Saturday, May 23, 2015

Conflict of Interest: CDC Accepts Millions from Corporations

Jeanne Lenzer is the associate editor of the The BMJ (British Medical Journal), USA. The BMJ is one of the world's oldest medical journals. As a peer-reviewed publication of the British Medical Association, it has tremendous clout, and is widely read by medical professionals all over the world.

In this BMJ article, Lenzer discusses the conflict of interest generated by an infusion of millions of dollars from private corporations into the CDC. Although she only presents a few cases in which the CDC has shifted policy in order to aid corporate interests, given the enormous amount of money it has received there are obviously many more.

The demise of the CDC as a public institution began in the 1980s during the Reagan-era period of privatization. In 1995 the CDC Foundation, which was created by Congress, began to accept "gifts" on behalf of the CDC. This funding arm has not only led to skewed treatment recommendations - the most recent of which is the narrow window of antibiotic treatment allowed to Lyme disease patients - but has opened the door to strong-arm tactics, such as the NRA's withdrawal of funds after the CDC began an investigation of gun violence.

The CDC will not bite the hand that feeds it. In the case of ME/CFS the hand is most likely insurance companies, which (as in the case of Lyme disease) don't want to pay for expensive long-term treatments. As long as the CDC promotes criteria for ME/CFS that are vague enough to fit into the generally accepted definition of depression, doctors will prescribe therapy and exercise, patients will be misdiagnosed, and it goes without saying that Ampligen will never be approved.

The concept that the CDC represents the public good needs to be seriously re-evaluated.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: protecting the private good?

By Jeanne Lenzer, associate editor, The BMJ, USA

BMJ 2015;350:h2362 doi: (Published 15 May 2015)

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) includes the following disclaimer with its recommendations: “CDC, our planners, and our content experts wish to disclose they have no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products . . . CDC does not accept commercial support.”1

The CDC’s image as an independent watchdog over the public health has given it enormous prestige, and its recommendations are occasionally enforced by law.

Despite the agency’s disclaimer, the CDC does receive millions of dollars in industry gifts and funding, both directly and indirectly, and several recent CDC actions and recommendations have raised questions about the science it cites, the clinical guidelines it promotes, and the money it is taking.

Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, told The BMJ, “The CDC has enormous credibility among physicians, in no small part because the agency is generally thought to be free of industry bias. Financial dealings with biopharmaceutical companies threaten that reputation.”2

Industry funding of the CDC has taken many doctors, even some who worked for CDC, by surprise. Philip Lederer, an infectious diseases fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and a former CDC epidemic intelligence service officer, told The BMJ he was “saddened” to learn of industry funding.

The CDC’s director, Tom Frieden, did not respond to a question about the disclaimer. He told The BMJ by email, “Public-private partnerships allow CDC to do more, faster. The agency’s core values of accountability, respect, and integrity guide the way CDC spends the funds entrusted to it. When possible conflicts of interests arise, we take a hard, close look to ensure that proper policies and guidelines are followed before accepting outside donations.”

Since its inception in 1946, the CDC has had a pivotal role not only in the prevention of infectious diseases but in reducing workplace hazards, motor vehicle injuries, and tobacco related deaths and in ensuring food safety.

One of the CDC’s most important contributions, with an estimated eight million lives saved to date,3 has been its work to educate the public about the dangers of tobacco. CDC spokesperson Thomas Skinner says the surgeon general’s first report on smoking in 1964 was a “tipping point,” when tobacco was first clearly identified as a health hazard by the US government. Skinner said the CDC’s anti-tobacco campaign “serves as an important counter to the more than $950 000 [£630 000; €860 00] that the tobacco industry spends each hour—more than $23m a day—on cigarette advertising and promotion.”

Opening up to private money

Funding of CDC took a turn in 1983, when the CDC was authorised to accept external “gifts” from industry and other private parties. In 1992, Congress passed legislation to encourage relationships between industry and the CDC by creating the non-profit CDC Foundation, which began operations in 1995.

The CDC Foundation raised $52m in fiscal year 2014, of which $12m was from corporations. The CDC itself in fiscal year 2014 received $16m in conditional funding from sources such as corporations, individuals, and philanthropy, including the CDC Foundation. Conditional donations are earmarked for specific projects. For example, in 2012, Genentech earmarked $600 000 in donations to the CDC Foundation for CDC’s efforts to promote expanded testing and treatment of viral hepatitis. Genentech and its parent company, Roche, manufacture test kits and treatments for hepatitis C.

Numerous manufacturers give donations to the CDC Foundation. Janssen also contributed $1.5m in 2012-13,1 and in 2011-12 contributors included Merck ($915 149), Genzyme ($762 000), Sanofi-Aventis ($600 000), and Abbott Laboratories ($550 000).

The CDC has recently issued controversial recommendations for screening tests and drugs,2 4 and is currently overseeing several equally controversial studies.5 Some of these are associated with “conditional” industry funding, as the three examples below show.

Cohort screening for hepatitis C

The CDC issued guidelines in August 2012 recommending expanded (cohort) screening of everyone born from 1945 to 1965 for hepatitis C virus.1 The agency cited new direct acting antiviral drugs and protease inhibitors to treat hepatitis C as part of its rationale for cohort screening, saying the drugs “can halt disease progression and provide a virologic cure (ie, sustained viral clearance following completion of treatment) in most persons.”

