Lou Gehrig's Disease - Motor Neuron Disease - Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Thought it had been cured by now? Still no known cause. Still no cure. Still quickly fatal. Still outrageous.

Sunday, December 5, 2021

The Landscape Feels Littered

During the past week I have worked on finding the status of multiple ALS research projects.  You know, the ones that were hot topics ten or five or even just three years ago.  What ever happened to them?  What is going on with them today?

I find the grant information.  Then I find scant published results.  

The most troubling part is that it feels like projects morph from their original designs into something very different.  Maybe that drift is fine.  Maybe it's like converting an old shoe factory into a factory making cell phone cases.  But how do we know what is really going on in there?

How are we supposed to make sense of the entire landscape?  What happens to the project
infrastructures?  Are the lights even on in Building 7 in this figurative factory park?  

It feels akin to an industrial complex that was built helter-skelter.  New buildings are built to manufacture new things, but rather than having a cohesive architecture, we have dozens of individual plants with their own styles.  We have leaders who know how to do their work best in their own buildings.

Modern factories use colocation to leverage efforts among small manufacturers to minimize duplication of efforts  ALS researchers work in their own expensive silos.  And their promises of collaboration involve moving data back and forth, much like old factories used to move materials through arcane chutes and rail cars.

What is wrong with this picture?

So much is wrong.

And it is paid for by generous donors and taxpayers.  The litter of past research projects is as real as the litter of old factory buildings, and it is every bit as expensive.

Thursday, October 21, 2021

October 20, 2021 -- Remember The Date

On Wednesday, October 20, a group of people with ALS and caregivers who dub themselves "ALS Problem Solvers" met with nine top NIH NINDS leaders to discuss "Five Things That Will Change Everything."

It wasn't just another meeting.

This was a long time coming, and each of the ALS Problem Solvers knew that the stakes were big.

Over a year ago, Gregg Gonsalves had been on a panel at the NYU conference on pre-approval access to therapies.  As I often do, I asked a question of the panel about how ALS can benefit from such things that are so common for other diseases. Expanded Access Programs are like unicorns in ALS. At the break, I heard a voice behind me as I sought a cup of tea in the foyer, "I want to help."  It was Gregg.  And he has since been generous with his help.

Shortly after that conference, a group of people with ALS and a few caregivers started brainstorming on how we can move ALS research out of its ruts. It seems like other diseases move ahead with concepts and tools that are unused for ALS.  We started meeting on alternating Saturdays with Gregg.  We did a lot of homework.  We did everything good workgroups do, including celebrating some ideas and arguing about others, but we moved forward.

We homed in on the fact that the NIH has implemented basic, successful solutions such as a natural history study for other diseases that are not done for ALS.  Why not ALS?  Why not us?  

For decades ALS has been like the orphan disease that has truly been orphaned by some basic aspects of scientific research.  We were determined to change that, and Gregg encouraged us to make our case directly to top leaders of NIH NINDS.  Directly.  Make the case.  We were on it.  We researched.  We wrote.  We rewrote. Assert nothing without citation. We criticized our own work. We researched more.  We knew we needed to be on solid scientific and academic ground. We wrote the document, "Five Things That Will Change Everything," that described the problems and the solution -- Five cogs that working together would change everything in ALS research.
  • A Natural History Study
  • A Broad Network of Clinical Trials
  • A Framework for Broader Insights - A Parallel Track
  • NIH Leadership
  • Our Relationship

On September 25 our document was presented to Dr. Walter Koroshetz, the head of NINDS, along with a request for a meeting with the ALS Problem Solvers.  He accepted almost immediately and October 20 was the date.

The preparations were intense. Six people with ALS and four caregivers would speak. These words would be short and pithy.  They would reinforce the cogs with life experiences that showed the need. We practiced, we refined the message, we practiced more.  We rehearsed challenges and questions that NINDS might pose.  We were prepared.

We also got the help of others.  Two top ALS neurologists joined us.  Two professionally accomplished friends of one ALS Problem Solver pitched in and made significant contributions to our presentation.  We had a supportive statement from Senator Murkowski who knows NINDS leaders well.  

Along the way we had a few disagreements and a lot of fun. We were prepared.

The meeting was to start at 5 o'clock yesterday.  The ALS Problem Solvers were online fifteen minutes early, all clad in our blue t-shirts with the five cogs.  We were prepared.  At the stroke of five, the waiting room started to fill with NINDS names we knew and a lot of names we didn't know.  It was time to roll.  

Dr. Koroshetz introduced the eight others from NINDS who were there.  He brought the whole a-team.  That was good.  We got some positive feedback on the document.  They had read it.  The reaction that it was a good mix of science and human experience was encouraging.  And the t-shirts even got their attention.

ALS Problem Solver Danielle started the presentation and what we had practiced so many times was 
finally being said to NINDS staff.  They were engaged. Gwen hit it out of the park with her problem statement bolstered with life experiences. Tim spoke to the natural history study as he does so well.  Becky and Glen hit the marks on the need a broad clinical trial network. Sandy's comments on a parallel track were spot on.  It was my turn to deliver the visual on the first three cogs working together. I remembered to unmute. Phew. Caregiver Bob hit the importance of NIH NINDS leadership to make all ALS research more effective, then Phil brought it home with compelling words on teamwork and our direct relationship with NINDS.  The two top ALS neurologists offered supportive comments. The action items were up next.  We were asking for some things that were easier than others, but we knew we had to be specific.  

