• 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.

Nov. 2011 CFSAC Videos Posted

Nielk

Senior Member
Messages
6,970
MECFS Alert Episode 13
[video=youtube_share;j_mp_DUVyiM]http://youtu.be/j_mp_DUVyiM[/video]

Bob and Lori re-enact a scene at the CFSAC.
Looks and sounds familiar?
 

Jill McLaughlin

Senior Member
Messages
196
We should trust and work together, when (you) these groups en masse have banned and censored and tried to change federal policy behind our backs.

We really help each other out when we can trust each other and work together.

Bob, thank you again.

As you said, Bob, it was a mess. They made so many mistakes the days before. Lori got a lot of them straightened out the morning of because she was there and able to stand up for those who had informed her of the problems.

Tina
 

Jill McLaughlin

Senior Member
Messages
196
You are doing the opposite of what you say and just acted it out. The solution would be to educate on ME. Changing codes will not matter. The disease definitions determine the dx and treatment and the literature on CFS determines the evidence base used. Patients have wanted to get rid of a CFS dx since I can remember and you just tried to condemn them to it officially, or officially creating "ME/CFS" - that they can rename and redefine. Trust and work together?

MECFS Alert Episode 13
[video=youtube_share;j_mp_DUVyiM]http://youtu.be/j_mp_DUVyiM[/video]

Bob and Lori re-enact a scene at the CFSAC.
Looks and sounds familiar?
 

max

Senior Member
Messages
192
Hi Jill

I agree with much of what you write - the use of the term "CFS" allows them to continue the abuse practised on patients.
"CFS" was manufactured by psychs - it is by its definition a psychiatric disorder - Myalgic Encephalomyelitis is not a psychiatric condition and is therefore nothing to do with CFS.

The masterstroke played by the psychiatrists has been to lie to government bodies and conflate the two conditions into one. The crime commited by medicine has been to allow this to happen. The arguments over which terminology to use has involved various combinations of the 2 labels with the odd "chronic fatigue" thrown in.

Until we all stop using the term CFS as a label we will get nowhere. Yes I understand that across the pond, CFS is the label applied, but it is a psychiatric label - we can't argue with authority telling them we have CFS and then trying to follow it up with "but it is not psychiatric".

Phoenix Rising is as guilty as the CDC, FDA, NIH, NHS, MRC, NICE - at the top of the page it states "ME/CFS" - to make matters worse it then expands on the "CFS" part by spelling it out in full - "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" - why does it not expand in full the "ME" part?

Just having the CFS term in the title is adding credence to the term - I never include the term CFS in communications and when it is used by authority I do not acknowledge it without explaining why they are wrong to use it. I use their tactics - Just like they used to do when people/patients contacted them in the early 90's explaining they had ME - the answer from authority was to instruct the patient that the correct term was CFS. Things have changed, they have consistently lied to patients for decades - it is not acceptable anymore.


And as fine as the sentiments of those 'experts' present at the CFSAC may well be, it is wasted energy and a waste of time - authority has already decided the route it has chosen to take - it decided a long time ago - they will not change their path until science, real science, finds an answer that cannot be denied. Leonard Jason spelled it out, 10 recommendations = NOTHING.

For the last 25 years patient advocacy has played the game, their game, their rules. We need to change the rules, if we can't change the rules then we need to break them. We will have to force our demands on them.

When I see the term "CFS", I can't help but read it as standing for Criminal Fake Science - because that is what it is.

It is hugely important to stop using 'their' label.
 

rlc

Senior Member
Messages
822
Hi Max, great post, completely agree with what youre saying, all the CFS definitions were written by people who chose to ignore large amounts of the scientific evidence on what ME is, and proven physical findings and test results in ME patients, with over 50 years of research to back it up.

Because of this the CFS definitions, not only do not define ME, they do not define anything!!! CFS does not exist, it is a nonexistent artificially created disease that is making the various vested interest groups a large amount of money, and CFS stops the people who chose to ignore ME and hide it behind CFS from ever being found out. CFS is just collections of symptoms found in numerous conditions, leading to lazy doctors misdiagnosing millions of people.