The science behind cohort screening has been challenged4 and is said to be “the subject of major debate.”6 The scientific debate along with the price tags of the newer drugs (over $84 000 per treatment course for the new drug sofosbuvir), raise questions about CDC’s industry funding.

In 2010, the CDC, in conjunction with the CDC Foundation, formed the Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition, which supports research and promotes expanded testing and treatment of hepatitis C in the United States and globally. Industry has donated over $26m to the coalition through the CDC Foundation since 2010. Corporate members of the coalition include Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, OraSure Technologies, Quest Diagnostics, and Siemens—each of which produces products to test for or treat hepatitis C infection.

Conflict of interest forms filed by the 34 members of the external working group that wrote and reviewed the new CDC recommendation in 2012 show that nine had financial ties to the manufacturers.1

A report by the Office of the Inspector General in December 2009 found that external advisors to the CDC “play an influential role in decision making for the federal government.” The inspector general evaluated conflicts of interest of advisors and concluded, “CDC has a systemic lack of oversight of the ethics program”: 97% of disclosure forms filed by advisors were incomplete, and 13% of advisors participated in meetings without filing any disclosure at all.7

Although the CDC states it has addressed all of the deficiencies cited in the report, the agency did not restrict participation of the nine conflicted external advisors in the recommendation to broaden hepatitis C screening.1 However, the CDC told The BMJ that external advisors acted in an “individual capacity” and are not designated as “special government employees.” It said that their financial ties to industry didn’t comprise a conflict of interest as the participants “had no relationships directly related to the task-reviewing evidence as a basis for an HCV testing guideline. The reported financial activities represent activities not directly related to this work but involving commercial and non-commercial entities that could be perceived to influence involvement in the task.”

Oseltamivir for flu

Following criticism of the CDC and its foundation for accepting a directed donation from Roche for the agency’s Take 3 flu campaign (Step 3 tells the public to “take antiviral medicine if your doctor prescribes it”),2 the CDC posted an article on its website entitled, “Why CDC Recommends Influenza Antiviral Drugs.”8 The agency cited multiple observational and industry funded studies, including the recent meta-analysis by Dobson and colleagues,9 which it described as an “independent” study. However, the study was sponsored by Roche, and all four authors had financial ties to Roche, Genentech, or Gilead (the first two sell oseltamivir and Gilead holds the patent).10

Despite its extensive list of studies, the CDC did not cite the systematic review and meta-analysis by the Cochrane Collaboration.11

The CDC told The BMJ that it didn’t include the Cochrane review because Cochrane “did not consider any data from uncontrolled observational studies of oseltamivir treatment. While such studies have inherent design limitations, they can inform clinical practice and public health, especially when data from RCTs [randomized controlled trials] are unavailable or have not been conducted among high-risk groups or hospitalized influenza patients, or because having a placebo group would be unethical since antiviral treatment is recommended for these groups.”

The US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning to Roche that it could not claim that oseltamivir reduces pneumonia or deaths since it has never provided evidence to the FDA to support that claim.2 Manufacturers are prohibited by law from making off-label claims about their drugs. However, doctors can legally recommend drugs for off-label uses. By funding the CDC’s Take 3 campaign, Roche and other companies are not claiming their antivirals will reduce pneumonia or death. CDC director, Frieden, however, did make the off-label claim, telling the public that it could “save your life.”2

Shannon Brownlee, senior vice president of the Lown Institute and former journalist covering the CDC, told The BMJ, “This looks like classic stealth marketing, in which industry puts their message in the mouths of a trusted third party, such as an academic or a professional organization.”

CDC and the sugar industry

The CDC has also been criticised for its role in a series of studies into an epidemic of chronic kidney disease among men working in the sugar fields of central America.5 The sugar industry is paying $1.7m to fund the studies, and critics say the fact the research is being funded by the men’s employers raises concerns about how far it will probe industry’s role in the disease outbreak. The CDC states it will provide “technical assistance and subject matter expertise,” for the studies, with the foundation serving as the “grant administrator overseeing the donor funding and facilitating the research activities.”

Researchers think that the epidemic, which has killed over 20 000 mostly young men,12 is most likely to be caused by “two interdependent factors: the misuse of agrochemicals and the working conditions of the labor force.”13 The men are exposed to banned and dangerous pesticides, some of which are known to be nephrotoxic, and the working conditions cited include “regular exposure to very hot temperatures and extreme physical effort, lead[ing] to heat stress and dehydration.”13

Daniel Brooks, associate professor of epidemiology at the Boston University School of Public Health, will lead the CDC research, which includes several observational studies examining genetics and biomarkers in children and a longitudinal study of the sugarcane workers and their families for an as yet undetermined time period. He defends the CDC’s involvement, saying it provides two main benefits, creating a “firewall between donors and researchers” and enlisting the expertise of the CDC.

The sugar industry has trumpeted Brooks’ earlier research into the epidemic as proof that conditions in the fields are not the cause of the men’s deaths; Mario Amador, general manager of Nicaragua’s National Committee of Sugar Producers, dismissed the idea that the disease has an occupational origin, telling a reporter with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, “We are fully convinced that there is no direct relationship between [chronic kidney disease] and the activities conducted in the sugarcane industry.”5

The Pan American Health Organization has called the outbreak, “a serious public health problem that requires urgent, effective, and concerted multisectoral action.”

