New Atmosphere, New Vision: Gibson and Whittemore Kick Off Invest in ME Conference 2016
Mark Berry reports on Dr. Gibson's introduction and Dr. Whittemore's keynote speech, at the 11th Invest in ME International ME Conference in London.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Help write a Phoenix Rising call to the NIH to get ME/CFS included in its new strategic plan

Discussion in 'Action Alerts and Advocacy' started by Sasha, Jul 28, 2015.

  1. Sasha

    Sasha Fine, thank you

    Messages:
    12,777
    Likes:
    34,161
    UK
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2015
    jspotila, Sean, Sushi and 9 others like this.
  2. Mark

    Mark Former CEO

    Messages:
    5,224
    Likes:
    6,193
    Sofa, UK
    I received an email about this today, from a US advocate, who states:

    This doesn't surprise me, and I do think it is important that ME/CFS organizations submit such responses to this consultation. So if there's any way we can get a response together and submit it from Phoenix Rising, I would like to do so. We haven't often done anything like this as an organization: we do normally tend to avoid taking sides on controversial issues within the community, because we want to remain a place where patients with diverse views all feel that they are welcome to meet and discuss issues; and we have rarely submitted responses as an organization because we don't really have a structure or process for constructing valid consensus documents. However, in this case I think the context should make it relatively easy to construct something that almost everyone can agree with, and furthermore this does seem to me like a particularly important opportunity to influence policy in the US (and in a way that could have profound benefit for patients the world over).

    The only way I can see it happening, however, is if one or more Phoenix Rising members (preferably US citizens) could draft something (using a private group on Phoenix Rising, if that helps, or collaborating on a public forum thread). The response should be clearly something that the vast majority of our members would support, i.e. avoiding any controversial claims or political fault-lines within the community. Such a response could be discussed on a forum thread, approved by the Phoenix Rising board, and optionally we could also set up something like a petition on a petitions site, where PR members and other patients could indicate their individual support for the response.

    So if anybody out there has been thinking about submitting a response to the NIH on this, please consider whether it might be more effective to submit your text as a first draft to be used to put together a response from Phoenix Rising.
     
    beaker, SOC, WillowJ and 12 others like this.
  3. Sasha

    Sasha Fine, thank you

    Messages:
    12,777
    Likes:
    34,161
    UK
    Great idea (speaking as a UK citizen who won't be called upon to write anything :whistle:).

    I've renamed the thread and edited the first posts to draw attention to your suggestion.

    I think the #MEAction petition platform would be perfect for that.
     
  4. Sasha

    Sasha Fine, thank you

    Messages:
    12,777
    Likes:
    34,161
    UK
    Bump... :cool:
     
  5. Sasha

    Sasha Fine, thank you

    Messages:
    12,777
    Likes:
    34,161
    UK
    Deadline is August 16, BTW.
     
  6. Sasha

    Sasha Fine, thank you

    Messages:
    12,777
    Likes:
    34,161
    UK
    Has anyone come forward to do this?

    The deadline for responses is August 16th (less than two weeks away now).

    If nothing is underway, one option would simply be to echo Jennie's excellent points - thereby saving ourselves a lot of work and backing her up at the same time.

    Win-win! :cool:

    We could either put her proposals into our own words or just be upfront that we want to back what she's saying - and put it on the #MEAction site as a petition (don't know how you feel about that, @jspotila?).

    Seems too good an opportunity to miss but it's going to slip away very quickly.
     
  7. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,250
    Likes:
    17,960
    Patients from other countries can help of course, but to maximise impact on the US political and funding process it has to be clearly driven by US patients.
     
  8. Sasha

    Sasha Fine, thank you

    Messages:
    12,777
    Likes:
    34,161
    UK
    I agree, Sean.

    If no US people have stepped forward - and I understand that this kind of thing can look like a very daunting task - then I think we can still have something driven by US patients if we back up the US person (Jennie Spotila) who specialises in knowing what she's talking about with these health agencies and who seems to have the support of lots of US patients.

    I think it's better that Phoenix Rising (registered as a nonprofit in the US) does something rather than nothing, and Jennie has pointed out before that as a private individual, she can be easily disregarded (there was a spectacular instance of that some weeks ago, which she blogged about). An organisation can be much less easily disregarded, and we could help by backing up her case.

