• 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.

NIH to double funding for chronic fatigue syndrome

Old Bones

Senior Member
Messages
808
Just found this on my morning search, but haven't read the whole article:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016...nic-fatigue-syndrome-patient-distrust-remains

"The most anticipated speaker late last month at an international conference devoted to the mysterious malady commonly known as chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) was not a scientist with a hot new finding—although there was excitement about new research in the air. Rather, it was a National Institutes of Health (NIH) official bearing good news to a community that has long existed on the margins of the biomedical research establishment. Vicky Whittemore, the agency's CFS point person in Bethesda, Maryland, delivered on a promise that NIH Director Francis Collins made last year by announcing that NIH spending for research on the poorly understood disease should rise to roughly $15 million in 2017, doubling the estimated $7.6 million handed out in 2016."
 

Simon

Senior Member
Messages
3,789
Location
Monmouth, UK
I'm really disappointed. I don't expect the NIH to hit $250m in year one, but after years of neglect we needed an order of magnitured increase, $50 million would have showed serious intent, $17m shows collectively the NIH is not committed, even if some individuals there are (and I have no doubt Vicky Whittemore is). Patients need and deserve more.
 

snowathlete

Senior Member
Messages
5,374
Location
UK
The headline makes it sounds significant - double. But it is double of almost nothing, which is still almost nothing.
15 million US dollars is nothing when it comes to medical research. This won't get us anywhere. It shows the NIH is not sincere about even beginning to correct this problem.
 
Messages
84
Sadly it looks like we have a HIV situation on our hands. We won't get proper funding until they actually find out whats wrong / a biomarker. Of course this is probably made worse by CFS probably being made up of multiple subsets.

We can just hope Fluge / mella play the role of the French in all of this.

I know I will be donating what I can to R. Davis at the end of this month.
 

greeneagledown

Senior Member
Messages
213
Obviously this is still a pathetic amount of money, but a 100% increase in funding in one year at NIH is actually extremely rare. They were never going to go to $150 million in just a year or two. This was probably the best we could hope for.

Once there's a validated diagnostic test, the floodgates will open.
 
Messages
2,087
Obviously this is still a pathetic amount of money, but a 100% increase in funding in one year at NIH is actually extremely rare. They were never going to go to $150 million in just a year or two. This was probably the best we could hope for.

Once there's a validated diagnostic test, the floodgates will open.

But what evidence is there that the floodgates will open ?

Percentages are meaningless when we are talking about such a low baseline. I certainly don't see why this is the best we could have hoped for. If it doubles again for the next few years then that would be fine, but that should be the target they commit to.

I imagine this increase won't fund the current researchers nevermind try to attract / fund new researchers.
 

Denise

Senior Member
Messages
1,095
Once there's a validated diagnostic test, the floodgates will open.

I think part of the problem many people have with the small increase is that it isn't anywhere near enough to cover the large-scale studies we need and the replication studies we need to validate a diagnostic test(s).

(And we can't raise the private funding needed for those studies)
 

GlassHouse

Senior Member
Messages
108
As others have said, it's still low, but at least going in the right direction. But I'm hopeful that with so many brilliant minds involved now, we have a better change of finding a biomarker (and with these scientists who really understand the disease, able to find biomarkers for subgroups rather than concluding there is no marker).

The more they find, the better our chances get for more funding. Here's hoping it keeps going in the right direction.
 
Messages
2,087
The article is a decent article and worth adding comments to.

I am curious why nobody tweeted about this from the conference when it was on?

Also curious how Dr. Linkin always seems to get a mention about being an advisor but yet can't seem to get funding for all those samples he has taken. Hopefully it's only a matter of time.
 

dreampop

Senior Member
Messages
296
A $7 million increase would be extraordinary and basically the ideal $ increase for a single year. There is not the # of quality grant submissions to even get near $15. If you think they could spend more in a single years it's unrealistic that they could spend it and not waste it and create back lash for cfs research. Yes, I'd like them to walk to Ron Davis an give him $5 million but his research is exceptionally good.

Still I'll wait to celebrate until those r fa s are out.
 
Messages
2,087
There is not the # of quality grant submissions to even get near $15.
That sounds awfully familiar only normally it's the NIH saying it.
Remember Ron Davis was turned down in the past, was that not a quality application?

Lipkin, Davis, Hansen, Naviaux and Younger could probably spend all 15 million in a year between them.

And there are plenty of others. And we need to attract more, so the message should be : there's loads of money here, come get it.
 

barbc56

Senior Member
Messages
3,657
$15m is still very little but if it keeps doubling up every year for the next 5 years I'm ok with this

What is Trump's position about these agencies and their funding? That could make a huge difference. The Republicans now run the House and Senate, I think once again, and with a Republican president, my fear is that funding not only for us but other diseases will be cut.

I do know he's a climate change denier but other than that I'm not sure where he stands on these issues.

Anyone know or have citations?

Edit.

I found this thread.

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?threads/the-orange-elephant-in-the-room-impact-on-nih-funding.47806/#post-784550
 
Last edited:

taniaaust1

Senior Member
Messages
13,054
Location
Sth Australia
Vicky Whittemore, the agency's CFS point person in Bethesda, Maryland, delivered on a promise that NIH Director Francis Collins made last year by announcing that NIH spending for research on the poorly understood disease should rise to roughly $15 million in 2017, doubling the estimated $7.6 million handed out in 2016."

and how does this compare to what MS is getting? I'll believe they are serious when we are getting similar funding to them