FDA Rep (CFSAC) on why understanding the aetiology and pathophysiology of ME/CFS is important (and why the UK MRC research strategy was flawed) I thought this was interesting. It shows why research which helps to elucidate the aetiology and pathophysiology of ME/CFS is so important. ================================ http://www.hhs.gov/advcomcfs/meetings/minutes/cfsac20101013.html CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME ADVISORY COMMITTEE Oct 14, 2010 [..] [..] [..] =============== Contract that with what the UK's Medical Research Council Research Strategy (2003) recommends, where it prioritised areas other than understanding the aetiology and pathophysiology: ----------- Many including myself feel the contents of this strategy was influenced by the following which was announced two weeks later in May 2003: MRC Announces Two Trials To Assess CFS/ME Treatments (PACE Trial and FINE Trial) http://bit.ly/etuNB5 i.e. http://listserv.nodak.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0305C&L=CO-CURE&P=R795&I=-3 ------------ Putting the two together and the fact that Medical Research Council has failed to fund grant applications that looked at the aetiology and pathophysiology of ME and CFS, one could say they are at least partly to blame for the lack of drugs available for the condition. Anyway, the ME/CFS community can help by raising money itself either through donating or fund-raising as well as when possible and useful indulging in lobbying to ensure we get a fair share of research budgets.