So there was a thread I posted on in 'the other forum' about a year ago about a similar article looking at NIH data and which drew a lot of incorrect conclusions. It was one of the things that stopped me lurking there because, as a former government accountant, it was something I could contribute on. All I would say is that one should be very careful in drawing conclusions about ME/CFS funding in particular as some of the issues identified are not specific to ME/CFS; they are just down to way NIH categorises its data for any condition. NIH's data presentation is bloody awful. Overall we're showing over an 80% YoY increase and I would expect this to increase further in 2018-2019 (you should ignore the $14m shown for FY19 as that will almost certainly increase when the final outturn is known). Overall I don't think this analysis is as much of an 'ah hah!' moment as maybe it is portrayed - even if you take the analysis as given (and I think I'd quibble over the exclusion of Dr Light's research), a difference of <7% is pretty good by government accounting standards.