Now it was NINDS turn to tell us what they thought of our proposal.

We knew that there would likely be concerns just because of government process and bureaucracy, and there were.  We heard that NINDS has a sweet spot with ALS in basic and pre-clinical research.  Yes, and we are grateful for all their work in those areas.  They emphasized that the lack of understanding of ALS makes clinical research risky and prone to failure.  Yes, we understand that.  

We had about 15 minutes left in our one-hour meeting, and I was starting to worry that we were not going to get any specific next steps out of this, but something started to happen.

The concerns about the lack of understanding about ALS that makes clinical research so risky really made the case for a natural history study.  NINDS shared that there was a natural history study with 800 people. I was puzzled.  Then in the chat, we got the thought from one of the neurologists that perhaps CReATe could be expanded.  Ah, CReATe -- I knew that as a study strictly for familial ALS.  Great. People are thinking.  Perhaps we already have an NIH asset that can be leveraged as a large and broad ALS natural history study for everyone with ALS.  Now we're thinking.

NINDS offered us contact points from their meeting participants for each aspect of change we are requesting.

And we have an opportunity to participate in an upcoming strategic planning process.  That will take more time than we want, but we will be there and direct voices and brains of people with ALS will influence those conversations.

And our foot is in the door in a very good way -- NINDS working directly with these people with ALS and caregivers.  ALS Problem Solvers proved that people with ALS belong and can contribute to the science.  This is a new model for co-producing with NIH, and it could not come at a better time.

And as Gregg reminded us last night, the hard work is just starting.

We're ready.

We're grateful.

October 20. Remember the date. It was an important day.


Tuesday, September 14, 2021

Dear Chair DeLauro and Ranking Member Granger

Dear Chair DeLauro and Ranking Member Granger,  

I write you as a concerned advocate for those with ALS (we lost Mom to ALS in 1997), a person who believes in the value of epidemiological data in science, and a taxpayer.

ATSDR has administered a CDC ALS Registry since we worked hard to have the ALS Registry Act  passed into law in 2008. It has disappointed in many respects -- undercounting cases yet publishing reports as if counts were complete, terribly late reporting of data (we just saw 2016 data for the first time), falling into the distracting temptations of scope creep, and entangling itself in financial relationships that prevent objective and candid oversight.

You wisely inserted language into the recent appropriations bill --

Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Registry.—The Committee directs CDC to present a plan to the Committee within 90 days of enactment of this Act to enhance the oversight and advisory process for the National ALS Registry to increase transparency and better reflect the needs of the ALS community. This plan should consider ways to translate Registry findings to human application that can lower the risks and disease burden of ALS, make disease reporting more representative, more accurate, and more inclusive, and include a range of estimates rather than point estimates of ALS prevalence. Equally important are updates to the survey process to ensure the data they collect are impactful and respectful of participant burden. Finally, the plan should ensure that the ALS community can view as much Registry information as possible without compromising the privacy of participants.

Two weeks ago the CDC ATSDR Registry folks held an annual meeting. It has never been a true oversight meeting.  Two weeks ago it was more of a closed, clubby celebration of questionable achievements (from what little I was able to see).  The public could only watch part of the first day.  It takes an invitation to be a full, two-day participant with the ability to unmute and ask questions and make comments.  We're not sure what it takes to get an invitation. A man with ALS, Stephen Finger, PhD, who has participated for several years and asks good questions was not invited back this year.  He seems to have outlived his welcome.  Good for him, but his exclusion was revealing.  

ATSDR refers to its many "partners" at the meeting.  Those are largely paid contractors, including the ALS Association (ALSA), the Muscular Dystrophy Association, and Les Turner ALS Foundation who together get around $1,000,000 per year in no-bid contracts for some vague "education and outreach."  ALSA is also the lead advocacy organization that lobbies you for the $10,000,000 annual budget for the project.

Add to that a number of grant recipients and potential grant recipients at the meeting, and we have a pretty good recipe for a love-fest rather than any kind of objective oversight.

Please insist that they bring to you an oversight plan that is composed of third parties with knowledge of epidemiology and payer data and information systems who have no financial ties to this project.

Thank you very much.

Saturday, August 28, 2021

The Ketchup Was Always Worth the Wait

Anticipation.  Those were the great Heinz ketchup ads of the 20th Century.  The glass bottle with the
narrow neck, the thick, quality ketchup, always worth the frustrating wait while we hummed along with Carly Simon.

We've had a lot of anticipation and waiting since we worked hard to have the ALS Registry Act passed in 2008.  Has it been worth the wait?

We're close to the annual CDC ALS Registry meeting on August 31 and September 1, 2021.  It's not an oversight meeting.  The description is more of a celebration -- "Update stakeholders on the progress and achievements of the National ALS Registry."   Please register and tune in if you are able.  You've paid well over $100 million for this Registry.  Has the ketchup been worth the substantial waits?

The primary purpose of the Registry as written into the law is "to better describe the incidence and prevalence of ALS in the United States."  Everything else is mustard or relish.

Back in the 20th Century we were promised a passive data mining technique that would find 85% of ALS cases via this data mining, and then the other 15% could be added by a patient self-enrollment portal.   We would get annual reports after a time lag necessitated by the wait for public payer files.  That was the promise.