Jerome R Hoffman, a methodologist and emeritus professor of medicine at UCLA, told The BMJ, the study was asking the wrong questions. “Epidemiologic studies can of course be tremendously useful in cases like this, but given the human suffering involved, we need to devise and test interventions that have a chance to prevent or ameliorate this substantial harm, as quickly as possible. It’s inappropriate to focus on things that cannot protect these workers, such as identifying an unusual genetic predisposition to kidney failure, or evaluating a biomarker to follow the disease, while ignoring modifiable factors.”

Not just the carrot—but the stick

Corporations have not only been offering gifts to the CDC; they have also used a heavy stick—with consequences that continue to hobble critical research. In 1996, the National Rifle Association, which is underwritten in large part by gun manufacturers, mounted an offensive against CDC’s research into gun violence. The association lobbied Congress, and pro-gun representatives slashed $2.6m from the CDC budget—the exact amount the agency had spent in the previous year on firearm injury research. The funding was later restored, but the bill prohibited any of the restored funds from being used to “advocate or promote gun control.”

Frederick Rivara, one of the team members who conducted gun research for the CDC before the cuts, told The BMJ that firearms research has “plummeted dramatically,” and that gun violence remains a major public health concern in the US, where nearly half a million people have died from gunshot wounds since the funding cuts.

After multiple mass murders, including the shooting of 20 first grade children at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut in 2012, President Obama asked Congress for $10m to fund research into preventing gun violence; however, Congress has not approved the funds to date. The president renewed this request for the 2016 budget.

Professional reaction

Neil Calman, president and chief executive of the Institute for Family Health in New York, a large community health center network in 31 locations with over half a million patient visits a year, says the institute has relied on CDC guidance largely because of its prestige as an independent agency, free of industry relationships. Calman told The BMJ, “Industry funding undermines trust and introduces a bias in the presentation of results and treatment recommendations that is deplorable for a government agency. If the allegations of industry funding and influence are true, we will have to look very carefully at recommendations we are following now and those made in the future by the CDC.”

Calman said, “Industry claims their scientific methodology ensures their studies are unbiased—just as the CDC claims money doesn’t affect their recommendations. Yet multiple studies clearly—and repeatedly—show that who sponsors a study, or issues a guideline, makes a difference.”

Hoffman said, “Most of us were shocked to learn the CDC takes funding from industry. Of course it is outrageous that industry apparently is allowed to punish the CDC if the agency conducts research that has the potential to cut into profits. But it was our government that made this very bad arrangement, so the way to fix it is not to ask the CDC to ‘pretty please be more ethical, and avoid conflicts of interest’; rather, as a society, we have to get the government to reject this devil’s bargain, by changing the rules so this can no longer happen.”

John Mandrola, a cardiologist in Louisville, Kentucky, reacted to the news of industry funding, saying that the CDC “must have the highest of moral ground. For if we are to believe them about public health matters, there can be no conflicts of interest. The public good, pure evidence, that is all.”14

Monday, May 11, 2015

Dr. Kerr Rebuts Assertion That GET and CBT Are Legitimate Treatments for ME/CFS

Unfortunately, PACE isn't admitting anything. 
In a recent editorial published in the British Medical Journal Andrew Lloyd states: "The evidence for graded exercise and cognitive behavioural therapy is already clear, so this treatment should be made widely available."

Dr. Lloyd, an immunologist associated with the University of South Wales, Australia, is a long-time proponent of exercise as the "cornerstone" of treatment for ME/CFS.

The reply by Dr. Jonathan Kerr, who is regarded as one of Britain’s foremost ME/CFS  researchers and an expert in microbiology, inflammation and genetics, lays out the errors in Dr. Lloyd's endorsement of GET and CBT, not the least of which is that Lloyd's "evidence" is based entirely on a study so flawed that it should never have been published. 

In the wake of the Columbia studies documenting progressive immune abnormalities in ME/CFS, and the IOM's unequivocal statement supporting the biogenesis of ME/CFS, it is clear that the proponents of psychological interventions and exercise as legitimate treatments have only one leg to stand on.

And that leg is increasingly in need of a crutch.

The biological pathogenesis of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome / Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

By Jonathan Kerr

This editorial (1) comes from authors from two of three CFS/ME centres whose prolific academic production in CFS/ME provides almost the sole support for a supposed psychiatric basis for the disease; these centres are Kings College London, Nijmegen Medical Centre in the Netherlands, and the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. However, the scientific basis on which the treatments, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and Graded Exercise Therapy (GET), are offered is critically flawed. The original PACE trial conducted by Kings College London, enrolled patients using the 1991 Oxford criteria (2), which allows inclusion of patients with affective disorders. This is in direct conflict with the internationally accepted 1994 CDC criteria which specifically excludes patients with affective disorders. This means that this study was performed using patients whose exact diagnoses are unknown. However, despite this flaw, global insurance companies do not pay sickness benefit to CFS/ME patients on the basis that effective treatments are available. Yet these interventions are not effective in CFS/ME.

CBT helps only a fraction of patients and GET has been shown to exacerbate the symptoms of patients with CFS/ME, which is logical as one of the cardinal symptoms of CFS/ME is post-exertional malaise, and so GET should not be used for CFS/ME patients. Furthermore, the Institute of Medicine in the USA has recently recommended that the name, CFS/ME, should be changed to Systemic Exercise Intolerance Disease (SEID) (3), which again reinforces the truth that exercise therapy should not be used for CFS/ME.

