS scientific community - remember the letter.)

@viggster @leokitten @Research 1st @jspotila @mango @searcher
 

searcher

Senior Member
Messages
567
Location
SF Bay Area
Hi @Anne- I don't think that NIH has gotten to the point of selecting research criteria (@leokitten is the most likely to know), but I also think that their intramural and extramural studies should be on patients who meet the CCC. Since almost every patient I know fits the CCC, I don't think there is any reason to use any looser criteria. I am sure others may support ME-ICC.
 

jimells

Senior Member
Messages
2,009
Location
northern Maine
Dr Collins wants us to "trust" him, but trust is irrelevant - it's the polices and the actions that matter. That's why we have tools like FOIA, public hearings, and journalists and advocates to scrutinize agency actions. Sure, Dr Collins may be sincere and personable, but so what? He won't be there forever. These institutions, just like individuals, have a tendency to slack off when the attention is focused elsewhere.

NIH policy-making continues to be opaque. FOIA requests continue to be resisted, even to the point of lying to Federal judges and damaging the health of advocates. It's clear to those who look that the insurers are very much involved with the policy of burying the illness, but we sill don't know exactly whose strings the insurers have been pulling, and whether they have decided to stop.

Think on this: After thirty years of non-research, we have yet to hear a credible reason from agency leaders for that lack of research, and likely never will.
 
Last edited:

ballard

Senior Member
Messages
152
Little Lady copy.jpg


Good for Dr. Collins and the ME/CFS advocates! Thank you for your hard work.

If you'd like to see more ME/CFS cartoons go to http://www.cfsgraphics.com
 

Kati

Patient in training
Messages
5,497
View attachment 13412

Good for Dr. Collins and the ME/CFS advocates! Thank you for your hard work.

If you'd like to see more ME/CFS cartoons go to http://www.cfsgraphics.com
@ballard your artwork is being put to great use! Thank you! They provide reflection and people take a look. I use them several time a day on my twitter advocacy. Best wishes, and keep them coming as your health/time allows.
 

LisaGoddard

Senior Member
Messages
284
Hi, Not sure if this was posted already but there is an article in the journal Science on the NIH's new take on ME.
http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2015/10/nih-refocuses-research-chronic-fatigue-syndrome

Francis Collins says some hopeful things...

“I’ve been troubled about the lack of answers we have for this condition since I became NIH director,” says Collins, who took the job in 2009.

The attitude among many researchers has been “maybe this is an unsolvable problem, let’s just work on something else,” Collins says. “I’m happy to say we’re countering that attitude rather strongly here.”
 

acer2000

Senior Member
Messages
818
I just really hope they fund extramural researchers also. There are pros and cons to both approaches. Both are needed. But one of the things that differs with University research (and even between different universities) is the political climate and culture within the institution. Even with "official support" those things can make a big difference on what ideas are tested and how much progress can be made.
 

Kati

Patient in training
Messages
5,497
I just really hope they fund extramural researchers also. There are pros and cons to both approaches. Both are needed. But one of the things that differs with University research (and even between different universities) is the political climate and culture within the institution. Even with "official support" those things can make a big difference on what ideas are tested and how much progress can be made.
The trouble with new researcher entering the field is that they need to
1) read the right information in a minefield where half the litterature is biased towards BPS model
2) select the right cohort
3) ensure spotless methodology

Then and only then there is hope for good science to happen.
The advantage of funding already existing teams is they are already primed in this disease and have an idea what to look for.
 
Messages
38
Hello all -

I just got off the phone with Francis Collins regarding today's announcement. I am convinced we've made a bureaucratic breakthrough at the NIH. For 30 years, they have ignored our illness - that changes today. For the first time since the 80's, NIH will bring ME/CFS patients into the Clinical Center. We have a champion inside NIH, Vicky Whittemore, who wants to crack this illness - and she has support from the top to do so. The new director of NINDS is interested in studying ME/CFS. This is huge. For decades, there has been a "don't go there" sign at NIH. That sign just got taken down. Having an intramural NIH research program dedicated to ME/CFS is a big deal.

Getting a nice pot of money to give to outside researchers is a bigger challenge. Collins is working on it, but the NIH gets its budget from Congress - and Congress is a mess. But he assures me people at NIH are working to launch a robust extramural program.

Collins also asked me to figure out how the NIH and the advocacy community can have a more productive relationship. I think the criticism NIH has received in the past was warranted. But I hope today's announcement marks the start of a new relationship between patients and the NIH. They are not the enemy. Things are moving forward, and there will be more opportunities soon for patient advocates to be involved in how NIH studies this illness.