RE. Phoenix Rising is as guilty as the CDC, FDA, NIH, NHS, MRC, NICE - at the top of the page it states "ME/CFS" - to make matters worse it then expands on the "CFS" part by spelling it out in full - "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" - why does it not expand in full the "ME" part?

Agreed, when the ICC came out cort finally said that it showed that ME and CFS were different, after denying this fact for years, so I asked him to change that part in the naming of the site, to ME and CFS and got completely ignored, next thing I know hes signed phoenix risings name to the coalition proposal to give CFS and ME the same code, and is saying that the ICC says theyre the same thing. When challenged by a lot of people on this, peoples posts were either deleted or edited so much by the PR site that they no longer made sense, I can understand the likes of the CDC wanting any decent to its views stopped, but why is a site that claims to represent ME behaving this way? The only conclusion myself and many others have come to is that this site doesnt represent ME it is a CFS site.

Unfortunately, almost all the groups and webs sites that claim to be about ME are not, they for CFS, and are just continually promoting the nonsense from the likes of the CDC , that CFS is a real disease and is the same as ME, all they are really doing is continuing the confusion, and will not recognize ME as a separate illness or do anything to raise awareness that millions of people diagnosed with CFS, are misdiagnosed and in reality have a already known disease that in a lot of cases can be treated. I see them to be as much a part of the problem as the likes of the CDC.

What people should be doing is. calling for CFS to be abandoned as a diagnosis, ME to be recognized as a separate illness, and for all the misdiagnosed people to be properly tested to find out what is actually wrong with them.

If people read the ICC and pay close attention to the conclusions section (which explains what the rest means), they will find that it calls for ME patients to be separated from CFS patients, who will remain with a CFS diagnosis under the Reeves or NICE definitions, no where will you find that there is a separate group to be called ME/CFS, the ICC corrects the mistake of the CCC in combining the two conditions with the name ME/CFS, it admits that they got it wrong and that ME/CFS does not exist!!

Only by acknowledging the proper science of the past and adding to it by using modern scientific testing will the answer to ME be found, which there are some promising signs that this is starting to happen. Unfortunately unless CFS is done away with once and for all, there is still going to be a vast number of misdiagnosed people left over, who wont get help, because of this idiotic promotion of the false belief that CFS is a real disease.

Criminal Fake Science (I like that ?)

All the best
 

Nielk

Senior Member
Messages
6,970
One of the things you should consider when you hear discouragement is whether the discouragers have accomplished that which they are trying to discourage you from trying.
John T. ReedTweet
 

max

Senior Member
Messages
192
Hi ric

Thanx for the response and the info - I didn't know the stuff about Cort/CFS (whatever that is)/coalition proposal. Yet another example of my poor knowledge. So we have no possibility of changing the banner at the top of the screen then? The more I look at the banner, the more offensive it becomes. Has the banner always indicated it represented/supported the psychiatry industry by using their terminology or has the 'CFS + description' part been added recently?


Just done a quick journey through the ME websites - they all admit to representing CFS - they ALL call the illness ME/CFS or CFS/ME (the second of these just gives me the creeps)

- is there anywhere on the web that you know of that represents patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis - somewhere people could talk openly and ask questions or share/provide information that is not at present commonly known - or discuss avenues of opportunity to expose the research bias that has infected medical practice through the back door via the shrinks? Talk about in plain sight - publication bias and scientific misconduct is an understatement - and that is not actionable - its not just my opinion either.

cheers ric..........

:yinyang:
 

Andrew

Senior Member
Messages
2,522
Location
Los Angeles, USA
I just watched the coverage of the CDC website and I'm very upset. As usual, the CDC doesn't tell the truth. It us just like when Bill Reeves was there.

Unger claims that the site is intended to educate about CDC research, and that is why they don't cover differing conclusions found in other research. This is simply not true. For example, they report on research done in the UK about graded exercise. So the pattern is not one of only reporting CDC research. The pattern that of including outside research if it implies a mental disorder, and ignoring outside research if it implies a physiological problem. And nobody ever calls them on this.

