Dr David Tuller: Jennie Spotila's Latest NIH Funding Fact-Check June 19th 2019

[Countrygirl]

http://www.virology.ws/2019/06/19/t...iythFkHUx5gng9_bGGyIoRqIbpfR_kKOBQ5gHaxsMHJfM

Trial By Error: Jennie Spotila’s Latest NIH Funding Fact-Check

19 JUNE 2019

Note: On her blog, Occupy M.E., Jennie Spotila recently posted another one of her indispensable close readings of NIH spending figures. I am reposting this here with Jennie’s permission.
**********

Another NIH Funding Fact-Check
In April, NIH finally published their funding numbers for ME/CFS research in 2018. That means it is time for another fact-check and correction!

For the second year in a row, NIH has significantly overstated its investment. For 2018, NIH claims it spent 10% (almost $1.5 million) more than it actually spent. NIH also claims that funding fell by 4.5%, when the truth is that our funding fell by 10%. In a disease like ME/CFS, this has serious consequences because the funding number is at the center of so much policy debate and advocacy efforts.

How Much Was Spent in 2018?
On the Categorical Spending Chart, NIH states that it spent $14 million on ME/CFS in 2018. The chart links to the list of projects and grants included in that number. Here is how it breaks down:
*Extramural grants: $4,663,553.............

 

[HowToEscape?]

They're throwing us in the trash. HIV/AIDS has had a known cause, known reliable method of prevention and for a decade known effective treatments, yet hundreds of millions are still thrown at it.

There are not unlimited numbers of talented researchers nor will there ever be, there are not unlimited number of facilities for them to work in etc, and of course there are not unlimited numbers of dollars unless you want to try Wiemar money again. Therefore, once a massive effort has given 85% of the possible progress on a disease, it's almost always time to reduce the resources put to it.**

There's a curve of effectiveness when giving (or shoveling) resources to manage a disease; a very small amount does about nothing (too much professional risk to go into a dead-end field, etc), a certain minimum begins to show results, the sweet spot delivers more results in proportion to resources, and then at some point more becomes less effective, either when you run up against limits of nature or you run out of people capable of doing the research. But even before the last step, you start peeling researchers off from other fields. Overspending on one high profile health problem isn't compassionate, it's damaging to people with many other diseases. Such as us.

**The exceptions are worldwide eradication of smallpox (successful) and polio (blocked by anti-vaccine Taliban), those are the rare cases where it's possible to remove a pathogen from Earth.

 

[Pyrrhus]

Jennie Spotila has an update:

NIH Funding for ME in 2020: Falling Flat
http://occupyme.net/2020/11/06/nih-funding-for-me-in-2020-falling-flat/
Excerpt:

NIH funding for ME/CFS research should be increasing each year. Everyone agrees that this is needed. Instead, 2020 funding has flatlined. Worse yet, we are in danger of falling off several cliffs looming ahead.