Brian
 
Messages
38
Hello all -

I just got off the phone with Francis Collins regarding today's announcement. I am convinced we've made a bureaucratic breakthrough at the NIH. For 30 years, they have ignored our illness - that changes today. For the first time since the 80's, NIH will bring ME/CFS patients into the Clinical Center. We have a champion inside NIH, Vicky Whittemore, who wants to crack this illness - and she has support from the top to do so. The new director of NINDS is interested in studying ME/CFS. This is huge. For decades, there has been a "don't go there" sign at NIH. That sign just got taken down. Having an intramural NIH research program dedicated to ME/CFS is a big deal.

Getting a nice pot of money to give to outside researchers is a bigger challenge. Collins is working on it, but the NIH gets its budget from Congress - and Congress is a mess. But he assures me people at NIH are working to launch a robust extramural program.

Collins also asked me to figure out how the NIH and the advocacy community can have a more productive relationship. I think the criticism NIH has received in the past was warranted. But I hope today's announcement marks the start of a new relationship between patients and the NIH. They are not the enemy. Things are moving forward, and there will be more opportunities soon for patient advocates to be involved in how NIH studies this illness.

Brian
Brian, we are super grateful that you were able to add a personal dimension to our 30 year quest for our citizens' rights to be treated like human beings by the NIH. Let me offer a small lesson in accounting, of which I had two years at business school. I understand about journalists not going into too much accounting, with a few exceptions, because editors by and large hate numbers. So:
There are hundreds of millions of dollars scarfed away in reserves at NIH. Think of it like the wine bottles in a big cellar, while the host is claiming the fourth bottle of claret in the dining room is his last.
Dr. Collins good friend Fauci, who has hated us for the 30 years he has run NIAID and kicked us out of NIH with help from Dr. Varmus in 1999(advocates begged Women's Health to take us up or we would have been erased from the American consciousness altogether, and thence our pittances) just happens to have a $250 million allocation scarfed away under the rubric "Clinical Trials." This involves getting a lot of doctors who are needed in their hospitals and offices to waste time on showing up at meetings to stroke Fauci's ego because Fauci pretty much determines who gets nickels and dimes and quarters. Check out the relative budgets of the various departments. Fauci has the most, and spends $3 billion on AIDS, some of it on really stupid and futile exercises, some that have killed people by the 100s in Africa, and a vaccine project (one out of four) that even I know enough to find laughable. If you read your history you will find that Fauci is anything but an expert on clinical trials, and also that there is no reason for NIAID to be spending $250 million on clinical trials -- a topic for 4 geniuses and 6 computers to optimize, not for dozens of America's leading physicians and scientists to spend hours on stroking Fauci's ego. Oh, and it's absolutely necessary to stroke Fauci (or, as ACT-UP did, scare him) because he controls 70% of the world's research dollars through Collins.
By the way, can you please post the budget that made you suggest to Collins that $10-20 million would be enough?
I'd like to know what you have prioritized. A bunch of us are looking at $250 million.
p.s. The executive branch has power to make emergency allotments as was done for Ebola. some of us are dying. We're emergencies.
 

Sasha

Fine, thank you
Messages
17,863
Location
UK
We discussed the issue of calling for $10-$20m at the time that Brian suggested it (quite some months ago) and his idea was that it was unlikely that the NIH would jump straight from $5m to $250m so it made sense to suggest something that would be a big jump compared to what we'd had but would seem not too frightening or unrealistic at first to Collins. It's not based on any kind of specific budget, as I understand it, but was guided by a sense of what was politically realistic to aim for right now, with a view to the amount increasing rapidly as time goes on and as the NIH starts to gear up and get a grip.

I think that was a good strategy and we've just seen the amazing volte-face that the NIH has performed. I put a lot of that down to Brian's timely and powerful intervention, his work behind the scenes and to the work of those who have pressured the NIH before, during and after.

I don't see this as inconsistent with the rest of us asking for $250m - I've certainly signed and promoted that petition - and I think we should continue to push for funding equality.

I am so, so grateful to Brian. Thank you again, @viggster - you should be proud. :thumbsup:
 

BurnA

Senior Member
Messages
2,087
We discussed the issue of calling for $10-$20m at the time that Brian suggested it (quite some months ago) and his idea was that it was unlikely that the NIH would jump straight from $5m to $250m so it made sense to suggest something that would be a big jump compared to what we'd had but would seem not too frightening or unrealistic at first to Collins.

