• 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, 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.

HHS already spruiking the benefits of CBT and GET

akrasia

Senior Member
Messages
215
Also though, bureaucracies can be so ridiculous that they need to pay a million dollars to have obvious things written in a report before they can act on them.


I think this is dead on.

You should never underestimate any government agency's need to give the illusion that they are on the job, familiar with what needs to be considered, and in the forefront of creating policy. In other words the bureaucratic procedures exist to help them appear professional and professionals never skip steps.

The IOM and P2P processes serve the interests of HHS in evolving a policy where none has existed. It's a problem solver for them, not for us. If these initiatives were for our benefit, there would be a sense of urgency and passion, a recognition of neglect. But, of course, that would mean a very severe critique of its failures.

As stupidly wasteful as it is, the fact that it's happening at all is interesting.
 
Messages
42
From the P2P draft panel report; https://prevention.nih.gov/.../ODP-MECFS-DraftReport.pdf. The numbers refer to the lines in the report.

"In many cases, lack of instructions or
136 guidance for including graded exercise therapy often causes additional suffering, creating fear of
137 harm from a comprehensive self-management program that may include some physical activity
138 (e.g., mild stretching)." (emphasis added)

The P2P panel met January 9 & 10. The Lancet article was published online January 13. The media reports (including the one posted on the NIH Office of Disease Prevention's (ODP) site) were published January 14. The NIH ODP-sponsored P2P draft panel report was posted online January 18.

Coincidence? I think not.
 
Last edited:

jimells

Senior Member
Messages
2,009
Location
northern Maine
The IOM and P2P processes serve the interests of HHS in evolving a policy where none has existed.

I beg to differ. There has been a deliberate policy to turn well-defined ME into CFS for 30 years. There was a deliberate policy decision in 2002 to move the illness into the Office of Women's Health (sic) and close the Centers of Excellence. It was a deliberate policy decision to stop funding real research and divert money into other projects.

I certainly agree that bureaucracies see meetings and reports to be evidence that they are doing something useful. But once established, their policies are very difficult to change. NIH recent actions certainly suggest business as usual, right down to the only metric that counts: funding research. I'm sure most everyone reading this thread is aware that even esteemed researcher Ian Lipkin was denied funding for our illness, with a reviewer commenting that it was a "psychological illness".

The emails released thanks to Jeannette Burmeister's $150,000 FOIA lawsuit (did the feds ever pay up?) do not suggest a new attitude by any of the 'civil servants' responsible for the P2P and IOM fiasco.

Certainly, I long for the day when NIH steps up to actually fund real research. If anyone can point to evidence that the NIH intends to increase funding, please, I'd love to see it.


SHOW ME THE MONEY!
 

akrasia

Senior Member
Messages
215
Whoa Jim,

I agree with virtually all that you say as my post #218 in the Horrifying article in the Sunday Times thread bears witness to.

The difference is that I don't characterize what has happened at the NIH as policy. Neglect is not a policy, in my opinion. It was an ongoing trivialization, dismissal, mischaracterization and refusal to deal with what we now recognize as an epidemic

If anything good comes out of this process it will be because it's reinventing the wheel.

What Jeanette's emails show is business as usual at the NIH, a dismal, mediocre performance. But I don't think it was indicative of anything different in approach than a lot of other diseases probably receive.

I opposed the IOM and P2P from the beginning and still do.







I beg to differ. There has been a deliberate policy to turn well-defined ME into CFS for 30 years. There was a deliberate policy decision in 2002 to move the illness into the Office of Women's Health (sic) and close the Centers of Excellence. It was a deliberate policy decision to stop funding real research and divert money into other projects.

I certainly agree that bureaucracies see meetings and reports to be evidence that they are doing something useful. But once established, their policies are very difficult to change. NIH recent actions certainly suggest business as usual, right down to the only metric that counts: funding research. I'm sure most everyone reading this thread is aware that even esteemed researcher Ian Lipkin was denied funding for our illness, with a reviewer commenting that it was a "psychological illness".