The waiting and the ketchup have been particularly troublesome in the last three years. 

The Waits

We have not received any semblance of annual reporting.  The cavalier attitude about due dates really puts the value of the output into question.  The 2016 data were just published this week.

Heinz knew when to completely redesign that ketchup bottle.  We now use 21st Century bottles that eliminate the wait.  Perhaps it's time for a significant 21st Century bottle change for the Registry. 

The Ketchup

The hit-and-miss prevalence reports have questionable value.  The undercount is significant.  The demographics continue to be published.  It is not clear that these are merely the people that the Registry finds, and there may be just as many people with ALS out there whom they missed.  Two top NIH officials at a recent Congressional said that according to the CDC there are 16,583 people with ALS in the United States.  We repeatedly see the CDC number as being the number.  First do no harm.  These prevalence reports are doing harm by misleading the public about the number of people living with ALS.

A recent study by Miller et al used some different data sources to estimate prevalence that was starkly different from the CDC's.  And the authors were able to be much more timely than the CDC.  

If the ketchup coming out of the bottle isn't what the consumer expects, Heinz knows to change the recipe.

The Recipe

The "FAQ" document that came with this week's publication of the 2016 prevalence report causes major concerns about the recipe.

They are cooking in excuses for even more delays.  That's not acceptable, especially with the trail of inconsistent excuses we've had in the past.

They are cooking in excuses for a flawed design.  They knew full well that ALS was not reportable or notifiable back when they made promises and designed the algorithm for passive data mining and the patient portal.  

They suggest buying data from more sources and adding them to the recipe.  Whoa!  It's time to step back and do some test recipes first.  Figure out what gaps new data sources can or cannot fill.  Design before you start buying ingredients.  We've been asking for years for their "partner"/contractors to supply counts on the numbers of unique people with ALS they served in the past year along with counts of how many of those were new.  Every year this has been completely ignored.  Finally, the CDC seems curious.  Look at the numbers first, please, before you enter into more entangling contractual relationships that may not actually be the best solution for the completeness problem!  They've never been in a rush before.  Why rush into implementation without a smart analysis?  Perhaps there are even some prepared products that could replace some of the old infrastructure.

They also are suggesting that the capture/recapture approach will be the magic spice to make the ketchup better.  That's not necessarily true.  A 2013 report challenges the magic for this project if you read it carefully. 

The Other Condiments

The ketchup hasn't been good and certainly hasn't been worth the waits.  

When insights into incidence and prevalence are questioned, the project fathers often change the focus to all of the other things that a generously funded government project has done.  The mustard and relish become more important when the ketchup isn't good.  How do they measure success of every add-on?  Number of emails sent does not make a great trial notification system.  Number of biospecimens collected does not make a great Biorepository unless we have tissue and data representative of the diverse population of people with ALS.  

It's quite possible that the external research grants are the most valuable contribution that this project makes; however, the grant making process is opaque to the public and we can't even find out how much of the $10,000,000 that this project costs taxpayers is used by these grants.

Nobody at the annual meetings seems curious about the expenditure in general, let alone on functions like trial notification or on the Biorepository or the CME or the prevalence reporting.  

The Ketchup Consumer

Some consumers have questions that never seem be asked at the annual meeting.  We pay $10,000,000 per year even if the ketchup isn't delivered and we pay regardless of the quality that finally comes out of the bottle.  We should be asking questions.

1. How many unique people with ALSA, MDA, LTALS serve last year?  How many of those were new cases?

2. CDC has given ALS, MDA, LTALS annual contracts that total around $1,000,000 (10% of the annual appropriation) for "education and outreach."  How does the CDC come up with those contract amounts?  How does CDC measure those contractors and deliverables?  What is the cost/benefit evaluation? 

3. Does ATSDR have any idea how much the Biorepository costs every year?  The trial notification? The grants?  How do they measure the cost versus benefit?

4. Is ATSDR not concerned about the incomplete prevalence count that has been taken out of context in public media?  People, even top NIH professionals, have quoted the 16K number as the number of people in the US with ALS.  Is this not a concern?

5. The Miller paper underwritten by MT Pharma found half of its people with ALS in private payer files.  That's pretty much the smoking gun that the surveillance of public payer files will not be successful. How did that  paper's authors get data in a much more timely manner than ATSDR? They reported data through 2017 in June of this year.

6. Earlier this year ATSDR received a suggestion to just publish tables of data in a regular annual process so that the report and publication process aren't delaying things.  Again, how about simplifying the process and just providing data tables in a regular and more timely manner? 

7. How many people are represented by the Biorepository?  How many of them are living?  What are the demographics of people represented?

8. How often are Registry data matched with the death index data?  There are reports that deceased people continue to get clinical trial notifications.  That is painful and does not speak well to the matching capabilities of this rudimentary emailer.

9. A 2017 report raised concerns about disparities, equity, and inclusion in Registry data.  What tangible actions have been taken to address and measure these?

10. ALS has a cruel way of imposing term limits on the invited people with ALS who are allowed to speak at your annual meeting.  We have lost Ted Harada, Rob Tison, and Becky Kidd among others, all experienced people who thoughtfully prepared and spoke their minds at your meeting before they died from ALS.  Your decision to change the rules in 2021 so that Stephen Finger could no longer participate  smacks of wanting to eliminate a thoughtful, prepared person with ALS who spoke his mind and perhaps outlived his welcome.  This is not a question.