We know that CFS/ME can be triggered by a variety of infections, vaccines, exposure to organophosphate chemicals, and that the pathogenesis involves prolonged immune activation, which results in a flu-like illness that persists for months to years, and we all know how we feel during a flu-like illness, and there is no dispute that flu-like illnesses are caused by viruses. Several infection models have been presented which illustrate very well this progression in patients followed from the time of acute infection to development of CFS/ME. Parvovirus B19 triggers CFS/ME and this is predisposed to by carriage of HLA-DRB1*01, *04 and *07 alleles, is characterised by raised levels of circulating TNF-α and IFN-γ, and CFS/ME triggered by B19 has been cured with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) which is the specific treatment for B19 infection (4). Coxiella burneti also triggers CFS/ME and this is predisposed to by carriage of HLA-DRB1*11 and certain IFN-γ polymorphisms, is associated with chronic immune activation and Q fever-associated CFS/ME is treated successfully with tetracyclines which are the specific treatment for Q fever (5). Epstein-Barr virus triggers CFS/ME, and patients with EBV-triggered CFS/ME have been successfully treated with valacyclovir (6), which is a specific treatment for EBV infection. In all of these models, the infectious agent persists long-term with chronic genomic persistence and antigen presentation, which appears to be important. The diversity of infectious triggers and individual responses likely account for the heterogeneity observed in CFS/ME, and the existence of subtypes, which are recognised to be important for the optimal management of patients.

Maybe the big breakthrough in CFS/ME comes when we are free to apply our significant existing knowledge of CFS/ME towards the best investigation and treatment of INDIVIDUAL patients, whom we know have different pathogenetic processes which account for the existence of disease subtypes. Disease subtypes are a feature of multiple chronic inflammatory autoimmune diseases and are taken into account in their management, and therefore CFS/ME is typical of such a biological disease.


1. Lloyd AR, Meer JW. The long wait for a breakthrough in chronic fatigue syndrome. BMJ. 2015;350:h2087. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h2087.

2. Sharpe MC, Archard LC, Banatvala JE, Borysiewicz LK, Clare AW, David A, Edwards RH, Hawton KE, Lambert HP, Lane RJ, et al. A report--chronic fatigue syndrome: guidelines for research. J R Soc Med.1991 Feb;84(2):118-21.

3. Institute of Medicine. Beyond myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: redefining an illness. Washington, DC: National Academies Pr; 2015

4. Kerr JR, Cunniffe VS, Kelleher P, Bernstein RM, Bruce IN. Successful intravenous immunoglobulin therapy in 3 cases of parvovirus B19-associated chronic fatigue syndrome. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36(9):e100-6.

5. Sukocheva OA, Marmion BP, Storm PA, Lockhart M, Turra M, Graves S. Long-term persistence after acute Q fever of non-infective Coxiella burnetii cell components, including antigens. QJM. 2010;103(11):847-63.

6. Lerner AM, Beqaj SH, Deeter RG, Fitzgerald JT. Valacyclovir treatment in Epstein-Barr virus subset chronic fatigue syndrome: thirty-six months follow-up. In Vivo. 2007;21(5):707-13.



The long wait for a breakthrough in chronic fatigue syndrome

BMJ 2015; 350 doi: (Published 05 May 2015) Cite this as: BMJ 2015;350:h2087

Andrew R Lloyd, professor,
Jos W M van der Meer, professor

Author affiliations

Correspondence to: A R Lloyd

There hasn’t been much good news for patients with the prevalent but enigmatic disorder chronic fatigue syndrome (also referred to as myalgic encephalomyelitis). Over decades, research into the pathophysiology has failed to find convincing evidence of either persistent infection or immunological, endocrine, or metabolic change, and has rejected simplistic notions of depression (typical or atypical) or primary sleep disorder. Several notable “breakthroughs” have failed independent replication. The most noteworthy is the recent rise and fall of xenotropic murine leukaemia virus related virus (XMRV) as the cause, which was ultimately established as a murine DNA laboratory contaminant.1 Similarly, an exhaustive array of randomised controlled trials seeking curative outcomes from antiviral, immunological, hormonal, antidepressant, and many other therapies have failed to show any benefit over placebo, or failed the replication test.

Where then is the progress? Firstly, there is reproducible evidence implicating certain infections as a trigger—notably, infectious mononucleosis caused by Epstein-Barr virus, but also infection with other pathogens.2 Secondly, there is clear evidence that a substantial proportion of patients have a coexisting mood disorder, and sometimes a sleep-wake disorder, and that these conditions may exacerbate or perpetuate the illness.3 Thirdly, independent studies using both structural and functional imaging techniques have identified alterations in the brains of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome, implicating the central nervous system as the site of pathophysiology.4 Fourthly, there is solid evidence from multiple controlled studies that patients can gain control of symptoms and functional improvement through multidisciplinary interventions incorporating graded exercise therapy and cognitive behavioural therapy. These interventions have clearly positive outcomes in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.5 6 7 For instance, the recent Cochrane review of graded exercise therapy5 states that “patients with CFS [chronic fatigue syndrome] may generally benefit and feel less fatigued following exercise therapy, and no evidence suggests that exercise therapy may worsen outcomes. A positive effect with respect to sleep, physical function and self-perceived general health has been observed.”