The emails released thanks to Jeannette Burmeister's $150,000 FOIA lawsuit (did the feds ever pay up?) do not suggest a new attitude by any of the 'civil servants' responsible for the P2P and IOM fiasco.



Certainly, I long for the day when NIH steps up to actually fund real research. If anyone can point to evidence that the NIH intends to increase funding, please, I'd love to see it.

SHOW ME THE MONEY!



From the thread I alluded to:

Charles Shepherd wrote:

"Do you ever wonder why so few of my medical colleagues (apart from psychiatrists) want to get involved with treating or researching this dreadful illness"



And I wrote:

Well, I've actually given this some thought. ;)

What is obvious to me is that it has nothing do with blaming patients for the failures of medicine, medical policy, and the poor journalism that sycophantically promotes these views.

Did patients have anything do with the drafting of the Oxford definition? Or any of the deficient definitions promoted by the CDC? Or grossly underfunding research? Or the domination of medical textbooks by the BPS clique. Or the rise and "triumph" of a particularly stupid and destructive form of CBT practiced by liason psychiatry? Or the career death that studying M.E. meant to ambitious young doctors, either in clinical medicine or in research? Did patients urge Stephen Strauss, our "benefactor" at the NIH and Kenji Fukuda to collude in trying to make the discrete entity of M.E. disappear? Or influence the rejection of Ian Lipkin's application to study the microbiome at the NIH because the 3 person special emphasis panel contained two morons, one who was sure that the M.E. was due to a herpes virus, and the other who asserted that "everyone" knows that M.E. is psychological? Why were these 2 on the panel at all?

Mary Dimmock, in a review of the last CFSAC meeting, suggested that in order to redress decades of neglect, injustice, and propogation of stigma, that there be a special initiative funded to correspond to the numbers of people sick with M.E. including outreach to the very academic institutions that turned their backs on us. By the way, a very good account of just what that looked like in the late 80's when M.E. was just emerging into the public awareness can be found in Oslers Web. This was way before the internet and patient activism.

I've appreciated Charles Shepherd's consistent response to the sort of bilge we've seen in the last week. I was taken aback by this statement which suggests that he holds patients in contempt and identifies with the very people whose abrogation of responsibility has landed us in this mess.
[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

Sean

Senior Member
Messages
7,378
Can we all take it as given that the bureaucracy (government and corporate) is going to indulge in a bit of arse covering, and just ignore that, at least for now. We are not in the hold people to account phase yet, we are still in the we need to get official recognition of the real problem and get the basic medical science done phase.

We are never going to get the major players suddenly coming out and saying, yep, we completely messed that up, sorry, have a billion dollars for research, and our resignations. Can we all let go of that fantasy, it is holding us back. This is a war of attrition, there will not be any single defining victory, and will be a lot of shitty compromises and setbacks along the way.

I am as angry as any of you about what has happened to us, and there are parts of the P2P and IOM process that make me want to drop a very large rock on all of them. Repeatedly. But that doesn't alter the fact that we still have to deal with the political realities of the situation, mostly that we have very few options and chances, except to keep chipping away at it all.

Anybody who think we have not made big steps forward is not paying attention. Equally, we have a few more to take yet before we get a just and useful result from all this.

So keep chipping. :thumbsup:
 

Nielk

Senior Member
Messages
6,970
Can we all take it as given that the bureaucracy (government and corporate) is going to indulge in a bit of arse covering, and just ignore that, at least for now. We are not in the hold people to account phase yet, we are still in the we need to get official recognition of the real problem and get the basic medical science done phase.

We are never going to get the major players suddenly coming out and saying, yep, we completely messed that up, sorry, have a billion dollars for research, and our resignations. Can we all let go of that fantasy, it is holding us back. This is a war of attrition, there will not be any single defining victory, and will be a lot of shitty compromises and setbacks along the way.