I'm glad to see that some of the CFSAC members were assertive in speaking up on other points, but I'm now wishing I had tracked down who was going to be on this committee and sent them my own notes. Because this is not the only CDC obfuscation that goes on all the time. I'm just too upset to type more.
 

rlc

Senior Member
Messages
822
Hi max, dont think weve got a shit show of getting the banner changed, although we are members we have no say in anything, Cort didnt even tell anyone that he was signing the phoenix rising name to the coalition for ME/CFS proposal, basically its Cort site and he believes that CFS is the same as ME so its ME/CFS, and no amount of sticking scientific information under his nose that proves that his view is wrong will make him change his mind.

Personally I not only find the banner offensive, but dangerous, as it and a lot of the information provided here, gives people very false information on the reality of the situation. As far as I know the banner has been like that for a very long time. So yeah free promotion for the psychiatric industry, He also rights an endless stream of articles were he interprets ever piece of information through his own belief system, and keeps telling everyone that ME is the same as CFS, personally I think that people should remember that he has no medical training, and is not qualified to be giving his opinions on science as if hes an expert. In fact he claims to not even have a doctor, so he cant even ask them for an opinion. At least he seems to have backed away from all the Amygdala retraining psychobabble nonsense which he claims has greatly improved his condition, and he was heavily promoting for a while.

Ive also tried many times to ask that a warning should be put on the site, where nobody can miss it, warning that a lot of people diagnosed with these conditions are misdiagnosed and have treatable illnesses, and that a section of the site should be set up with links to proper medical information on what these conditions are and what testing needs to be done, so people could easily access the correct information to take to their doctors, But had no response to that either.

All the websites that have forums, that I know of, are all full of CFS/ME, ME/CFS garbage and all of them seem to be being run by people who believe the CDC line that ME and CFS are the same thing, in some cases so much so that I wouldnt be surprised if the psychiatric industry had set them up! Somebody really needs to set a good ME forum up!!!

The best website that doesnt have a forum is the HFME site, no ME/CFS garbage there, and a lot of good information on ME, the best bit on this site for interesting information on ME is here if you havent seen it http://forums.phoenixrising.me/show...-ME-Research-Literature-and-other-information myself, and some others gathered up all the historical research on ME we could find, thats scattered all over the web, and bob made a wiki page for it. Needless to say it was all done with no help from the PR site. Hmm think Ive managed to answer the questions without breaking any of the forum rules and get myself suspended again, Ha.

Keep fighting for the truth

All the best Max
 

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
The best website that doesnt have a forum is the HFME site, no ME/CFS garbage there, and a lot of good information on ME, the best bit on this site for interesting information on ME is here if you havent seen it http://forums.phoenixrising.me/show...-ME-Research-Literature-and-other-information myself, and some others gathered up all the historical research on ME we could find, thats scattered all over the web, and bob made a wiki page for it. Needless to say it was all done with no help from the PR site. Hmm think Ive managed to answer the questions without breaking any of the forum rules and get myself suspended again, Ha.
I have read some HFME stuff over the years. However, for me, there is a problem with it: as there is so little research done on M.E., in many areas e.g. treatments, one gets generic advice - the sort designed for anybody (to an extent anyway). And some of it seems to be influenced by what particular supplement companies have said. One of the reasons I look for illness-specific information is that I'm not convinced that generic information will be suitable for me. Also, I prefer information informed by research. But as I said, with so little research on M.E. and an "allergy" to research that mentioned CFS, I'm not so convinced by some of the information.

Also, just because Byron Hyde says something, doesn't mean I'm going to believe it. I like to see statements backed by research.

To me, on a website that is supposed to give illness-specific information, information informed by research that has used "CFS" is generally more interesting than generic advice - if I want generic information, there are probably more rigorously collated information sources out there.
 

justinreilly

Senior Member
Messages
2,498
Location
NYC (& RI)
...the use of the term "CFS" allows them to continue the abuse practised on patients.
"CFS" was manufactured by psychs - it is by its definition a psychiatric disorder - Myalgic Encephalomyelitis is not a psychiatric condition and is therefore nothing to do with CFS.