How therapy works

Plausibly, graded exercise may reverse a perpetuator in the form of physical deconditioning.

However, there is little evidence for loss of aerobic fitness in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome, and limited evidence for improved physical performance after successful graded exercise therapy.8
Instead, graded exercise has been proposed to act by desensitising an exaggerated central nervous system response to the physiological signals associated with exercise.9 In psychological terms, patients may avoid activity because of the prolonged exacerbation of symptoms that follows minor physical activity; this leads to an understandable conclusion that exercise is harmful or to a conditioned fear of such activity.10 In this respect, the recent mediation analysis of the outcomes of the PACE trial is of interest.11 This trial compared standard medical care, cognitive behavioural therapy, graded exercise, and adaptive pacing therapy, concluding that both cognitive behavioural and graded exercise therapy were more effective at reducing fatigue and improving physical disability than standard care or adaptive pacing.12 The mediation analysis suggested that both cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise worked by reducing avoidance of activity. This is broadly consistent with findings by others,13 although whether the effect simply relates to the behavioural change itself (that is, exercise) or reconditioning of the associated fear of activity remains unclear. In addition, a substantial proportion of patients do not avoid activity but have repeated boom-bust cycles of overactivity when feeling relatively well (the boom) followed by reduced activity when symptoms are exacerbated thereafter (the bust). These data argue for a personalised approach to both therapies.

Cognitive behavioural therapy for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome is based on the premise that inappropriate cognitive attributions (thinking patterns) and behaviours help perpetuate symptoms. It seeks to alter these attributions and modify the associated behaviour, targeting activity patterns and sleep-wake behaviours. For example, although primary sleep disorders do not explain chronic fatigue syndrome,14 patients typically report that their night-time sleep is unrefreshing, and as fatigue is the dominant symptom, patients may consider that increased sleep will relieve symptoms and aid recovery. This idea commonly leads to frequent daytime naps and a delayed sleep-wake cycle.

Prospects for cure

There has been recent contention about the possibility of cure after graded exercise and cognitive behavioural therapy. An analysis of the PACE trial suggested cure was possible, but recovery outcomes were defined post hoc using population norms with generous thresholds (such as the population mean plus one standard deviation for self reported fatigue).15 This analysis was criticised because of the limited assessments and less than full restoration of health,16 leading to a recommendation that trials use more accurate outcomes (such as clinically relevant improvement) defined in advance and capturing a broad based return to health with assessments of fatigue and function. Trialists must also consider patients’ perceptions of their recovery.17 In this context, the increase in volume of grey matter associated with clinical response to cognitive behavioural therapy, as reported in one study, needs further investigation.18 Even with the unduly liberal designation of recovery, less than one quarter of patients “recovered” in the PACE trial.

What then of the long awaited breakthrough? As is often the case in medical research, progress is predominantly made in modest increments not breakthroughs. The evidence for graded exercise and cognitive behavioural therapy is already clear, so this treatment should be made widely available. The next increments are to find ways to increase the symptom relief and functional improvement achieved by these treatments and to identify factors predicting clinically relevant improvement and non-response in order to increase the proportion of patients who benefit.

Cite this as: BMJ 2015;350:h2087

Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on
declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare.

Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.


1. Van Kuppeveld FJ, van der Meer JW. XMRV and CFS—the sad end of a story. Lancet2012;379:e27-8.
2. Hickie I, Davenport T, Wakefield D, et al. Post-infective and chronic fatigue syndromes precipitated by viral and non-viral pathogens: prospective cohort study. BMJ2006;333:575.
3. Prins JB, van der Meer JW, Bleijenberg G. Chronic fatigue syndrome. Lancet2006;367:346-55.
4. Tanaka M, Ishii A, Watanabe Y. Neural mechanisms underlying chronic fatigue. Rev Neurosci2013;24:617-28.
5. Larun L, Brurberg KG, Odgaard-Jensen J, Price JR. Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2015;2:CD003200.
6. Reid S, Chalder T, Cleare A, Hotopf M, Wessely S. Chronic fatigue syndrome. BMJ 2000;320:292-6.
7. Knight SJ, Scheinberg A, Harvey AR. Interventions in pediatric chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: a systematic review. J Adolesc Health2013;53:154-65.
8. Moss-Morriss R, Sharon C, Tobin R, Baldi JC. A randomized controlled graded exercise trial for chronic fatigue syndrome: outcomes and mechanisms of change. J Health Psychol2005;10:245-59.
9. Nijs J, Meeus M, Van Oosterwijck J, et al. In the mind or the brain? Scientific evidence for central sensitisation in chronic fatigue syndrome. Eur J Clin Invest2011;42:203-11.
10. Clark LV, White PD. The role of deconditioning and therapeutic exercise in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). J Mental Health2005;14:237-52.
11. Chalder T, Goldsmith KA, White PD, Sharpe M, Pickles AR. Rehabilitative therapies for chronic fatigue syndrome: a secondary mediation analysis of the PACE trial. Lancet Psychiatry2015;2:141-52.
12. White PD, Goldsmith KA, Johnson AL, et al. Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial. Lancet2011;377:823-36.
13. Wiborg JF, Knoop H, Prins JB, Bleijenberg G. Does a decrease in avoidance behavior and focusing on fatigue mediate the effect of cognitive behavior therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome? J Psychosom Res2011;70:306-10.
14. Jackson ML, Bruck D. Sleep abnormalities in chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: a review. J Clin Sleep Med2012;8:719-28.
15. White PD, Goldsmith K, Johnson AL, Chalder T, Sharpe M. Recovery from chronic fatigue syndrome after treatments given in the PACE trial. Psychol Med2013;43:2227-35.
16. Kindlon T, Baldwin A. Response to: reports of recovery in chronic fatigue syndrome may present less than meets the eye. Evid Based Mental Health2014. doi:10.1136/eb-2014-101961.
17. Adamowicz JL, Caikauskaite I, Friedberg F. Defining recovery in chronic fatigue syndrome: a critical review. Qual Life Res2014;23:2407-16.
18. De Lange FP, Koers A, Kalkman JS, et al. Increase in prefrontal cortical volume following cognitive behavioural therapy in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Brain2008;131:2172-80.

