I may
be wrong, but I don’t think that NIH is allowed to advocate
for particular diseases. I know that CDC cannot. This is
because they are a part of the executive branch of
government, under the President.
hmm.
[note: the following is off the cuff. for health reasons i
don'thave it in me at this time to complete the more
polished blog post on this i haev in my backlog. also i am
not a lawyer.]
did nih tell you this too? i believe nih's claim is misleading.
they told me approximately the same in response to my open
letter to francis collins.
however, they never provided a citation for the rule. they
never gave any indication of where or when it came from.
they also never said what specifically it applied to.
they never said whether they were denying on a technicality.
if so, then the request could be modified? they paraphrased
it so you can't search for this phantom rule.
yet they implied, basically outright stated (because it was
a response) that it applied to the case in question. which
i do not think it does.
imagine nobody knew about ebola and it swept through the
eastern seaboard, but the media focused on justin bieber.
is the executive branch TRULY PROHIBITED from saying to
congress "there's this virus, and it's kind of a problem"?
so i had to talk to a lawyer and fish around on their ethics
website to find out what they were talking about.
I asked the lawyer whether agency heads can tell Congress
what things need scientific research.
I was told that Congress's power to investigate is
coextensive with its power to legislate. This apparently
means yes, Francis can tell Congress so. fwiw.
on the question of the nih rules, it turns out, according to
nih's next letter, that i guessed correctly, and the rules
are described here:
[
https://ethics.od.nih.gov/topics/lobbying.htm]
according to that email, "That site interprets the
Anti-Lobbying Act, 18 U.S.C. §1913, to help NIH/HHS
employees understand the law and which activities they are
allowed to engage in."
please check it out for yourself.
to me, it seems intended for things like sending out
pamphlets telling folk to contact their congressmen. WE ARE
NOT ASKING FOR THIS KIND OF THING.
instead, our case is more like the ebola thing. it's part
of nih's job to inform congress. that is why it gives
regular testimony.
so if there is a policy that says "don't tell congress
anything about m.e." implicitly or explicitly, written or
unwritten, then we are asking for that policy to change.
and it seems that this does not violate anti-lobbying rules. and it
shouldn't require an act of congress to change that policy.
nih should do its job.
(substitute "position" for "policy", if you want to use
nih's language.)
similarly for a lack of policy. the lobbying and propaganda
rule does not prevent them from deciding to tell congress at
appropriate times about a serious disease. [perhaps this includes regular testimony.]
to the contrary, the rule says a bunch of things like
“Direct executive branch communications to a federal, state,
or local legislative body through proper official channels
are permitted.”
it even says "While communicating with the public,
Department officials may say, ‘We need your support on this
matter..." (my quoting might be off as i am going from
nih's second letter.)
obviously department officials can't say stuff like contact your
congressmen.
WELL DUH. WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR THAT. it is misleading of the nih if they are pretending that we are.
at this point i think nih leadership is having a lot of fun
giving us the runaround instead of doing their job.
what have you heard about cdc in this context?
the cdc/phs went around congress lobbying for the tuskegee
experiment to continue. although that was a while back, of
course, so possibly before the anti-lobbying act.
wish i could post my followup.
tldr: i would not trust the nih leadership on this at all.