• Phoenix Rising needs funds to operate: please consider donating to support PR

Give ME the Money

Graham submitted a new blog post:

Give ME the Money

Graham McPhee spells out some of the cold, hard facts about the dismal state of ME research and politics, and has some suggestions as to what we can do about it ...

The new video from ME Analysis highlights the shocking lack of funding for biomedical research into ME: less than £2 million in over 25 years.

(If you don't see the video watch it here.)

I think there are two things that all of us with ME can agree upon. The first is that too little money has been spent on biomedical research into ME, and the second is that the psychological interpretation of the illness has been allowed to have too much influence. You may phrase it much more strongly than that, of course!

In the UK, looking back from the '80s to today, the total amount of government money spent on biomedical research into ME is approximately £2 million. Contrast this with the amount spent on research into HIV/AIDS, which was £9 million in 2011 alone. Remember that we also have to add all the millions spent by the big pharmaceutical companies to that.

Do not think for one minute that I am complaining about the research into HIV/AIDS, or any other well-funded areas such as cancer or heart disease; I am simply expressing my frustration that ME has not been given even a small fraction of that funding.

For ME, all we have extra is the relatively small amounts that our own charities have been able to raise from patients who are often struggling to make ends meet. £2 million official funding over 25 or more years! It is a disgrace.

Let's face it, if funding for research into ME had matched the money available to HIV/AIDS, we would be in a very different position today. When we see the amounts of money that governments are able to write off, and we watch our child, partner, parent, friend, or even ourselves struggle desperately with an illness that often still isn't properly recognised, frustration and anger are words that do not even begin to measure the depth of our feelings.

Back in 2003, the Medical Research Council (the MRC) set up a Research Advisory Group for ME/CFS. By 2006 they invited Action for ME to a workshop. In 2008 they set up the CFS/ME Expert Group.

But it was only when Jan and Margaret Laverick lobbied for an Early Day Motion in Parliament demanding an independent scientific committee to oversee ME research that the MRC, in 2011, acting on the advice of the Expert Group, announced £1.6 million was available for biomedical research, and in 2012 funded five small studies.

In 2013, Stephen Holgate set up the CFS/ME Research Collaborative (the CMRC) to increase the scale and quality of new research, but the MRC has funded no new research through them for last year or this.There are people on the CMRC determined to improve the situation: they want to bring in many more researchers, to stimulate additional funding from other sources and to raise the quality of the science, and much of the ME community are hoping that they will succeed.

But they have to overcome the long-established precedence of the small psychiatric group that has dominated the established attitude to this illness, and to persuade the MRC to change its attitude of failing to fund research into it.

From 2000 onwards, out of the tiny funding allocated to ME, biomedical research only got one-fifth of that: the rest went to psychosocial research. What other illness would accept that ratio? Can you imagine the outrage if over 80% of the money dedicated to research on cancer, heart disease, dementia, etc., was allocated to psychosocial research?

Obviously there will be some: any major chronic or serious condition has psychological overtones, but 80%? That is a ridiculous ratio, and so frustrating to us patients: that poor-quality psychological research is used to determine our treatment options, without being tested and counterbalanced by sound biomedical research.

The MRC has problems in attracting enough good researchers to apply for grants to study ME. Is this surprising?

Back in 2000, one highly-respected specialist explained to me that, with the psychological interpretation of ME having a stranglehold on meagre funds, it was impossible to attract good researchers or specialists into the field.

Do not think for one minute that the MRC did not get any applications to fund biomedical research: they did, but chose not to fund any of them.

So, the big question is, if the CMRC initiative leads to new, high quality research proposals, will the MRC back them, or will they just go through the motions as they have so often before? Will they convince researchers that the field has a future? Will they be able to rebalance the direction of funds so that biomedical research is truly supported?

We need substantial and sustained funding. If you were a skilled biomedical researcher, would you choose to specialise in ME if it meant that you had to trust the MRC to fund your future career? There must be clear constraints on the MRC to commit to such research, but equally importantly there has to be at least one other good source of biomedical funding.

Invest in ME has made a good start here with the University of East Anglia, focusing on what is achievable, and emphasising international co-operation. They need official recognition and support. How else will good researchers be encouraged to choose ME over all those other well and multi-funded medical areas such as cancer, heart disease, and dementia unless there is more than just the MRC to turn to?

We cannot just sit back and hope that this will happen.

Those of us who are able to get in touch with our MPs, even if it is a struggle to find the energy, must impress upon them the need for proper, substantial funding for biomedical research into ME.

MPs must ensure that the MRC and NIHR, the government's other research funding body, puts serious money into ME/CFS research. They must also find ways to give substantial support to the initiative by IiME and the University of East Anglia.

Please contact your MP, by email or face to face. You owe it to those who are severely affected and cannot do so themselves. If we do not do this, no one else will.