Friday, May 8, 2015

Unite for Equal Funding at NIH!

By Robert and Courtney Miller

Two scientific reports in two months by experts independent of the ME/CFS field say the same thing: "The committee stresses that more research is urgently needed." To change our disease, we must work together to push the National Institutes of Health to increase funding for research. Join us by emailing the Secretary of Health and Director of NIH for equal funding for ME/CFS research!

The Institute of Medicine, an arm of the widely-respected National Academy of Sciences, and National Institute of Health's own Pathways to Prevention Program have issued urgent calls to federal health agencies and the NIH to conduct more medical research into the causes and treatments for ME/CFS, also known as Systemic Exertion Intolerance Disease.
"Remarkably little research funding has been made available to study the cause of ME/CFS, mechanisms associated with the development and progression of the disease, or effective treatment, especially given the number of people affected." Institute of Medicine
"Unfortunately, ME/CFS is an area where the research and medical community has frustrated its constituents, by failing to assess and treat the disease and by allowing patients to be stigmatized....Over the last 20 years, minimal progress has been made to improve the state of the science for patients with ME/CFS.... Innovative biomedical research is urgently needed to identify risk and therapeutic targets, and for translation efforts." NIH Pathways to Prevention Report

The power of the P2P report and the IOM report is in the common conclusions that the need for evidence-based research is urgent and that ME/CFS is a complex, serious physiological disease. And the P2P and IOM recommendations are more powerful because they came from independent scientists.

Best Opportunity in Decades to UNITE for Equal Funding!

We have powerful ammunition from prestigious institutions to press for equal research funding from the NIH. The need isn't new, but having demands from well-respected institutions outside of our illness is.

Please take positive action to raise the pressure for #EqualFunding for ME/CFS. We can make this opportunity bigger by organizing our community to speak with one voice on the need for more research funding.


Help us reach a goal of 1,000 emails to Secretary of Health Burwell and NIH Director Collins!

Copy and paste the email addresses below into the “To” section of your email. Then copy and paste the template email text. Feel free to add your own personal story. Family members or supporters may have to change a few phrases, since we drafted the letter from the perspective of patients.

We ask you to cc the White House and Courtney, so that we can know how many emails are sent.

Thank you!!

Robert and Courtney Miller



Email addresses:



Subject Line: Equal Funding for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) Research

Dear Secretary Burwell and Dr. Collins:

I am disabled with ME/CFS, and I am writing to ask you to raise research funding for my disease to a level of $100 million annually, equal to illnesses like Multiple Sclerosis and Systemic Lupus.

I want to highlight two scientific reports commissioned by HHS that were released in the last two months by independent experts. They say the same thing: "The committee stresses that more research is urgently needed."

The Institute of Medicine, an arm of the widely respected National Academy of Sciences, and National Institutes of Health's own Pathways to Prevention Program have issued urgent calls to federal health agencies and the NIH to conduct more medical research into the causes of and treatments for ME/CFS.

"Remarkably little research funding has been made available to study the cause of ME/CFS, mechanisms associated with the development and progression of the disease, or effective treatment, especially given the number of people affected." Institute of Medicine

"Unfortunately, ME/CFS is an area where the research and medical community has frustrated its constituents, by failing to assess and treat the disease and by allowing patients to be stigmatized....Over the last 20 years, minimal progress has been made to improve the state of the science for patients with ME/CFS.... Innovative biomedical research is urgently needed to identify risk and therapeutic targets, and for translation efforts." NIH Pathways to Prevention Report

NIH currently funds only $5 million annually for CFS research, despite the fact that 1-2.5 million Americans suffer with the disease. That is not enough funding to spur breakthrough science, much less FDA-approved treatments. By contrast, illnesses such as Multiple Sclerosis and Systemic Lupus receive more than $100 million annually in NIH research funding, although fewer patients are ill. Those diseases now boast diagnostic tests and many FDA-approved treatments because of the high quality research NIH has funded in those fields. That is what patients like me so desperately need, and I believe that is what it takes to fulfill President Obama’s 2012 commitment to elevate CFS at the NIH.

I have no treatments and I am very ill. The FDA has rejected the only medication that has undergone clinical trials. Please help me by funding medical research into ME/CFS equally and urgently, so I can get well and return to work and live my life.

Patient Name:

Years Ill:


Friday, May 1, 2015

May 12 - International ME/CFS, Lyme, and FM Awareness Day Events

This post first appeared on ProHealth.