Tuesday, July 27, 2021

We'll Have What They're Having

My message for the House Energy Committee Health Subcommittee Hearing coming up on Thursday, July 29, 2021.


Everyone reading this letter already knows the urgency that ALS demands.


ALS has become an orphaned orphan disease.  That’s the worst.  


Ever since we lost Mom to ALS in 1997 I’ve written letters and testified to the FDA and written more letters and visited legislators.  We’re still an orphaned orphan disease.  




We want the same FDA that oncology has.  They have Project Facilitate to help with Expanded Access.  We don’t.  Why not?  


You can find 106 enrolling interventional trials for ALS at  How many Expanded Access Programs are there?  Two.  And one of them is highly restricted.  Just two.


Something is not right here.  Other diseases have this Expanded Access path that also allows rigorous science to proceed while dying people can get access to therapies.  They even have an 800 number to help.  We in the world of ALS seem to get bogged down in opaque processes that move at the speed of concrete.  




We want the same NIH that other diseases have, too.


Sure, we appreciate the grants that the NIH makes toward a patchwork of ALS research.  But what about the expertise of the NIH that can make trials smarter and more accessible?  What about the knowledge of the NIH on how to do biorepositories better and more cost effectively than anyone else?  We need the NIH to become engaged with ALS for more than passing out grant money.  Please, we need the NIH that is known for the science that goes on at its headquarters for so many other diseases.



Is there any question as to why those dealing with ALS and their families feel that they have been orphaned?  We need for our federal agencies simply to do for ALS what they have done for other diseases.


That’s all.


Thank you.

Friday, April 16, 2021

Were They Just Doodling?

 For over a decade I and others (many of whom have died from ALS) have gone to FDA meetings to give  thoughts on the need for change for ALS.  There have been Patient Focused Drug Development meetings.  There has been an all-day FDA hearing on ALS.  There have been public hearings on innovative trial designs.  There was an all-day ALSA workshop  so that the FDA could hear our thoughts.  I was not a paid invitee.  This was a volunteer effort that I and others thought was important and would make a difference.  

For over 10 years we have worked with pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies that have asked for volunteer patient and caregiver voices.  I have spent countless hours in meetings that many of us  thought would make a difference.

Over the same decade, we have talked to ALS researchers about how we can improve clinical research from the patients' and caregivers' perspectives.  Again, we thought we could add a valuable perspective and make a difference.

I and others spend long hours doing our homework so that we can be informed contributors.  We learn regulatory and industry perspectives that need to be considered.  We know that there were once good reasons for rules that we would like to see changed.  We have been driven to make Expanded Access and faster determination of scientific truth realities.

Today I think we've been had.  Was anyone even listening?  While we spoke, were they just doodling in those meetings, humoring us but not really planning to change a thing? 

Events of the past few weeks have shown that absolutely nothing has changed.

We've been had.

Wednesday, April 7, 2021

This Is The App We Really Need

Suppose the average life-expectancy for an average American adult is 42 years.

Suppose the average life-expectancy for a person with ALS is 3 years.

That's a big difference, and nobody hears the ALS Clock tick as loudly as a person living with it.

Enter the Apple Watch app that runs on the ALS clock.

It would make my watch run 14 times faster than it does today.  Mickey's hands would be flying.  The dates would be changing before my eyes.

If you tell a person with ALS that a project is being delayed a quarter on your healthy calendar, that is like 3.5 years on the ALS Clock.

If you waste a day on pointless meetings, that's like two weeks on the ALS Clock.

How uncomfortable would it be if an hour Zoom call took up 14 hours on your new ALS Clock App?

Pretty uncomfortable, I hope.

And that's what we need.  Turn your watch to the ALS Clock and get to work, faster.  

Wednesday, November 18, 2020

Home Run. Left Field Fence.

Yesterday news broke.  Hearts broke.  

There were statistics.  There was spin.  There were excuses.  There were reasons. 

But there wasn't a home run over the left field fence. 

The news:

There is no doubt to those of us with friends in the Brainstorm clinical trials that the therapy was helpful to some, yet the trial did not deliver statistics to back that up.  We've seen this before in ALS trials.  Unless we stop this madness, we'll see it again. 

In clinical trials, you have to call your home run shot before you take a swing.  Left field fence?  Ok. You have to stand in the batter's box and point to your home run.  Left field fence.  That's your endpoint.  If you swing and it goes into right field (or even clears the right field fence), that's nice but it's not the home run you called.  You said left field fence.  Otherwise it doesn't count.

You also get to call the pitch you want. That should make it easier, right?  Those are your inclusion criteria.  Low in the strike zone with a fast ball.  You get the pitch you want and you have to hit your home run where you say it will clear the fence.  If you call the wrong pitch, you miss your shot.  Unfortunately with ALS, we're not very good at having a pitching machine that puts the ball precisely where you want it. 

In baseball where lives aren't at stake, we analyze swings and pitches and statistics.  Coaches and players work tirelessly to refine their games and improve.  In ALS research where lives are indeed at stake, we make a lot of mistakes over and over. We settle for excuses.  We accept reasons.  It is madness.

The NurOwn trials from Brainstorm have been painfully long and cruel to watch.  The last thing we expected was a right-field double when they said the trial had to be designed with 50:50 placebo and exclusion criteria to give them their statistical left-field-fence home run.  