You do not need to write a long email. All you need to do is briefly introduce yourself, and say how long you have been ill, add a comment about how frustrated/angry/annoyed you are that after all this time so very little effort has been made by the authorities to research this illness, and that it is time that things changed.

You can include the fact sheet that can be downloaded from this link.

It has been suggested that we should just focus on raising money for research. Well, even if we raise £100,000 a year, it would take us 60 years to raise the £6 million of government money that went to the PACE and FINE trials.

I know I am nagging. Realistically, I do not expect to see any benefit from this in my lifetime, but I want my son to have a future. I want you to have a future.

Please let me know when you do write, and I will report back.

We are not going to get perfection, but we must at least get the ball rolling. It won't be easy. We do not want to be ill!

Phoenix Rising is a registered 501 c.(3) non profit. We support ME/CFS and NEID patients through rigorous reporting, reliable information, effective advocacy and the provision of online services which empower patients and help them to cope with their isolation.

There are many ways you can help Phoenix Rising to continue its work. If you feel able to offer your time and talent, we could really use some more authors, proof-readers, fundraisers, technicians etc. We’d also love to expand our Board of Directors. So, if you think you can help in any way then please contact Mark through the Forums.

And don’t forget: you can always support our efforts at no cost to yourself as you shop online! To find out more, visit Phoenix Rising’s Donate page by clicking the button below.

Continue reading the Original Blog Post
Last edited by a moderator:


Thanks to Jodie for editing this to make it look good! Believe me, in its original form, it needed all the help it could get.
To all concerned, NICE JOB. Got to get those videos on my site, they are terrific primers for the cognitively challenged, myself included. Loved 'Hows that Recovery'.

Well done.
Invest in ME has made a good start here with the University of East Anglia, focusing on what is achievable, and emphasising international co-operation. They need official recognition and support. How else will good researchers be encouraged to choose ME over all those other well and multi-funded medical areas such as cancer, heart disease, and dementia unless there is more than just the MRC to turn to?
Yep, IIME is one of the very few orgs in the UK and the US that has managed to hang onto its integrity. And they are doing genuine biomedical research, not like SolveCFS (CAA) trumpeting about their latest epidemiological study. Just what we need another half-assed epi study on people who may or may not have ME.

If you want to donate money to a real biome study looking at specific mechanisms, which is already underway, then you can't go past the IIME study. (I'm not with them, I'm in Australia, just impressed with what they do).

IIME didn't join the Collaborative, so that's got to be a point in their favor, hey?
Thanks Rusty. I'm all for us raising as much money as we can to fund proper biomedical research, but the reality is that for a charity to raise £100,000 in a year is pretty good. But the £5 million that was given to the PACE trial by the UK government represents 50 years of such fund-raising. We need substantial government backing, and the only way that will happen is for parliament to push for it to happen.
I'm afraid I don't have such a rosy picture of the CMRC. It's the old Advisory Group with a new coat of paint. Oh I think the CMRC will get some money. Because of who is involved there. Its all about scratching backs. However I very much doubt any serious research will get done. There will be a bit of throwing a line into the water, but if they catch anything I think it would be thrown back. Standard operating procedure. Seen it all before. US are about to do something similar I think. Some of the fatigue patients orgs are shuffling to get in line for funding. I wouldn't be surprised if they announced something similar to the CMRC in the near future.
Graham - I think you're right, but I really don't want to contact my loathsome local MP about CFS. But I think I should. But I don't want to. But you've made it so easy. But I still don't want to.

I think you've pretty much worn down my aversion to this and it's now something I will do but just want to put off as much as possible.
Thanks Esther, I do appreciate the reluctance. But I think that if we are going to get this sorted, we have to bite the bullet and go flat out for it. Plus, I think we need to do it now when MPs may be a little more alert to voters' thoughts.

I've got a sort of graphic in mind that may make the point that it is worth doing. Watch this space.
Here's the space to watch. I think it shows that persistent parliamentary pressure is starting to have an effect.

1990 no biomedical studies funded
1991 no bio
1992 no bio
1993 no bio
1994 no bio
1995 no bio
1996 no bio
1997 no bio
1998 no bio
1999 no bio
2000 no bio
2001 no bio
2002 no bio: Chief Medical Officer's Report wants MRC to fund biomedical studies
2003 no bio: MRC sets up Research Advisory Group
2004 no bio
2005 no bio
2006 no bio: Gibson Report wants MRC to fund biomedical studies
2007 no bio
2008 no bio: MRC sets up CFS/ME Expert Group
2009 no bio
2010 no bio: Early Day Motion: 123 MPs want MRC to fund biomedical studies: MRC announced funds earmarked
2011 no bio
2012 MRC actually funds 5 small studies: the first biomedical studies to be funded
2013 no bio: CMRC is set up
2014 no bio: CMRC holds its first conference
Should I have taken it back to 1980? I did go back that far in a different database and found nothing funded by the MRC. The NHS did run a few departmental investigations, most of which didn't need any extra funding from the NIHR, and few of which produced reports (from what I could see): all very small scale stuff.
Should I have taken it back to 1980? I did go back that far in a different database and found nothing funded by the MRC. The NHS did run a few departmental investigations, most of which didn't need any extra funding from the NIHR, and few of which produced reports (from what I could see): all very small scale stuff.
I don't think it makes much difference - it's clear that they simply haven't invested in ME/CFS at any time.
Hi Graham!