International ME/CFS Awareness Day was originated by Tom Hennessy, an ME patient and staunch advocate who testified at numerous national and international ME/CFS conferences and meetings.

Tom chose May 12th as ME/CFS Awareness Day to commemorate the birth of the famous nurse, Florence Nightingale, who suffered from an ME/CFS-like illness. May 12 is also International Nurses Day.

Over the years May 12 has been expanded to include other neuro-immune illnesses that share many of the features of ME/CFS. At present May 12 includes Fibromyalgia (FM), Lyme disease, and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS). All of these illnesses employ May 12 as an opportunity to raise public awareness, to contact representatives for more research, and to promote fund-raising activities.

Although it is not formally recognized in the US, International ME/CFS and FM Awareness Day is observed worldwide.

Simple things you can do:

  • Wear a blue ribbon for ME/CFS, a purple ribbon for FM, or a green ribbon for Lyme disease and MCS.
  • Tweet on May 12. Add #may12 to your tweet.
  • If you have a blog or a Facebook page, post something. It can be as simple as an awareness image.
  • If you have some spare cash, donate to research efforts. Big Sleep in the UK is raising money for research to find a cure.


Here are some of the activities scheduled for the week of May 12-18, 2015. (Some events are scheduled for the days prior.)

You can see a full list of events (worldwide) HERE.

You can view an updated roster of events HERE.


Light Up the Night Challenge. “The challenge is to get as many buildings as possible in your country to light up with one of the 3 colours used on May 12th – blue (ME/CFS), purple (FM) or green (Lyme and MCS). We want public buildings/places like City Halls, Niagara Falls and we want individual homes lit up too!” To see all the places that are lighting up May 12th go HERE.

#May12BlogBomb. May 12th is Awareness Day for ME, Fibromyalgia, Lyme Disease, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Every year bloggers use this opportunity to express their views and to raise the profile of these much misunderstood and often maligned conditions. Blog bomb information is HERE.

Google – Create a Doodle. Every year the doodlers ask Google to create a doodle. They’ll ask until Google caves in and does it. Please go to the Facebook page

FIBRO FLARE: “Aunty Acid has agreed to promote International Fibromyalgia Awareness Day on May the 12th!

For anyone who may not be aware of Auntie Acid, visit her page

Please also notice it has 7.1 million likes worldwide.

This is a huge victory for Fibro awareness as it reaches so many people.

They have also been a huge supporter of Autism awareness!

We at the Fibro Team are incredibly excited about this! Thank you Auntie Acid!”


The National FM and Chronic Pain Association lists events in 20 states across the US. Click HERE for a complete list. (Each state has a drop-down menu.)

Haines City, Florida has proclaimed May 12th Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Awareness Day.

Newark, NJ mayor Ras Baraka has proclaimed May 12 “Fibromyalgia Awareness Day.”

New York City. The Caterpillar Walk program is a fundraising campaign designed to raise awareness and support for Fibromyalgia and Chronic Pain. 100% of proceeds raised will support education, advocacy and research efforts. While many walks have taken place across the country to support our work, this is the 1st annual walk in NYC. Our goal is to help bring the Fibromyalgia and Chronic Pain community together. The NYC Caterpillar Walk will take place on Saturday May 9th. Registration: 9:00 am. Where: Hudson River Park (on the river by 23rd Street & West Side Highway). Welcome, Announcements & Awards: 9:45 am. Walk Start: 10:00 am followed by finish line photos, entertainment and an afterparty. Every Walker will receive a T-Shirt and Medal. Due to the generous support of Branded in Brooklyn we can waive the registration for up to 50 walkers. You can find them on facebook or visit their crowd funding page to register HERE.

Danbury, CT. Lyme Conference and Health Fair. Tuesday, May 12, 2015 1:00 pm - 9:30 pm. Location:Western CT State University, West Side Campus Student Center, Danbury, CT. Lyme disease specialist and author Dr. Richard Horowitz is the keynote speaker for our ninth annual Lyme disease patient conference entitled " Lyme Disease: Why Can't We Get Better? From Symptoms to Solutions" This event is free. No registration required.

Ridgefield, CT. 9th Annual Lyme Connection Patient Seminar and Health Fair at WestConn on Tuesday, May 12, 2015. “Lyme Disease: Why Can't We Get Better? From Symptoms to Solutions.” Free and open to the public, the event includes an afternoon integrative medicine workshop from 1 to 4 p.m. with Dr. William Lee Cowden and Eva Sapi, PhD; a Lyme-focused health fair beginning at 6 p.m. and an evening presentation spotlighting the work of Lyme-treating physician and bestselling author Dr. Richard Horowitz at 7 p.m. Lyme Disease Association president Pat Smith will receive the first “Courage in Advocacy Award." The program concludes at 9:30 with questions and answers.


The Do Something for ME project is designed to raise awareness in the general community about ME/CFS and to raise funds to support Emerge Australia to continue its work advocating for, educating about and providing information on the condition.


Nanaima, BC has proclaimed May 12th Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Awareness Day.

Send an email to your MP. A template can be found here.

Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island City Hall will be lit with all three colors on May 12th.