I am as angry as any of you about what has happened to us, and there are parts of the P2P and IOM process that make me want to drop a very large rock on all of them. Repeatedly. But that doesn't alter the fact that we still have to deal with the political realities of the situation, mostly that we have very few options and chances, except to keep chipping away at it all.

Anybody who think we have not made big steps forward is not paying attention. Equally, we have a few more to take yet before we get a just and useful result from all this.

So keep chipping. :thumbsup:

For every step that the US Government health agencies take forward, they deliberately follow it with 10 steps back.

The fact that from all the over thousand of studies done on ME/CFS, the US government has chosen this PACE study to publish on their Healhfinder.gov, is not only a slap on the face but is a deliberate choice at a very opportune time.

Think about it. We just had the P2P workshop where they spoke about the fact that the Oxford Criteria is not adequate and should be retired. Advocate Jennie Spotila asked the fine question that if the Oxford Criteria is obsolete, why are they including studies based on the Oxford, like the PACE trial?

In addition, this question has been asked by many commenters to the draft report. They contend that PACE should not be part of the P2P study since it used the Oxford Criteria.

What is HHS's reply to us? A thousand steps back!!!!! By publishing this particular study, at this time is a public stab in our back.

They have declared war and we are talking about chipping.


Anybody who think we have not made big steps forward is not paying attention.

I have been paying attention and I don't see any big steps forward. I only see war, and if we let them get away with it, they will win.

I don't know about you, but I am not willing to endure another 30 years of abuse. The thousands of severe ME patients living in their darkened rooms laying still in their beds, having to decide whether to brush their teeth or comb their hair today because they can't do both DESERVE A BETTER FUTURE NOW.
 
Last edited:

Gijs

Senior Member
Messages
691
This has nothing to do with real science (selectie bias: ''fatique people'', not ME patiënts, Oxford criteria) but everything with politics and Insurance companies. It is a scientific scam! These authors will have a bad karma and a very difficult and awfull next life.

'' Funding for the PACE trial was provided by the Medical Research
Council, Department for Health for England, the Scottish Chief
Scientist Office, and the Department for Work and Pensions. Dr Chalder
and two coauthors were in part supported by the National Institute for
Health Research Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health at the
South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and
Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College
London. One of those coauthors was also funded by a National Institute
for Health Research Doctoral Fellowship. Dr Chalder has received
royalties from Sheldon Press and Constable and Robinson. One coauthor
has performed voluntary and paid consultancy work for the UK
government and a reinsurance company. Another coauthor has performed
voluntary and paid consultancy work for the UK government and for an
insurance company and has received royalties from Oxford University
Press.''

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/838452
 

Ren

.
Messages
385
"
From the P2P draft panel report; https://prevention.nih.gov/.../ODP-MECFS-DraftReport.pdf. The numbers refer to the lines in the report.

"In many cases, lack of instructions or
136 guidance for including graded exercise therapy often causes additional suffering, creating fear of
137 harm from a comprehensive self-management program that may include some physical activity
138 (e.g., mild stretching)." (emphasis added)

The P2P panel met January 9 & 10. The Lancet article was published online January 13. The media reports (including the one posted on the NIH Office of Disease Prevention's (ODP) site) were published January 14. The NIH ODP-sponsored P2P draft panel report was posted online January 18.

Coincidence? I think not.


If it's not been mentioned elsewhere (and in addition to the above) --

The NIH "Medline Plus - Trusted Health Information for You" CFS page was updated 15 January 2015 with a reference/link to the "Therapists must end patients' fear..." article. (See also archive.org.)

Said reference/link above links to another Medline Plus page (also 15 January 2015) featuring the full "fear" article. So, this is at least a second US .gov site to feature this article. (The first being healthfinder.gov.) Are there others?

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/chronicfatiguesyndrome.html
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_150420.html

EDIT: See also NIH.gov PubMed Health (14 January 2015). A third "fear" reference...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedh...-therapy-and-exercise-may-help-some-with-cfs/


.
 
Last edited:

Iquitos

Senior Member
Messages
513
Location
Colorado
I strongly disagree that this isn't anything different than a lot of other diseases receive.
Roy, you are so right!

