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.
Even the Netherlands, amazing!I ve just realisied, that the proposal has 23 countries listed as proposers:
Network of Proposers (23): AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IL, IT, LU, NL, PL,RS, SE, SI, TR, UK (ITC: 43%)
omg!
The sentence about the budget estimate is a little bit twisted (as far as I can judge ;-) ), but I hope the 32 Mio. Euro stand. Would be encouraging.
As far as I understand every COST action needs at least five participating countries. So far four have registred (see Factsheet above the MoU). But I think there will be more countries to join (propably more countries have been involved in the set up of this).
Maybe @Jonathan Edwards knows if and how this links to EMERG? Is this related at all or something completely different?
The 32 million is I suspect the total budget for the COST system.
The grant we are talking about is likely to be around 150,000€. This is not funding for research per se,
but funding for the development of collaboration primarily within Europe but also connecting to countries outside Europe. It will fund things like meetings and bursaries for students and staff spending time in other laboratories to train and promote consistency of methodology. It is not a lot of money but it puts a stamp of approval on the entire European biomedical initiative in ME. That is an important step when it comes to labs applying for funding for collaborative projects both within individual countries and to the larger EU pots of money.
So did I. We ought to know better really. I'm not sure there's ever really going to be a scenario where someone says, "No, here, have the 32 million. JUST TAKE IT, M.E. PATIENTS, DAMN YOU!"Thought we were getting some big bucks to do stuff right away there.
That is an important step when it comes to labs applying for funding for collaborative projects both within individual countries and to the larger EU pots of money.
The €32m figure seems to relate to this particular proposal but it doesn't look like it's a budget; It looks like it might be an estimate of the total amount of economic activity that will be generated under the plan.
The scheme doesn't seem to be funding specific research, but it seems to be a plan mainly to enable sharing of data and resources, and to encourage cooperation, by e.g. putting standardised and robust IT systems in place for research-data. It all seems to be focused on encouraging/facilitating: collaboration, sharing, and training and nurturing increased insight into the illness.
However, it also discusses plans to set up a cross-border patient cohort of 700 (up to 200 in each country) to look for biomarkers etc., but it doesn't say where the funding for that will come from. I don't know if there will be some research funding available or whether the individual nation states are expected to fund the actual research projects. I think it's supposed to encourage the countries to pool their own resources.
It looks interesting, but it's not clear what the outcomes will be. There's definitely a biomedical focus on looking for biomarkers etc., and also a focus on epidemiology studies to understand how the illness affects people across Europe.
I think it also discusses creating or agreeing upon a single set of diagnostic criteria (yikes! controversy alert!) and an agreed set of useful outcome measures. But I might be wrong about that - I need to reread those details.
But I've only skim-read it, so I might have misinterpreted some or all if it.
Petition for budget stability
Facing a possible budget cut resulting from recent EFSI support , COST is calling on all of its supporters to sign and share its online petition for a stable budget.
There's talk in the proposal of a "web platform" for the project, that "will allow interaction with patients" so I hope we might get to stick our oars in at some point.
It's a bit hard to see through the bureaucratese. It's clearly a step forward - I'd like to see someone from the project translating it into concrete terms for patients.
It would be great if from the start, they would communicate with us.
I think maybe 'they' just did, Sasha!
Almost forgot the other two:
Dr Eliana Lacerda is associated with the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Pubmed shows her as author of several ME/CFS studies.
Professor Modra Murovska is a Latvian virologist, also from Riga Stradings University, with some previous interest in ME/CFS (listed as author in the International Consensus Criteria on ME). There is some more informat about her here: http://www.lza.lv/scientists/Murovska.htm
And I think most know Carmen Scheibenbogen by now.[/QUOTE
Great if one of us - possibly you! - is channelling them.
But I hope we'll see a direct, official statement from them that puts what the 20-page document says into concrete terms - that is, what's funded and what's not, whether the money is assured, how much they're getting, what will happen first, what if anything, patients can do to help, and so on. All the kind of stuff that the researchers would want to know if they were patients.
I realise it's very early days and that they may not be actually formed up yet and they haven't got their website but I'd love to see communication with patients at the heart of this thing, from the very start. I want to see the opposite attitude to that of the PACE investigators. I want these biomedical researchers setting the example for how to deal respectfully, openly and inclusively with ME/CFS patients.
They'll get it back a thousand-fold.
But won't we hijack the agenda and distort the debate?There's talk in the proposal of a "web platform" for the project, that "will allow interaction with patients" so I hope we might get to stick our oars in at some point.
As I understand it, what's funded is meetings (maybe releasing money currently raised by local charities), swapping staff and people sitting together coming to an agreement on frameworks to put individual studies in. The project might take on a research assistant to co-ordinate. The money is there. I think it is about 150,000. Probably the first thing to happen is that an extra day will be added to the IiME meeting in June for an EMERG gathering. What patients can do to help is drum up donations for local charities to fund the individual projects - as is already being done but this may give people confidence that they are contributing to something co-ordinated and big. Apart from me you have two direct ways in to the programme - via MEA and Charles's webpage and via IiME and its website.
I think the dust needs to settle a bit but maybe in the New Year Dr Lacerda might be able to put something on IiME's or Charles's site to clarify. There is already an EMERG page.
Working on Saturday - I'm impressed!I'm doing some Biobank work this afternoon and will be in contact with Eliana - so I'll let her know that this discussion is taking place and will ask her if there is anything further that could be placed in the public domain at this point