ME/FM Society of BC. In collaboration with the National ME/FM Action Network and the BC Complex Chronic Diseases Program ME/FM Society of BC will present talks by Dr. Daniel Peterson and Staci Stevens. When: Sunday May 24th, 2015 1:00 pm - 5:00 pm. Doors Open 12:30 pm. Where: Paetzold Lecture Theatre, Jim Pattison Pavillion, Vancouver General Hospital, 799 West 12th Ave, Vancouver. Entry for Members: $10 / Non-Members: $20. Memberships ($25) are available at the door. Space is limited, so please RSVP: 604-878-7707/1-888-353-6322. Please leave a message with your name, phone number and # of tickets.

Langevan Bridge in Calgary, Alberta will light up on May 12th. along with many other places, buildings and spots like the Niagara Falls (will light up blue on May 12th at 10pm It can be watched on either of these 2 webcams HERE or HERE) and the city halls of Mississauga, Ontario; Brampton, Ontario; Ottawa, Ontario; Halifax, Nova Scotia and Toronto, Ontario. The Montreal Olympic Stadium in Quebec will be lit with all colours and the Ontario’s CN Tower in Toronto will be lit with all 3 colours (blue for ME, green for Lyme and purple for fibromyalgia).

Vancouver. Opera Mariposa is bringing audiences a night of musical theatre showstoppers in support of chronic neuro-immune disease awareness. On Saturday, May 16th, sopranos Jacqueline Ko and Robin Eder-Warren, baritenor Kyle Preston Oliver and pianist Chris Feige will present 'Tour de Force,' a Broadway benefit show at Marpole United Church. The performance will honour the International Awareness Week for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Fibromyalgia (ME/CFS & FM), and a portion of every ticket sale will go to the National ME/FM Action Network. Tickets start at $15 and are available at or from Brown Paper Tickets at 1-800-838-3006.


Join Germany’s May 12 Thunderclap.


ME/cvs Vereniging is making an appeal to all readers of its facebook and site. Which song or poem or book or film helps you somewhat in hard times? You may explain in a few words why, but it’s not obligated. Sending the link to it suffices. If you are on twitter, please send them a DM, but you can also respond by email: On May 12 they will publish all tweets using ?#‎12MEi and your first name. They do hope a lot of people will join them again so that they will create a lot of attention for ME!


Newlands Cross. On May 12, at Bewleys’ Hotel, Newlands Cross from 10 AM-12PM, and 1PM-2PM at Leinster House, there will be coffee with guest speakers.

The Irish ME/CFS Association is pleased to announce the following two talks as part of its ME Awareness Month activities in May by Dr. Abhijit Chaudhuri from the UK. The talks will include questions-and-answers sessions. Admission is E5, on the door, to help towards the costs of organising these two meetings, and Dr. Chaudhuri's trip.
  • Saturday, May 30: 2:45 pm, Connacht Hotel (formerly Carlton Hotel), Dublin Road, Renmore, Galway City. Hotel tel: 091 381 200. Free parking.
  • Sunday, May 31: 11 am, Carlton Hotel Dublin Airport, Old Airport Road,Cloghran (Santry), Dublin Airport, Co. Dublin. Hotel tel: (01) 8667500. E-mail: . Free parking.
Celbridge Co Kildare. From Trisha in Ireland: For International awareness Day May 12th I am having a Tea/Coffee Morning From 9.30 to 12.30 at my home in Celbridge Co Kildare with the kind help of Fionnuala Kelly Monahan. It will be a pop in at a time that suits you feel free bring a cake or buns there will be a cover charge of €5 all money will go directly awareness fund. Everyone will be asked to wear something purple as we will be taking lots of photos.You will be given a Raffle ticket on arrival as my son’s girlfriend Rebecca has kindly Donated a Pandora Jewellery Box as prize to be raffled at 12.30. Please bring a friend neighbour your mum daughter all will be so welcome let's make it the best we can. I will be adding extra boxes of tea and coffee to my shop over next few weeks to make sure everything on the day donated goes to our cause as every cent will make a difference. Why don't you try do the same in your area?


AISF ONLUS (the Italian Association for Fibro and CFS) is organizing an event on the 10th of May in Verona.


Thunderclap from Japan


In Sweden, wear something blue on May 12.

RME's different Facebook pages and groups will be observing 12th May by using a Remember ME header from the 10th of May to the 13th. For more information click HERE.


Walk for ME UK is arranging an international Walk for ME. The idea behind Walk for ME is that friends and family of an ME sufferer do a sponsored walk, run or swim on their behalf, hence the name Walk for ME or Walk for me. Walk for ME has had walkers, runners and swimmers across England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, the Isle of Man as well as in Spain, New Zealand and both coasts of America and in total has raised over £28,000 including gift aid. Wherever you are, we hope you'll become involved this year! It is hoped that as many friends and loved ones as possible will do a sponsored walk or other sponsored event during ME Awareness week which runs from 11th May to 17th May 2015. See event details HERE.

Afternoon Tea: An afternoon tea will be held in the Tyme Trust's home county of Essex. The event takes place in ME Awareness Week, in the Summer Parlour at Ingatestone Hall, on Monday 11th May, from 2.30-4.30pm. Ingatestone Hall is the ancestral home of Lord Petre, Lord Lieutenant of Essex, who will be addressing our guests. We will be presenting our new ME Awareness publication. You can find out all about the Hall at If you would like to attend, please email us as soon as possible on the Contact Us form at There will be an opportunity to meet our Trustees and volunteers.

Big Sleep for ME: Raising funds for a cure.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...