    And if we get a petition started up, US patients can show their support.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2015
  9. Sasha

    Sasha Fine, thank you

    Messages:
    12,777
    Likes:
    34,161
    UK
    I've extracted Jennie's comment to the NIH from her blog post to make it easier to read. Note what she says in the intro:

     
  10. jspotila

    jspotila Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,098
    Likes:
    780
    I think that a simple endorsement of what I wrote will not be particularly helpful. NIH will be getting a ton of comments, and staff won't be tallying votes, as it were. They will be looking for repeated themes and issues. The same goes for a petition. I think this particular instance is one where we should follow the details of how they requested input.

    I put my comments on the blog to help inspire other comments. Feel free to adapt what I said to a comment in your own words (individually or collectively). :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
     
    Valentijn, catly, Sasha and 1 other person like this.
  11. Nielk

    Nielk

    Messages:
    6,851
    Likes:
    10,488
    Please note that this is the layout on the form for the rfi. There are 6 sections with a max. of 300 words allowed for each sections. I think that one can tackle as many sections as they wish. In addition, there is (at the bottom) the option of attaching a file. My understanding is that it is best to just fill out the form.

     
    Sasha and Scarecrow like this.
  12. Nielk

    Nielk

    Messages:
    6,851
    Likes:
    10,488
    It might be easier if members could volunteer to take on one section each. You can follow Jennie's in your own words or apply your own thoughts.
     
    Sasha likes this.
  13. Mark

    Mark Former CEO

    Messages:
    5,224
    Likes:
    6,193
    Sofa, UK
    No, this thread is the only discussion about it that I'm aware of.
     
    Sasha likes this.
  14. Gemini

    Gemini Senior Member

    Messages:
    622
    Likes:
    1,092
    Thank you @jspotila for your excellent blog! Your submitted comments are outstanding! Appreciate the links to the documents & Liz Willow & Denise Lopez-Majano's work.

    There have been 5 different NIH Directors since I've been disabled. Dr. Collins put his musician's hat on & sang Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin" at the State-of-the-Knowledge Workshop in 2011 & I was hopeful. Again I'm hopeful but feel this NIH document needs more work & to be brought in line with the PMI Strategy driven by the White House. Comments I submitted follow:

    This NIH document is not a “strategic plan” rather it is a justification for maintaining the status quo of “investigator-centered” research which encourages researchers to study topics of interest to them and not necessarily things needed by the seriously ill and disabled in society. Curiously it mentions studying healthy people but not the sick and their diseases of which there are thousands with new ones being discovered all the time. “Patient-centered” research is needed instead; the voice of the patient is noticeably absent from the document.

    Many statements in the document are vague rendering them nearly meaningless, i.e., “Foster scientific opportunity.” A “strategic plan” on the other hand is meant to be clear and concise. It sets goals, mobilizes resources (funding, manpower, etc.) to execute actions, and establishes performance measurements to gauge success. Both within and across Institutes NIH’s overall goals should be to increase the number of treatments, preventative measures, and cures for human diseases and decrease the number of diseases for which there are no diagnostic tests or biomarkers. These are measurable goals. The real challenge is to select which diseases to fund at any given time and to make the selection process fair, transparent and agreeable to all stakeholders. The document does not thoroughly address this key point.

    The disease that disabled me 26 years ago, Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME), has no diagnostic test or biomarker, no treatment, no preventative measures and no cure. And there are other diseases like it none of which are addressed by the document. How will ME benefit from the investment in PMI? Will there be an ME cohort in the 1 million person study representing, equitably, the 836, 000 to 2.5 million ME patients in the US? How can ME patients benefit from the cost reductions in Whole Genome Sequencing, electronic health records, molecular breakthroughs, immunotherapies, Big Data to name a few major research advances? ME crosses Institute boundaries—how will discovery research be conducted and managed in the current NIH organizational structure?

    Finally given its cost constraints and finite resources I strongly suggest NIH scale back its overly ambitious plans to study “all living things” and focus on “human health and diseases” especially those like ME which need to be prioritized.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2015
    Valentijn and catly like this.
  15. WillowJ

    WillowJ คภภเє ɠรค๓թєl

    Messages:
    3,763
    Likes:
    4,842
    WA, USA
     
  16. WillowJ

    WillowJ คภภเє ɠรค๓թєl

    Messages:
    3,763
    Likes:
    4,842
    WA, USA
    wait, that's gone.
     
  17. Sasha

    Sasha Fine, thank you

    Messages:
    12,777
    Likes:
    34,161
    UK
    Yup.
     
    WillowJ likes this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page