There were also humane features that were missing.  They couldn't afford them, Brainstorm said.  Perhaps we'll figure out that sponsors can't afford not to include features that give trial participants continuing access to the real therapy if the participants feel it was helpful.  Think of the compelling data (albeit non-trial data) that they would have generated by this time.

A trial participant made an interesting and informed observation yesterday.  He felt that the neuroprotective properties of the therapy helped his still-viable motor neurons but not motor neurons that were too far gone.  That makes a lot of sense in light of the data we saw.  That also makes it all the more cruel to let people who had been in the trial and felt improvement to be abandoned after trial participation.  More motor neurons died as they lost access to their neuroprotection.  And many of them died.

Again in this trial, we have the challenge of the overachieving placebo group.  The disease is heterogeneous.  The random placebo group can help you or hurt you.  Get a bunch of fast progressors on placebo and even a mediocre therapy will look good.  Get a bunch of slow progressors in the placebo group and your therapy is statistical toast.  Hey, it's random. right?  We have this problem over and over and over.  It is madness.

We have somebody stranded on second base as a result of the Brainstorm trial.  Do we call the game over?  

I hope not.

As much as I don't want to reward inhumane trial designers, can we use the trial data and the tools that the FDA will have available to keep advancing the runner?  We can be creative and still deliver good science.  We need to do the same things that good coaches do.  Analyze and react quickly and make the most of what we have.

And we need to make sure that the next batter up does better -- better called shot, better swing, better pitch, better result. 

Wednesday, October 28, 2020

But It Gets Such Good Reviews

Suppose you belong to a service that autoships products to you occasionally. 

You seldom open the boxes.  They accumulate on your doorstep and then you move them to the garage.

You have paid $108,000,000 over the years for these boxes.

Still, you seldom open them to examine the contents.  Sometimes you peek and are disappointed, but you don't get upset.  You assume that's just a bad box. After all, so many people give them five stars.

You assume all these boxes are a good value because of the reviews.  Five stars every time.  People you trust rave.  

Who are these people? 

The manufacturer?  Sure it gives itself five stars.

The manufacturer's contractors?  Sure they give themselves five stars.

The manufacturer's business partners?  Sure.

People who want to do business with the manufacturer?  Sure.  Don't burn bridges.

See what's going on here with all these stellar reviews?


When we worked hard and got the ALS Registry Act passed in 2008, the primary purpose spelled out in the legislation was "better describe the incidence and prevalence of ALS in the United States."

There should be a box in our front porch labeled "Incidence."  Can't find it.  You see, the CDC ALS Registry that we got can't determine incidence from the data it gathers.

Let's look for the "Prevalence" box.  Found one.  This is what is inside --

We were supposed to get Prevalence reports every year.  You can see how well that is going.  They auto ship sporadically, and don't come close to being complete.  Those rave reviewers who love the CDC ALS Registry seldom use its prevalence data themselves because the data are so incomplete.  Five stars?  Really?

Here's a tidbit for you to read that is a real indictment of the quality of what we are getting (and what is being published) regarding Prevalence --

Five stars?  Not even close.


The array of boxes has grown.  The core Prevalence product is poor (and the incidence box never arrived),  so the CDC has pivoted the attention to many other gifts we receive.  Let's look at that added bonus box labeled "Research Notification for Clinical Trials and Studies."  Don't just read the great reviews.  Look inside and see what we actually got.

Today we see that notification has been issued for 11 active studies, all of which are observational only.  In fact, one is itself a "registry" and several others seem to duplicate what we thought was the original intent of the CDC Registry itself.  Egads, this gets confusing.

In real life (using as our source), there are 36 interventional trials actively recruiting people with ALS in the US today.  Not one of these is included in the CDC Registry notification system.  Not one.

Five stars for clinical trial notification?  Really?

But wait, there's more.

A friend's husband died from ALS in early 2019.  She has notified the CDC Registry multiple times of his passing.  He still gets notices for studies that want him.

This does not speak well for
a. The CDC Registry's basic execution.  Even my vet says that you never send a reminder card for shots for a dog who has died.
b. Any targeting that the clinical research notification may do.  This gentleman would not be a good candidate for any study at the moment.
c. The Registry's ability to mark the deceased as deceased.  We thought that there was a routine scanning of death data to make sure that the dead were excluded from the prevalence counts.
d. All of the above.

Five stars?  I don't think so.


Please open up a few boxes and see for yourself if you are getting your money's worth.  Read some reports.  And stop the autopay if it simply isn't worth it.  It's not.  We're just creating foolish, expensive  clutter that is not valuable.

And don't believe every good review until you've examined some of the goods yourself.

Friday, August 28, 2020

Answer The @#$%^& Phone

 Return the %^&*() email.

Answer the *&())(*&^ question.

Own the $%^& problem.

Everything is harder than it needs to be for people with ALS and caregivers.  Sometimes the barriers are the very organizations and people who are supposed to be helping them.  Do they even know?  Do they even care?  

In the last two days I heard multiple examples from people with ALS and caregivers.  One needing help told of five failed attempts to reach a clinical research site coordinator.  Another told of an email to a major ALS research organization inquiring about a study.  The email got no response after two weeks.  Yet another issued a social media plea for help when all other avenues had failed to help find options for long-term care.