The masterstroke played by the psychiatrists has been to lie to government bodies and conflate the two conditions into one. The crime commited by medicine has been to allow this to happen. The arguments over which terminology to use has involved various combinations of the 2 labels with the odd "chronic fatigue" thrown in.

Until we all stop using the term CFS as a label we will get nowhere. Yes I understand that across the pond, CFS is the label applied, but it is a psychiatric label - we can't argue with authority telling them we have CFS and then trying to follow it up with "but it is not psychiatric".

Phoenix Rising is as guilty as the CDC, FDA, NIH, NHS, MRC, NICE - at the top of the page it states "ME/CFS" - to make matters worse it then expands on the "CFS" part by spelling it out in full - "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" - why does it not expand in full the "ME" part?

Just having the CFS term in the title is adding credence to the term - I never include the term CFS in communications and when it is used by authority I do not acknowledge it without explaining why they are wrong to use it. I use their tactics - Just like they used to do when people/patients contacted them in the early 90's explaining they had ME - the answer from authority was to instruct the patient that the correct term was CFS. Things have changed, they have consistently lied to patients for decades - it is not acceptable anymore.


And as fine as the sentiments of those 'experts' present at the CFSAC may well be, it is wasted energy and a waste of time - authority has already decided the route it has chosen to take - it decided a long time ago - they will not change their path until science, real science, finds an answer that cannot be denied. Leonard Jason spelled it out, 10 recommendations = NOTHING.

For the last 25 years patient advocacy has played the game, their game, their rules. We need to change the rules, if we can't change the rules then we need to break them. We will have to force our demands on them.

When I see the term "CFS", I can't help but read it as standing for Criminal Fake Science - because that is what it is.

It is hugely important to stop using 'their' label.

I agree, max.
 

Valentijn

Senior Member
Messages
15,786
I don't think people (or forums) using the name ME/CFS or CFS or even CFS/ME should be demonized. The term "ME" doesn't officially exist in the US, and it's highly practical to use "CFS" on a website aimed at people with ME/CFS. The idea is to help people that have The Disease, whatever you want to call it. To do that, you have to call it by a name that they can recognize.

If they don't actually have ME, they'll probably figure it out pretty quickly here, and get plenty of suggestions on looking for other diagnosis.

I can see both sides of the argument regarding the use of "CFS", and I think most people here are capable of seeing both sides as well. People with ME are often diagnosed with CFS for various reasons. Research of ME is more likely to call the disease CFS.

And changing the name is not going to get rid of one of the most serious problems: bad psychological research. The Wessely school already incorporates the name ME into their research. They aren't going to stop doing that just because the people with actual brains insist ME and CFS are different, and that ME is an actual physiological disease. They're already hip-deep in ME and they don't seem very eager to get out of the pool.

I also don't see any indication that ME and CFS are separate diseases. Assuming we all agree on strict criteria for ME, such as from the CCC or ICC, what is CFS if it isn't ME? In many cases I'm sure it's misdiagnosed depression or other issues, but those are MISDIAGNOSED due to the use of bad criteria. To me, fixing the criteria makes more sense than saying that people with CFS don't have ME, and leaving the CFS diagnosis (and the people that have it) drifting in the ether.

Because the diagnosis of CFS is not going away any time soon. Perhaps it should disappear, but there are governments and insurance industries that only use CFS and do not use ME. There is good research that only refers to CFS, even when it is clearly addressing the same disease as ME. There are countries full of people that have never heard of ME and only have CFS as an option. Getting rid of "CFS" leaves a great deal in limbo and creates a considerable mess to sort out in the process.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind about whether "CFS" should or should not be dropped from ME, or to discourage them from respectfully advocating their position. But I am saying that both options have complicated advantages and disadvantages, and that either choice is ultimately rational. Attacking people for having a different opinion in these circumstances is 1) unfair and 2) needlessly divisive.

