• 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.

Sept 10: CDC 'conference call' including Unger and Lipkin

Sushi

Moderation Resource Albuquerque
Messages
19,935
Location
Albuquerque
It's really frustrating that in this era of easy access to you-tube, no one at the CDC put thought into the fact that access to this broadcast would be very important to this community. If it needed a "review", that could have been set up to happen immediately.


They said they had 200 lines open.I wonder what the call-in number was?

Sushi
 
Messages
171
Location
London
It seems like we really need to get a team to create one central site or subsite on phoenix that outlines all of the current global research projects and explains to the layman (non-scientists) what the implications of successful completion of such a study could mean for people who are suffering / doctor acceptance of ME etc. This way hopefully we could educate relatives friends etc on how important this research is if they are able to easily understand how this could start to transform the lives of people with ME. Then PWME could get relatives and friends to go to the site and undertake some fundraising activities on their behalf.

We could then provide ideas for simple fundraising activities, that are well explained in a step by step process, with printable PDF documents to support the planning of events. We really need a site where people's donations aren't going at all in part towards paying for all of the costs of these charities?
 

Sasha

Fine, thank you
Messages
17,863
Location
UK
Couldn't agree more. We need an effective response, not a knee-jerk one, or several. Ideally different groups, organizations and individuals will come together and seek his input first and then do something in as united a way as possible. That would give us the best chance of a good outcome.


Actually, I don't think it would take a mob of us - just someone with some standing to approach him and come up with something with him. Whatever he suggests is what we should do, I think. And then the mob!
 

snowathlete

Senior Member
Messages
5,374
Location
UK
Actually, I don't think it would take a mob of us - just someone with some standing to approach him and come up with something with him. Whatever he suggests is what we should do, I think. And then the mob!

I agree. That's what I meant really, but you did a much better job articulated it than me. :thumbsup:
 

snowathlete

Senior Member
Messages
5,374
Location
UK
He seems to consider these cytokines abnormalities bio markers.
Yes, and that suggests to me that there are a bunch of them which together form a specific profile for ME/CFS. Because lots of diseases cause cytokine abnormalities.
 

acer2000

Senior Member
Messages
818
Retroviruses showing up in 85% of samples eh? Hmmm

Also, cytokines are necessary for the immune system to function. Given how little they know about what cause "CFS", its entirely possible the cytokines they are seeing are a "normal" response to a yet un-described pathogen or toxin. Its a bit pre-mature to just assume they are the disease themselves.

Also, I have had very elevated IL-8 on multiple cytokine panels. I wonder what the discrepancy is between the studies finding high vs low IL-8. Maybe it's down to technique? Weird.
 

jspotila

Senior Member
Messages
1,099
Was he saying that we ought to be getting congress people to get more money for ME/CFS research for the NIH and CDC? If so, would there be any guarantee that they'd fund Lipkin to do the other 90% of the study? Is there something more direct to ask for?

Maybe we have advocates who could work with him to come up with a suitable letter, even if he was just advising rather than signing. He has a much better idea of how stuff works than we do. Does anyone have a contact? Nielk? medfeb? jspotila?

We need to do this well, not on the fly.

Congress generally does not direct how the spending is done, science-wise. The big allocations to autism and other diseases that you hear about are "authorization" bills, which authorize NIH to spend money on autism but does not absolutely require it. And even that is not so specified as to target specific researchers or types of research.

If we could get an RFA from NIH, that would mean money set aside for ME/CFS research that then researchers have to apply for. I've heard some rumblings that this may be possible, but nothing definite. Then Lipkin and others would have to submit grant apps and go through the scoring as per usual. RFA set aside money is not guaranteed cash - if not enough grants come in or they don't score well then the money does not get spent.

The Lipkin XMRV study was a very unusual case. The money for that was authorized through Tony Fauci and NIAID. It did NOT go through grant review, but was tacked on to a grant Lipkin already had. That is highly unlikely to happen again (and in my opinion probably shouldn't because peer review is an important safeguard).

I've been talking to advocates about how we go about a) getting an RFA and b) getting authorization legislation through Congress. All I can say is that work is being done. BUT the case definition issue is a huge and immediate barrier. If we have a crappy definition, money won't solve the problem. The most important thing we can do right now is push the definition issue, in my opinion.
 

WillowJ

คภภเє ɠรค๓թєl
Messages
4,940
Location
WA, USA
about the youtube: HHS has accessibility rules. So there has to be an accurate transcript/captioning before it can be posted. I don't know whether this is a personnel issue or what (that it takes so long). Maybe funding.
 