Erectile dysfunction and male pattern baldness have never killed or disabled anyone, and only a porno star or an actor could claim those conditions have negatively affected their ability to earn a living. Yet those conditions, and other less pathological conditions like hay fever have consistently received a great deal more in research funding than has ME/CFS and none have suffered the kind of government conspiracy to rename them and redefine them into something disdainful and denigrating.

AIDS and MS patients numbers are far, far less than patients with ME/CFS yet they've gotten billions in research money. The only "business as usual" going on here is the continued campaign to manage the government's image and try to make as many people as possible think that they are actually doing something useful, while doing what they've always done: 1 step forward and 10-100 steps backwards.

The research exists to prove that exercise isn't helpful and is often harmful. There is absolutely nothing in the valid research to indicate that patients fear exercise. When you can't even do your tasks of daily living, you are not going to want to do exercise that limits what you can do even further.

They should be posting the Lights' research but instead they choose to post discredited "research" that helps only the insurance companies, Medicare and the psych lobby. There is research that shows small fiber neuropathy in muscles, mitochondrial damage and a whole lot of other pertinent research. Why didn't they post any of it!?!

There are over 5000 research papers demonstrating the physical illness that is ME/CFS. Why didn't they post any of it???

Leonard Jason has published papers showing that ME/CFS isn't a psychological affliction and the Oxford definition is bogus. Why didn't they post any of his work?

The governments of the US and UK have known for more than 30 years that ME is not a "woman's disease" yet they went through a phase of promoting that lie. Likewise for children.

They've known for decades that brain scans of various types show our brains are damaged.

So they are now engaging in recycling the same lies, misinformation and disinformation that have been cycled before.
 

akrasia

Senior Member
Messages
215
I strongly disagree that this isn't anything different than a lot of other diseases receive.

The NIH and CDC drag their feet, resist challenge, and try to drown reasonable protest in obfuscation and delay.
The same cast of characters botched HIV, autism, Gulf war,chronic Lyme disease, ALS and who knows what else. Procrastinating about paying Jeannette Burmeister is standard operating procedure.

The HHS viewed M.E. as merely the latest iteration of a faddish hypochondria and its near relative faulty interoception and hoped it would just go away. How this was compatible with the CDC framing CFS as serious as late stage kidney disease or COPD is cognitive dissonance at its starkest, but government can speak out of several sides of its mouth and not care much about the contradictory nature of its utterances.

That's why I've called this "bureaucratic nihilism."

I don't know what will happen in the future with m.e. I take very seriously what Hillary Johnson indicated about Fauci and Collins and their views of the disease. What is different is that someone with the cachet of
Ian Lipkin cannot be ignored. How many times have I listened to klimas as she described the cunning she had to use to get grants funded that were investigating some aspect of m.e. When Lipkin was denied his, he was able to establish why it happened and get the 2 members booted off the SEP. This is genuinely different from anything I've seen in the history of the disease.

Without going into detail, I was very close to the AIDS crisis from the beginning. People around me were horribly sick and dying and NOTHING was done. If the population had remained confined to gay men and addicts nothing would have been done, but it got into the blood supply. That was the turning point, just as the potential threat to the blood supply and vaccines represented by XMRV almost roused the interest of the health establishment.

As for us, we see the horror of neglect up close every day, many of us living it at a very intense level. The establishment,however, saw m.e. as a nuisance and funded it in that spirit. With the complicity of the academic medical world and the failure of what should have been an adversarial journalism, the pieces were in place to do nothing.


What people with m.e. are experiencing is the sort of treatment that marginal players receive in society, contempt, neglect, abandonment. Many of us come from white middle class or more affluent status. The world, no matter how aware of injustice we were, was a place where we realized dreams, an arena for ambition and self expression. M.E lays bare just how vulnerable you are if the right conditions obtain.