It makes me sick to my stomach when people on either side are accused of personally harming every single person in the world that has ME by refusing to switch around to the other side, and I have trouble respecting people that present their opinions in such a hurtful manner.
 

rlc

Senior Member
Messages
822
Hi Valentijn, RE It makes me sick to my stomach when people on either side are accused of personally harming every single person in the world that has ME by refusing to switch around to the other side, and I have trouble respecting people that present their opinions in such a hurtful manner.

Not sure if that was directed at me, but it is certainly not my position, Im saying that the continual promotion of the idea that there is a disease called CFS is hurting every single person involved, not just the people with ME.

CFS was created in response to the Tahoe epidemic, the CDCs own writing admits that CFS bears no resemblance to the disease at Tahoe they claim that it was defining, therefore CFS defines nothing, it is not a disease, the later CFS definitions Fukuda and Reeves, COMPLETLY changed the symptoms of CFS, once again bearing absolutely no resemblance to ME, these US definition were co written by the Wessely school, these definitions also do not define any disease, they are just a set of very common symptoms that are found in a vast number of diseases. Anyone who takes the time to read the background information on these CFS criteria, can easily see that CFS is not a disease, it was originally invented to cover up what happened at Tahoe and other locations in the states, the reason why the CDC has never shown any inclination to properly investigate CFS is because they know its a waste of money, because they know they invented a bogus disease, which is why they have stolen vast amounts of money allocated to CFS in the past and used it on other projects.

The invention of CFS has given overworked, under resourced and often poorly trained doctors an easy out, were they can dump everyone that they cant work out whats wrong with them quickly, and leave all these people to suffer for the rest of their lives. Sure this included ME patients, but it also includes a vast number of other misdiagnosed patients, the belief that is often said that these other people are all depressed is a fallacy, a lot of these people have very serious and often fatal diseases, such as brain tumours, heart defects, MS, Lupus, Addisons, Hemochromatosis etc, etc, and people are suffering and dying unnecessarily. Sure these people are then being included in research cohorts and stuffing up the research on ME, but personally I find the way that the misdiagnosed people are not even recognised by a lot of CFS groups, more than a little disturbing, I also dislike the way that depression is often mentioned as if its something minor, depression has a far higher death rate then ME, it has its own definition and treatment. As do all the other illnesses misdiagnosed as CFS.

Im not arguing for CFS to have its name changed, Im saying that it should be thrown in the garbage along with all the ludicrous CFS definitions. CFS isnt a disease, the definitions dont define anything, CFS as Max rightly points out stands for Criminal Fake Science.

Doctors would then be forced to go back to the correct medical practices that they used before 1988 and CFSs invention, when a patient presenting with chronic fatigue was seen as a patient who had one of many very serious diseases and was intensively investigated to find out which one it was.

And ME could go back to being its own separate real disease and be research properly without the mixed cohorts.

This way everyone wins!!! If people keep promoting that CFS is a real disease and the same as ME no one wins and everyone will be sick till the day they die.

I sure there will be people who say they cant see that ever happening, well its not going to if people dont try, changing the name CFS to ME will achieve absolutely nothing, all it does is change the name of a vast group of people with different illnesses and continues to treat them as if they all have the same disease, moving CFS to anywhere in the ICD codes, wont help anyone, because its not a disease and should never of been in the ICD codes in the first place, and giving CFS the same code as ME will just continue the confusion between the two.

You say I also don't see any indication that ME and CFS are separate diseases.

The ICC says they are separate diseases that should have separate names and separate definitions.

RE The term "ME" doesn't officially exist in the US, and it's highly practical to use "CFS" on a website aimed at people with ME/CFS.