These things happen all the time, and they make dealing with ALS more difficult and frustrating and sometimes, maddening.  

Do organizations even know that they are dropping the ball constantly on the people they are supposed to be helping?  Do clinical research staff accept that they owe people with ALS prompt responses to their questions?  Does anyone measure customer service?  

Many years ago I emailed a vp of a major ALS organization suggesting that they might want to try a secret shopper to do some inquiries that a patient or caregiver would do, just to measure the speed (or lack thereof) and quality of their responses.  My email never got a reply.  I rest my case.

I encourage every organization that gets inquiries from people with ALS and caregivers to take customer service seriously.  It will make life significantly easier for those dealing with ALS.

  1. Answer phones and messages promptly (that means on the ALS clock and not your clock).
  2. Answer the questions asked, and if you don't know answers, find them so that you can answer those questions next time.
  3. Never punt.  Steve Gleason taught us that.  If you get messages from people with ALS and caregivers. you need to take them seriously and personally.  Referring a caregiver or person with ALS to someone else without helping with the handoff and insuring that there are no fumbles is simply wrong.
  4. Test your own organizations.  Maybe an incognito board member might like to make some inquiries to see how you do.  Maybe you can hire a secret shopper.  Maybe a volunteer will help you with that.  You need to measure!  And don't save it for a post-experience customer satisfaction survey that will just make more work for a caregiver or person with ALS.
  5. Make sure that poor customer service has consequences that will help fix your problem. Do you value employees who deliver bad customer as much as those who take the time and effort to deliver good customer service?
It's not hard.

But if you don't do it, you are making the lives of people with ALS and caregivers much harder.

Think about that, please.

Thursday, June 18, 2020

Just A Little Bit


In the past two years I have been fortunate to meet and work with some remarkable people with ALS and caregivers.  They are smart.  They work hard.  They study hard.  They listen and they speak up.  They have found an important way to contribute more than their money and their friends' money.  They contribute their creativity and their time and their thoughtful talents within I AM ALS.  I sit in on Zoom with them almost every day. Their books aren't on a shelf behind them.  They open them and read a lot.  I, a healthy person, accomplish a small fraction of what they are able to do to move public policy and industry.  They are a refreshing bunch who seem to be moving gigantic barriers that have deep footings in the fight against ALS.

Yesterday the ALS Association issued an official statement regarding H.R. 7071, a bill to provide some funding for small biopharms for Expanded Access Programs and in addition would establish an FDA Center of Excellence for Neurodegenerative Diseases, modeled after what was done for oncology several years ago.

The ALSA statement got off to a condescending start by calling H.R. 7071 "well-intentioned" before providing a short litany of what I consider to be off-target objections.

Respect my I AM ALS friends, please.

They have studied and worked hard to make Expanded Access Programs an expectation for all clinical trials.  One barrier has been a lack of planning by small biopharms that raised their capital four or five years ago.  The funding in H.R. 7071 is intended to help bridge that gap.  It's not forever.  By 2025 small biopharms will plan for EAPs as they raise capital because they will have figured out that they can't afford not to.

You see, EAPs can actually help speed up their paths to approval.  It gives them a chance to gather informative data on a broader population of people with ALS (beyond the narrow groups they pick  with best chances to be statistically successful).  The data they can gather are priceless.

There seems to be misunderstanding among some about the purpose of the legislation's funds.  They are not intended to spread unproven treatments to as many people as possible like expensive experimental peanut butter.  They are intended to provide a lifeline to small biopharms so that they can provide responsible EAPs.

And lest we all become hung up on arithmetic exercises, remember that in an EAP the sponsor is allowed to recover at most the cost of product, and typically the products are provided gratis for good business reasons.

Open Label Extensions were mentioned in the ALSA retort as being preferable.  It's not either-or, folks.  OLE should be demanded of every clinical trial design, and it is being demanded by my friends at I AM ALS. I'm glad that ALSA has finally decided that OLEs are important, too.

At More Than Our Stories in February, we had a long, and spirited discussion on such public funding for EAPs.  There was legislative, policy, and research expertise involved in the discussion, including some who authored H.R. 7071.  We talked about the importance of not doing whack-a-mole with other important NIH funding.  We talked about new sources of funding raising the tides. We wrestled with supporting small biopharms versus all sponsors.  Honestly, in my opinion, the ALSA concern that the EAP funding might detract from other research funding is specious.  We need to stop acting like we'll eat each other's lunch.

For years it has been clear that "the oncology FDA" has been more forward-thinking about using all available tools to speed development, approval. and access to therapies than "the neurology FDA."   It's like two different FDAs.  If you search for the use of Expanded Access Programs, you'll find plenty in oncology.  You're lucky to find one or two in ALS.  To ask for a FDA Center of Excellence to get things done for neurodegenerative diseases they way they get things done for oncology is hardly the bureaucratic threat that ALSA, an organization that itself is intimately familiar with bureaucracy, describes.

I ask you to pay attention to the people with ALS and caregivers of I AM ALS who are getting things done.  I ask you to respect them for the smart and hard-working and thoughtful people they are.  And I ask you to help them to move public policy forward.

Thank you.

Monday, April 6, 2020

How to Get Nowhere

Ask us.  We know.