Messages
5,238
Location
Sofa, UK
It seems like we really need to get a team to create one central site or subsite on phoenix that outlines all of the current global research projects and explains to the layman (non-scientists) what the implications of successful completion of such a study could mean for people who are suffering / doctor acceptance of ME etc. This way hopefully we could educate relatives friends etc on how important this research is if they are able to easily understand how this could start to transform the lives of people with ME. Then PWME could get relatives and friends to go to the site and undertake some fundraising activities on their behalf.

We could then provide ideas for simple fundraising activities, that are well explained in a step by step process, with printable PDF documents to support the planning of events. We really need a site where people's donations aren't going at all in part towards paying for all of the costs of these charities?
A nice idea for a project. Do PM me if you're interested in volunteering to organise this...
 

SpecialK82

Ohio, USA
Messages
993
Location
Ohio, USA
I was actually fairly impressed with Dr. Unger today also. She gave updates to a few new educational courses. One of these has been launched on Medscape on April 13 (something like "CFS a case study") and they have already had over 10,000 viewers (by July) which I find quite amazing -where are these people! About 3,700 were primary care doctors and there was also a number of nurses and other med professionals. They do receive CME's for it (Continuing Education Units).

She did mention that she has gotten several letters concerning the 1-day vs. 2-day exercise challenge coming up in Phase II of their multi-site study. She explained some reasons for choosing the 1-day study including the fact that it would be likely that severe ME/CFS patients would not be able to participate in day-2. I think that it is a valid concern and one that I did not take into consideration. She also consulted others about this. Of course, Dr. Snell prefers the 2-day but he does think the 1-day will provide good info.

She is also looking at protocals to include the housebound patient. I believe that is new, and if memory serves, there may have been pressure from the patient population to include such a group??

I did very much get the idea that she is taking in suggestions and is listening to advice, I think she wants to get this right and I believe Dr. Peterson (in his latest interview with ME/CFS alert) did think that she was on the right path.

She said the data from the Stage 1 CDC study will be reported at the IACFS Conference in March 2014.

While I know I'll get some disagreement here, I do think that it's in good form to write to Dr. Unger and wholeheartedly thank her for putting on these Patient Calls for us. Any parts of the new CDC study that you like should also receive praise, and if nothing else, just thank her for bringing in such a terrific speaker as Dr. Lipkin.

The entire 1 hour of the call was highly organized and information packed. It was better than any hour of a CFSAC meeting by far.
 

WillowJ

คภภเє ɠรค๓թєl
Messages
4,940
Location
WA, USA
one interesting thing I heard which hasn't been mentioned on this thread is that Lipkin specifically said Fauci and Frieden were receptive to (presumably biomedical and infectious) projects for ME/CFS. He said their "hands were tied" evidently because of funding issues, specifically sequestration.
 

Sasha

Fine, thank you
Messages
17,863
Location
UK
jspotila said:
I've been talking to advocates about how we go about a) getting an RFA and b) getting authorization legislation through Congress. All I can say is that work is being done. BUT the case definition issue is a huge and immediate barrier. If we have a crappy definition, money won't solve the problem. The most important thing we can do right now is push the definition issue, in my opinion.


That's good you're on the case, Jennie!

Bit Lipkin already has his cohort - he just needs the money. Isn't the NIH always claiming they don't have enough high-quality studies to spend the money on? I don't think they're likely to turn Lipkin down on that basis. It seems well worth someone working with him on this - he must have all sorts of insights into how this could be done.

I think this is a separate issue to the definition issue.
 

Ember

Senior Member
Messages
2,115
He said part of the reason that we don't have the money is because sequestration (US budget cuts) and everything is very, very tight. He urged us to write our Congress representatives and persuade them to fund this study.
Happily, there are funds available from the cancelled IOM contract:
Synopsis:
Added: Sep 04, 2013 4:12 pm
This request has been cancelled. However, HHS will continue to explore mechanisms to accomplish this work.
 

Sasha

Fine, thank you
Messages
17,863
Location
UK
one interesting thing I heard which hasn't been mentioned on this thread is that Lipkin specifically said Fauci and Frieden were receptive to (presumably biomedical and infectious) projects for ME/CFS. He said their "hands were tied" evidently because of funding issues, specifically sequestration.


I think sequestration (funding cuts in the NIH budget) are a red herring. If ME got its due share of the current smaller general fund, we'd have a huge increase and everyone else would go down a tiny bit to compensate. Better to have our fair share of a smaller pot than a tiny unfair share of a previously bigger pot.