Something is stirring at the HHS, but we are looking through a glass darkly. Whatever happens the notion that m.e. is a trivial hysterical social phenomenon is beginning to recede. I think the right kind of science will eventually prevail but, unless something dramatic happens, it might still be long while before effective universally available treatment is accessible.
 
Last edited:

MeSci

ME/CFS since 1995; activity level 6?
Messages
8,231
Location
Cornwall, UK
Roy, you are so right!

Erectile dysfunction and male pattern baldness have never killed or disabled anyone, and only a porno star or an actor could claim those conditions have negatively affected their ability to earn a living.

and male prostitutes!
 

Roy S

former DC ME/CFS lobbyist
Messages
1,376
Location
Illinois, USA
When Lipkin was denied his, he was able to establish why it happened and get the 2 members booted off the SEP.
Do you have a source and link for this? I thought it was the same person on the Special Emphasis Panel that caused him to be turned down twice and I haven't seen anything about it since.
 

akrasia

Senior Member
Messages
215
Do you have a source and link for this? I thought it was the same person on the Special Emphasis Panel that caused him to be turned down twice and I haven't seen anything about it since.

http://www.cfscentral.com/2014/05/candid-conversation-with-dr-ian-lipkin.html


"I have been in competition now twice to get funded, and the people there who reviewed me gave me abysmal scores. And the critiques of my work were unfair, and one of the people who critiqued my work said, in fact, that this is a psychosomatic illness. I was floored. I protested, and for reasons that are obscure to me this same individual wound up back on the study section, and I got a similar unfundable score. Am I upset about this? Absolutely. Do I think Tony Fauci knows about this? No. And if Tony Fauci were to find out that people said that he claimed this is a psychosomatic illness, he would deny it because he doesn’t believe that’s true. I’m sure he doesn’t believe that’s true....


[In the first set of critiques I was also told] that everybody knows that this is a herpes virus infection of peripheral blood mononuclear cells so there’s no reason to look at the gut. This is the nature of study sections. You can’t control what people are going to do when they get on…. They do the best that they can, but that doesn’t mean they’re up to the task and it doesn’t mean that they’re appropriate."


I don't believe Lipkin believes this is the "best" they can do.

He speaks of these 2 members as if they were learning disabled. And what does it say if this is the caliber of member for these panels?
 

Roy S

former DC ME/CFS lobbyist
Messages
1,376
Location
Illinois, USA
@akrasia said: index.php?goto/post&id=551566
When Lipkin was denied his, he was able to establish why it happened and get the 2 members booted off the SEP.
 
Pardon my brain fog, but where does it say Lipkin got two members booted off the SEP?
 

Iquitos

Senior Member
Messages
513
Location
Colorado
I don't know if this is pertinent but in the recently presented webinar on leptin Dr. Jarred Younger said something surprising to me. That his successful research proposal was presented to a SEP of judges who are knowledgeable and positive-thinking re: ME/CFS.
 

Denise

Senior Member
Messages
1,095
As I understand it, NIH grant submissions are reviewed by different panels depending on where the grant is submitted to.
So if grant money is being requested from ME funding (the little pot of $5 million), the grant is reviewed by an ME SEP (special emphasis panel). *
But if the money is being requested from (for instance) an institute, the grant review is not necessarily conducted by people with extensive (or any) familiarity with ME.

* - historically the ME SEPs often had a preponderance of people with no knowledge of ME, but in recent years that seems to have shifted and those serving on the ME SEP tend to have at least some knowledge of (if not expertise in) ME.
 

jimells

Senior Member
Messages
2,009
Location
northern Maine
Without going into detail, I was very close to the AIDS crisis from the beginning. People around me were horribly sick and dying and NOTHING was done. If the population had remained confined to gay men and addicts nothing would have been done, but it got into the blood supply. That was the turning point, just as the potential threat to the blood supply and vaccines represented by XMRV almost roused the interest of the health establishment.

The blood supply industry sure seems like a racket. Donors get a cookie, while the allegedly "non-profit" Red Cross adds huge fees to the "free" blood. I'm not surprised to learn that a threat to the gravy train prodded NIH into action.