I am so, so grateful to Brian. Thank you again, @viggster - you should be proud. :thumbsup:

I too am extremely grateful to @viggster

However I for one would be asking for as much money as I can. There is no point in being meek when it comes to asking for money.
Think of the years of neglect - we should use this to push for more.
 

searcher

Senior Member
Messages
567
Location
SF Bay Area
@deboruth - Brian has been fighting for $250 million. He asked for $10-$20 million to start with in the open letter since Collins hadn't shown any movement, but made clear even in the open letter that $250 million was the fair amount. He was instrumental in #MEAction's lobbying for funding commensurate with disease burden (which is arguably between $250-$500 million.) We met in August and September with the health legislative aides for 15 senators (http://www.meaction.net/2015/08/17/lobby-congress-for-nih-funding/ and http://www.meaction.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ME-Action-One-Pager-1.pdf) and the constituents (patients and family members) have kept in close contact with the staffers, many of whom have been asking questions of NIH. When our DC consultant found out that NIH was telling Congress that no one was interested in researching ME, he and Jen helped draft the letter that proved that top scientists are interested in researching the disease and we gave it to each of the senators when we met with them.

And we all know how horrible Fauci has been. He is going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the fight against ME just as he was for AIDS. Thankfully Koroshetz is new as head at NINDS and he and Vicky Whittemore appear to be approaching the need for research and treatment with the seriousness it deserves.
 
Last edited:

Denise

Senior Member
Messages
1,095
@deboruth ... Thankfully Koroshetz is new at NINDS ....


Just to clarify - Koroshetz has been at NINDS since 2007 but recently was named Director of NINDS.
"Walter J. Koroshetz, M.D. was selected Director of NINDS on June 11, 2015. Dr. Koroshetz joined NINDS in 2007 as Deputy Director, and he served as Acting Director from October 2014 through June 2015. Previously, he served as Deputy Director of NINDS under Dr. Story Landis."
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/find_people/ninds/bio_walter_koroshetz.htm
 

searcher

Senior Member
Messages
567
Location
SF Bay Area
Just to clarify - Koroshetz has been at NINDS since 2007 but recently was named Director of NINDS.
"Walter J. Koroshetz, M.D. was selected Director of NINDS on June 11, 2015. Dr. Koroshetz joined NINDS in 2007 as Deputy Director, and he served as Acting Director from October 2014 through June 2015. Previously, he served as Deputy Director of NINDS under Dr. Story Landis."
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/find_people/ninds/bio_walter_koroshetz.htm
I will clarify that in my original post since I meant to say is new as head of NINDS. Thanks
 

viggster

Senior Member
Messages
464
By the way, can you please post the budget that made you suggest to Collins that $10-20 million would be enough?
I'd like to know what you have prioritized. A bunch of us are looking at $250 million.
p.s. The executive branch has power to make emergency allotments as was done for Ebola. some of us are dying. We're emergencies.

I never said $10 million - $20 million would be enough. I have no idea where you got that. No amount of funding will 'be enough.' When one looks at the NIH budget, it's easy to imagine hundreds of millions of dollars slushing around. But it doesn't work like that. Their budget is sliced into a thousand pieces and each piece is jealously guarded. There's not a lot of wiggle room. I'm a pragmatist, and I know that NIH can come up with $20 million or so a year fairly easily. The feedback we're getting from Congress & elsewhere is that to get a really big research budget - like $100 million/year + - is going to require Congress to step in. MEAction spent some time and money this summer making contact with 15 or so Senators who can help with this, but it's going to take sustained lobbying to get Congress to earmark a big ME research budget.
 

BurnA

Senior Member
Messages
2,087
I never said $10 million - $20 million would be enough. I have no idea where you got that. No amount of funding will 'be enough.' When one looks at the NIH budget, it's easy to imagine hundreds of millions of dollars slushing around. But it doesn't work like that. Their budget is sliced into a thousand pieces and each piece is jealously guarded. There's not a lot of wiggle room. I'm a pragmatist, and I know that NIH can come up with $20 million or so a year fairly easily. The feedback we're getting from Congress & elsewhere is that to get a really big research budget - like $100 million/year + - is going to require Congress to step in. MEAction spent some time and money this summer making contact with 15 or so Senators who can help with this, but it's going to take sustained lobbying to get Congress to earmark a big ME research budget.

In Dr. Petersons recent talk he says the cost to the US economy is about 9billion annually directly from ME CFS.

It may take lobbying, but from an economic point of view it makes sense to spend more on this disease than less. The sooner they find treatment or cures the more money they save.

It would be interesting to know the cost to the economy per patient for other diseases which receive more funding. Presumably me/cfs patients cost a lot due to absence from work, amount of care required and long survival rate.

An rtx trial alone would pay for itself in no time even if only a small fraction responded and were able to return to work.