Consider an experimental drug for a quickly fatal disease.  One person says it's the greatest hope ever.  Another person says we shouldn't accept it without sufficient data.  Meanwhile, back at the ranch, people are dying while forces row like crazy in exact opposite directions.

Yesterday I saw the President again tout one experimental treatment for Covid-19.

On the same newscast. I saw the head of the American Medical Association say that she would not prescribe it off-label for her patients.

That's it.  Hatfields versus McCoys.  Right versus wrong.  Rowing like crazy in opposite directions.

Neither mentioned joining a clinical trial.  

That's a way to access a therapy that provides exactly the evidence that we all need to figure out whether the stuff works (and for whom).

Rather than rowing in opposite directions, how about promoting the clinical research that can can both provide the experimental therapy to people and help us reach the scientific truth?

And what if the trial isn't near enough people?  There are easy ways to fix that.
And what if the placebo is an issue for some people?  There are easy ways to fix that.
And what if people are too old or too ill to qualify for the trial?  There are easy ways to fix that.

If people would stop arguing and start promoting clinical research that is humane and informative and nimble, we would start getting somewhere.

Ask those in the fight against ALS.  The constant tension between well-meaning forces has gotten us nowhere.

There are ways to do clinical research that will fulfill the goals of both parties who today are rowing in opposite directions.  Both sides need to smarten up if we want to get somewhere.  It applies to Covid-19.  It applies to ALS.

Sunday, February 2, 2020

There Ought To Be A Law

Or should there?

The lack of access to investigational treatments for people with ALS is unconscionable.  The problem isn't new.  We need to fix it now.

What's the best way to fix it?

A law?  More laws?  Fewer laws?  Fewer regulations? More regulations? Public pressure?  Smarter business strategies? Calls to conscience?  Public funding? Private funding? A toolkit of  some of these?

There is a flurry of new legislation currently being proposed to fix various aspects of the problem.

A lesson I learned from the last law intended to fix the problem is that the devil is in the details.  We need to know a lot more than the good intentions and a great name on proposed legislation.

Do we really need a law?  Exactly how would it work?  Examples, please. And details.

Conditional Approval

A proposal that is most interesting to me at the moment is the one on Conditional Approval.

Senator Braun has provided both the full text as well as an opportunity to comment.  I am grateful for that since we need to polish these proposals as much as possible before moving them forward as legislation.

I have more questions than comments, but I hope that they will be helpful and I know discussion of the answers will enlighten me.

Suppose a therapy is in a Phase 3 trial and the sponsor had intended all along to file for full approval. When the trial is complete and the sponsor sees the data, the sponsor isn't sure that the FDA will be enthusiastic about a broad, full approval.

  • Can the sponsor then ask for Conditional Approval when filing trial results with the FDA? 
  • Can the sponsor suggest the confirmatory studies and data that will be supplied in the future as part of the conditions?  Or is that all up to the FDA?
  • If a sponsor had decided to go ahead and ask for full approval, could the FDA respond with a suggestion that Conditional Approval would be more appropriate?  Or must the sponsor always initiate the request without any prompting from the FDA?
  • Could the FDA suggest confirmatory studies today (without this legislation) after viewing an application for full approval?  Do we need a law?
  • Does the FDA have the resources and teeth to enforce conditions on a Conditional Approval?
  • Are there any precedents for the FDA to accept RWE as part of a full approval?
  • Are there FDA guidances for quality-assurance of RWE?
  • Do we know how government payers might approach covering a Conditionally Approved therapy?

Suppose a therapy is a repurposed drug with full approval in another country.

  • Could Conditional Approval give the FDA a tool to force some confirmatory studies with a US population? 
  • Might Conditional Approval help us find the scientific truth on responder subgroups, making the drug a lot more useful and affordable for people in the US with ALS?

Conditional Approval has worked in Europe.  That's encouraging, but the payer situation is very different there.

Conditional Approval has worked for veterinary products.  That's encouraging, but again, the payer situation is very different.

Can we make this concept work?  I hope we can if it can bring therapies to people with ALS sooner.

And as important, it seems to me that this could give us a way to get to scientific truth without giving broad approval to therapies that work only for subsets of responders.

Thanks to anyone who can advance the discussion.  It's important that we don't stop at the title of the legislation.

Sunday, December 22, 2019

We Need Good Design and Solutions

There are medical ethicists who know an incredible amount about the FDA. access programs. and their history.

There are people living with ALS and their caregivers who know an incredible amount about how access programs have failed to give them access to investigational therapies.

People propose solutions from time to time.

Too often by the time a solution is proposed publicly, all some people can see are the potential design flaws.  All some other people can see are potential benefits.  The blinders are on.  The "I'm right, you're wrong," public arguments begin. 

If a design is flawed, we need more work on how to fix problems.  Everyone's expertise and perspectives can improve any design.  This is a matter of life and death. Imperfect proposals deserve more than arguments.  They deserve the work they need so that people with ALS can finally have some viable solutions.

Please.  Retreating to corners and bickering waste energy and talent.  Blinders off. please, everyone.

We need better design.  We need solutions.

Sunday, September 29, 2019

I Was There

I took the pictures.

This is my perspective.

I'm going more into the weeds than I did when I live-tweeted from the meeting, but I think that it is important that advocates' meetings with the FDA are open books, and I think that different people see things through different lenses.

My pictures.  My lens.  My perspective.