The term ME does exist in the US, the CDC website says it is a different disease to CFS, it has always been in the US ICD under the US name for ME epidemic neuromyasthenia, but the orgs and websites that claim to be representing ME patients have done such an awful job with their research that they have failed to tell the US public about this. ME will be in the new ICD with its own separate code unless the coalition stuffs this up. It is the responsibility of the orgs and websites to provide correct information and educate the patients about the scientific truth, not to keep promoting false information that CFS is ME and everyone has the same illness, there is now no reputable medical source that backs up the use of the term ME/CFS the principle writers of the CCC are the principle writers of the ICC and they have changed their mind and are now saying that ME and CFS are different. Making ME/CFS a redundant term.

I hope this clears up my position on this, I want everybody no matter what is wrong with them to have a correct diagnosis, correct treatment and for research to be done only on people who all have the same illness, not the stupid mixed cohorts weve had for decades.

It was the invention of the fictitious disease CFS that created this problem in the first place, and only by completely getting rid of CFS will the problem be solved, unfortunately almost every org and website, is promoting the existence of CFS in complete agreement with the CDC, and the Wessely school, which in my view makes them just as much a part of the problem as the CDC and the Wessely school.

All the best
 

rlc

Senior Member
Messages
822
Hi Max, glad to help, unfortunately this is a CFS site, dressed up to make it look more serious by calling it ME/CFS, and ME is not excepted by Cort as a separate illness, so I cant see anything changing, its a shame because there have been some very well educated people, who have tried to explain the situation and get some changes made, but they all end up leaving in despair, and often get quite a lot of abuse from other people for stating the medical facts, even with all the doctors who wrote the ICC adding their weight to the claims of the likes of Professor Hooper and Dr Hyde, that ME and CFS are completely different, it hasnt lead to any change.

Its going to be very interesting to watch events when they do find the cause of ME, because the two groups will then be split, no doubt there will still be websites and orgs for all the left over people who dont have ME and they will still be calling it CFS and continue to do nothing to demand increased testing for CFS patients so the real diseases that these patients have can be found, and they can get treated and get their lives back.

Personally I do not understand why in the US where there are so many CFS patient Orgs that have access to the CFSAC and CDC, that they dont try to get the CDC to increase the amount of recommended testing before people get a CFS diagnosis, The CDC recommendations for testing dont even have Celiac, vitamin D deficiency or adrenal insufficiency in them, which is quite frankly insane!

All the best Max
 

usedtobeperkytina

Senior Member
Messages
1,479
Location
Clay, Alabama
I watched the second day. I am very encouraged.

First, there is all this outside stuff going on, Mr. Sinai, CAA research, Chronic Fatigue Initiative, British Columbia center, big study and center in Norway and Dr. Klimas going to another university that will provide more support for her work. In addition to that, we have Chia continuing to do his research. I'm sure I am leaving something out as so much has been going on that it is hard to keep up.

But, I am also encouraged by what is going on inside the U.S. government. I notice that Dr. Lenny Jason's presentation included many CFSAC members in something he hopes to have published. It is a suggestion on how to effectively include cohort criteria information in studies so that comparisons can be made to patients in other studies. This, they hope, will elucidate which CFS patients have certain biological characteristics and respond to treatments. He hopes this will help in replicating studies. What I find interesting is that the CFSAC is going from just advising to taking action. I wish the paper could be done under the CFSAC name. But, at least it shows this group working together to do more than advise the secretary.

Also, I am pleased to hear the CDC is looking at redefining the criteria. I am glad to see they are working with long-time ME/CFS providers. I have to say, this, in my mind, has been the biggest obstacle to the CDC progressing the understanding of the disease. Previously, they did their own research, got their own patients, etc. without any input or discussion with the providers who see the patients daily. They stayed in their ivory tower and had no need to listen to anyone else, especially "biased" ME/CFS clinicians. I hope no one is offended, but I think the fact that Dr. Elizabeth Unger, a woman, is leading the department is one reason for the change. Less ego, more relationship.

I am also very glad that Dr. Unger is included in some of the work and discussions of CFSAC members, such as Jason's paper. I am proud that the ME/CFS researchers are including her, as no progress can be made if researchers aren't talking or working together. The best way to influence the CDC is to include them, bring them in and make them a part of the solution. I saw this in her involvement and chair of a couple of discussions at the IACFS/ME conference.

