• 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.

CFIDS Association presentation at IoM

Nielk

Senior Member
Messages
6,970
http://solvecfs.org/carol-head-addresses-the-iom-committee/

Excerpt:

Despite disagreement about the best way forward, we all acknowledge the need for evidence-based, broadly-accepted clinical and research tools that can accurately include or identify all subsets of the heterogeneous group that presents under any of the case definitions of ME/CFS. We believe that the Canadian Consensus Criteria can be optimized as a clinical case definition by applying a standardized methodology, validation of criteria, and nationwide dissemination to health professionals.

We all understand the desperate urgency of the situation – It is imperative that the patient’s journey to diagnosis and treatment be faster and easier – for both the patient and the physician. Our next slides, which document the patient experience, make that painfully clear.
 

Nielk

Senior Member
Messages
6,970
Carol Head states:

Hello and thank you for the time here today. I’m Carol Head, President and CEO of the CFIDS Association of America. The mission of the CFIDS Association is to make ME/CFS understood, diagnosable and treatable. We’re primarily a research organization – we fund research aimed at the early detection, objective diagnosis and effective treatment of ME/CFS We do that by pulling together public and private funds and dispersing it to the best ME/CFS researchers. We were pleased to work with the “Let’s Get It Right” group to prepare for this meeting.
my bold

This is the public statement from new president and CEO of CAA. She states:" We’re primarily a research organization". She doesn't say we are an organization representing patients. She doesn't say we are an advocacy organization.
 

Bob

Senior Member
Messages
16,455
Location
England (south coast)
This is the public statement from new president and CEO of CAA. She states:" We’re primarily a research organization". She doesn't say we are an organization representing patients. She doesn't say we are an advocacy organization.
My understanding it that they've changed their remit, and now consider themselves a research organisation rather than a patient advocacy organisation. (But I can't remember where I read this.) Considering that so many US ME patients have such a negative opinion of them, perhaps it's not such a bad thing if they focus on research?
 
Last edited:

justinreilly

Senior Member
Messages
2,498
Location
NYC (& RI)
Yes, they keep saying they changed to be 'laser-focused on research,' which was an easy way to get patients' off their backs for past advocacy blunders and current failure to advocate. But they want to have it both ways, coming in and advocating against patients' interests in the IoM situation.

I left the following comment on their blog. Let's see how many days or weeks it takes to appear.

"So the CAA BioBank is now using CCC? Which is what patients have been pushing for and CAA resisting. Pls give details (such as when this started and whether now all samples only taken from CCC patients). Thanks.

To provide crucial context you might have added that HHS, you (CAA) and the Wessley school are the reasons why ME has been criminally neglected and the science intentionally distorted."
 

barbc56

Senior Member
Messages
3,657
I don't understand why some are against the CAA becoming a research program nor the animosity towards the CAA.

I will do a search here but if someone can point to information. I was impressed with their presentation but have found myself impressed with many others.

But maybe I am missing the history?

I find the language by some towards the CAA rather rude when it can be stated in a much more appropriate way to make a point whether there is substance to the critisim or not.

It's just not productive. I understand the anger towards many issues which concern us as I feel it too. But if we want credibility and to be taken seriously then we need to take the high road and act professionally. In the long run it will lead to better progress.

Thanks
Barb
 
Last edited:

Nielk

Senior Member
Messages
6,970
I don't understand why some are against the CAA becoming a research program nor the animosity towards the CAA.

I will do a search here but if someone can point to information. I was impressed with their presentation but have found myself impressed with many others.

But maybe I am missing the history?

I find the language by some towards the CAA rather rude when it can be stated in a much more appropriate way to make a point whether there is substance to the critisim or not.

It's just not productive. I understand the anger towards many issues which concern us as I feel it too. But if we want credibility and to be taken seriously then we need to take the high road and act professionally. In the long run it will lead to better progress.

Thanks
Barb

Carol Head, the current president and CEO of CAA stated in her presentation to the IoM that they are primarily a research organization. I believe this is a true statement and I am happy that they are currently concentrating on much needed research. We all know how badly that is needed. The difficulty that many people have is that they still act as if they are an advocacy organization; which they are not.

They have no membership. They are more of a scientific organization with a large scientific advisory committee. They were invited to the IoM meeting as a patient organization representative - which they are not. In what way are they different than WPI, OMI, Simmaron and others? Would you expect WPI to address a public committee as a patient representative?

In their presentation, they talk about patients who have commented on their survey. These patients are not members of CFIDS. They simply answered a survey posted on Facebook.

Why do I, and many others care about this misrepresentation? It's because when they publicly make statements, the misguided understanding is that they speak for the majority of the patients - which is not the truth.

When Carol stated in her comment: "The lack of uniformly-accepted clinical diagnostic criteria is one of many reasons for the slow progress against this illness". she was certainly not speaking for the majority of patients. The problem is not that there the lack of uniformly-accepted clinical diagnostic criteria. The problem is that HHS refuses to accept/adopt the criteria which experts have adopted; CCC.

When the CAA claims to be the largest organization representing ME/CFS patients, the world believes them....and they accept the statements they make as if it is the voice of the majority of patients. It isn't.