Great Timeline! Is there any data which shows comments made by MRC when they say they dont recognize the term 'biomedical'...and their previous statement of funding biomedical trials? That would be nice to have on there...plus also the rejected papers from the likes of Edwards etc...;)
Hi Snow Leopard, and cfsStevew! There isn't a simple single source for any of this. The statement that the MRC does not recognise the term "biomedical" comes from their reply* to the MP Ian Swales around the time of the 2010 early day motion signed by 123 MPs, but I seem to remember another similar reply to a different request, probably after their 2012 investment. They also say that they do not earmark money for specific conditions. They also announced in 2010/11 that they would earmark £1.6 million for such research.

*Mr Willetts: The Medical Research Council is one of the main agencies through which the Government support medical and clinical research. The MRC is an independent body which receives its grant in aid from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The selection of projects for funding by MRC is determined through peer review.

"Biomedical" is not a category the MRC would normally use to classify research in its portfolio.

When it comes to the quality of the rejected studies, I was using the comments from the Gibson Inquiry. Just recently I have picked up this link, but I have no idea whether it is a reliable one: more research needed. (vactruth.com/2012/10/06/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-vaccinations/)

I used the spreadsheet of all studies funded by the MRC from 1990 to today: it took a fair bit of time, but there aren't many entries for CFS. I also used a database provided on a website sponsored by the De Montfort University that covered "all" studies in the UK back to the 1980, which is where I got the information about the "studies" funded through the NIHR. I contacted both the MRC and NIHR to ask whether I had missed any important sources, and the second database then mysteriously vanished. I have been chasing this up with De Montfort and NIHR, but have got nowhere. There are other databases, but without the necessary funding information, and not going back so far. But I do have my rough notes still.

Hope that helps. Feel free to ask for more, but you may need to PM me to attract my wandering and enfeebled attention!

Here's an extract from Hansard, with my comments in red.

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds the Government have spent on research for myalgic encephalomyelitis since 2010; and what funds the Government plan to spend on the study of that condition in the next five years. [181399]

Dr Poulter: Expenditure by the Department on research on chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) through research programmes, research centres and units, and research training awards is shown in the following table.

£ million
2010-11 0.3 psychosocial!

2011-12 0.4

2012-13 0.6

Total spend on CFS/ME research by the Department is higher than this because expenditure by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network (CRN) on CFS/ME research cannot be disaggregated from total CRN expenditure. only marginally higher: most of the NIHR research has been more along the lines of an individual department carrying out additional tests, with no extra funding required

9 Jan 2014 : Column 298W

Total spend in future years by the NIHR on CFS/ME research depends on the volume and quality of scientific activity.(refuted by Gibson report: one biomedical study refused funding was from a member of the MRC!) The usual practice of the NIHR is not to ring-fence funds for expenditure on particular topics: research proposals in all areas compete for the funding available. The NIHR welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including CFS/ME. These applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the scientific quality of the proposals made.(I remember, but cannot find, a quote from Kerr saying that applications to fund ME/CFS studies were handled by a subcommittee of three, including one neurologist and one psychiatrist: he said that his studies always had one veto, and something about the criteria for entry I think).

Over the period 2010-11 to 2012-13 the Medical Research Council (MRC) spent over £0.4 million on research into CFS/ME.

Research into CFS/ME is a priority area for the MRC. In 2011 £1.6 million was awarded to support five research grants following a call for proposals which aimed to improve understanding of the mechanisms of CFS/ME. A highlight notice identifying further areas where applications are encouraged is currently in place. The MRC does not normally allocate funds to particular topics and research proposals in all areas compete for the funding available. Awards are made according to their scientific quality and importance to human health.

Details of MRC research can be found on the RCUK Gateway to Research website at:


and further information on MRC support for CFS/ME can be found on the MRC website at:

Update: the MRC spreadsheet webpage is no longer there. Now if I were a suspicious person…..

But I do have a copy if anyone wants it. It is a big file, 14MB, and takes ages to be read into a spreadsheet.
You may be interested in this link to the MRC site. There are four boards under which applications are considered: molecular and cellular medicine, infections and immunity, population and systems medicine, and neurosciences and mental health. Only the last one mentions chronic fatigue syndrome specifically, and it is where, historically, all the applications for research into ME seem to have been sent.