I am also very glad that Dr. Unger listened to some of the suggestions by committee members and considered the patient perspective in what is offensive on the website. Dr. Unger, if you are reading this, there is more work to do and more progress that is needed. If you want to undue the damage and create more trust and good will, you must go out of your way to repair the wrongs, you will have to go beyond normal interaction and responsiveness. Just as when a woman is betrayed by a disloyal husband, she will expect much more from him to prove he is worthy of her love and devotion again. Prior to your having the position of responsibility you now have, the CDC did much damage that needs to be repaired. You are making an honest effort. But know that more is needed. You can start by removing any studies from the CDC website or claims of treatments that are based on Oxford criteria cohorts. We know we don't see eye to eye on everything now. But, keep listening and keep communicating and keep working at it.

I am encouraged that Dane Cook, Eileen Holderman and Dr. Christopher Snell did not mince words in saying what the problems on the CDC website are. I appreciate they had a respectful but frank conversation, and they did not shrink back in fear or let professional courtesy prevent an open discussion. They gave credit where credit was due, but they didn't let the CDC off the hook either.

I am very encouraged by Dr. Koh setting up an HHS inter-agency working group that will meet monthly to see how the different agencies can use existing programs to improve CFS. This is new. And it is wonderful. Thank you Dr. Koh. We know you are in constraints and you are advocating for us among thousands of other special interests groups that demand government attention. But you have found a way that will hopefully make a difference even with the financial constraints the federal government is in now. Hopefully, this will lead to some money for something labeled just for CFS. But, this is the first step. Also, I am especially encouraged that the memo asking for a member on the group from each agency be someone with the authority to make decisions. Having the assistant secretary of HHS take the lead in this sends a message that these agencies will need to give more attention to ME/CFS to please their boss. It sends the message that you will be expecting action.

I am encouraged that Koh is so interested in making a difference with ME/CFS that he has hired the former AHRQ ex-officio to help coordinate relations with CFSAC and the public. This is a new paid position or contract position. And, she is a patient. She is unique in that she can speak to government employees and be respected because she had a career as one. Yet, her message will be from the patients, as she is a patient.

I am encouraged that the NIH lady at this meeting, the new guy's boss, said she is a clinician and she was moved by the Nov. 8 public testimony. I am encouraged that she said the same passion that Dennis Mangan had she also has for the disease. I am encouraged that the committee had an open discussion about why there is so little funding from NIH for ME/CFS. Finally, we get to hear from them, and they can listen to us. I appreciate that Dr. Klimas boldly showed that the problem of not enough research grant applications must lie in the NIH. I am encouraged that the NIH lady said she wants to hear suggestions on how to change that. Great, time to figure out a solution instead of just complaining. I hope that some conversations continue from this point behind the scenes. But, what we did see is an openness to work with CFSAC members to figure out what needs to be done to attract more applications. I am also glad to see that the trans-NIH ME/CFS Working Group is still meeting once a month. I am encouraged that the Special Emphasis Panel now has only CFS experts on it and no more dentists. As Jason said, this shows that they are listening to the CFSAC.

Miss NIH lady (forgive me that I didn't get your name), you must be proactive to get the message to investigators that the NIH is now interested in CFs research. An announcement, training, whatever. Don't sit back and wait and complain. Do something to change it. Nancy Lee's suggestion of asking the investigators applying at CAA as to why they did not apply at NIH is a wonderful idea.

I don't know how I feel about the change at the FDA that all CFS drug applications go to one group. But, I like the personality of the new FDA ex-officio. I like that she said this change was because of prior CFSAC discussions.

Well, that's enough. I'll let others comment. I may think of something else later.

Tina
 

justinreilly

Senior Member
Messages
2,498
Location
NYC (& RI)
Tina, glad to read your post. i haven't watched much yet, so good to hear some good news.

I dont believe Unger for a minute if she is still doing three Reeves studies right now. actions speak louder than words. she is a criminal, less so than reeves, but still a criminal and needs to go now.