On Thursday, September 26, a contingent from I Am ALS held a followup to their February meeting with the FDA.  The meeting was on the FDA White Oak Campus in a conference room that was filled to the gills.

The agenda for the meeting was distributed to the FDA in advance.  It was a businesslike agenda that was to include action items and next steps.  The agenda had been adjusted to be productive in light of the release of the FDA Guidance for Industry on ALS which was released a few days earlier.

The meeting was set as a one-hour meeting.  It was clear that there was a hard stop at one hour.  That is not unusual for any business meeting and the agenda was designed to respect that.

Advocates were taken to the meeting room and I sat at the large oval table across from some seats that were reserved for FDA staff.  At 1pm when the meeting was to start, a contingent from the FDA including Acting FDA Commissioner Sharpless, Dr. Marks, and Dr. Dunn entered and sat in those chairs across from me.  I took the picture immediately before the meeting started.

I was truly surprised to see Dr. Sharpless there.  He immediately spoke to the FDA's and his personal commitment to ALS.  He lost a cousin to it at a young age.  He personally knows Dr. Cudkowicz.  He gets it.  He told us he would only be at the meeting for a short time but offered to address any questions.  That was impressive.  There were no direct questions.  There was gratitude for his interest and presence (including my gratitude).

When Dr. Sharpless left, Dr. Marks and Dr. Dunn were the ranking FDA officials at the meeting.  Dr. Marks advised us that his time in the meeting would be limited.

The I Am ALS Advocates' agenda began.  The theme was that our work has just begun.  I agree with the theme.  The Guidance was a solid launching pad and now we need to launch with trial sponsors.

The overview of the Guidance was skipped for the sake of time.  As was mentioned at the meeting, everyone there had probably read it 17 times already.

The gaps were the most challenging part of the meeting.  After some discussion, Dr. Marks departed as explained.

Discussion of the gaps continued.  As with any meeting when there is a fire for change and limited time, the clock marched on far too fast.  Isn't that always the way it is with ALS, though?

Dr. Dunn was completely supportive of the Interim Analysis approach that would not corrupt the trial as long as it is designed into the trial up front.  As a regulator he is well aware of the slippery slope that post hoc analyses provide, and the FDA is quite open to interim analysis as long as there is a plan up front.  This is another opportunity for us to demand change from sponsors.

Time moved on.  Discussion of heterogeneity ensued.  Dr. Dunn suggested that they are well aware that heterogeneity has been the bane of many a trial.  He also suggested that concepts such as re-randomization aren't new to the FDA and that there was no need to get into the weeds.  They approve such concepts in trials and we need for sponsors to bring them something.  We have yet another opportunity to demand change from sponsors.  The FDA can't act until somebody brings them a trial design.

Finally as time was running out to finish the agenda. the rich source of possible controls in the PRO-ACT database was explained.  Again,  Dr. Dunn acknowledged affirmatively and suggested that we didn't need to spend more time on the discussion.  Again, the ball is in our court to get sponsors on board.

This is the fourth meeting I have attended that included Dr. Dunn.  He is a man of few words.  He has the poker-face that is typical of an FDA official.  At this meeting my perspective was that he was engaged and wants us to succeed in changing ALS trials, but we need for sponsors to do their part.

As we were almost out of time, we got to an important discussion point on how we get people with ALS at the table in sponsor meetings with the FDA.  A key suggestion was that the FDA simply ask, "Who among you is the person with ALS?" when a sponsor meets with them.  Advocates wanted support from the FDA to set an expectation even though the FDA can't require a person with ALS be in those meetings.

Finally, even though the FDA supportive position on Expanded Access Programs or Right to Try access is established, advocates asked that such access be specifically encouraged in meetings with sponsors.

Dr. Dunn emphasized that the final ALS Guidance document wasn't a reaction to any one group, but rather it was based on the contributions of many.

We anticipate some form of followup meetings with this group and the FDA.

My perception was that we had a businesslike and productive meeting on Thursday.  Our work has just begun to change sponsors' approach to ALS trials and to become part of discussions that sponsors have with the FDA.  We finally have a Guidance document to be the basis for that.

My pictures.  My lens.  My perceptions.

Sunday, September 8, 2019

Where's The Bar?

How high is it?

Or more important to us all,  how low is it?

The bar?  We're asking about the bar for being listed at

Is it a high bar of standards for a trial that we should trust?

Or is it a low bar with some expensive, sloppy experiments interspersed with the important clinical trials moving through a serious FDA approval process?

Why are we asking so many questions about that bar?

Check this out --

It's a stem cell therapy aimed at very broad set of neurological conditions.

The endpoints seem very loosey goosey.

The eligibility criteria seem very loosey goosey.

So we have lots of questions.  Especially after we went to the sponsor's website and found out that having $17,000 to pay to join this experiment seems to be an unspoken inclusion criterion.

Is this something whose data are going to the FDA as part of an approval process, or has essentially advertised for yet another unproven stem cell purveyor?
Why is there no phase listed?
If you qualify for this "trial," do you have to pay $17,000?
Do the investigators have an ownership interest in the sponsor?
Are the investigators ophthalmologists and not neurologists?
Do the investigators have an ownership interest in the surgery center?
Does this "trial" have an EAP RTT policy listed anywhere?
Is this the ALS RTT "trial" offered by Garr and Beacon of Hope?
Is this the ALS RTT opportunity that Beacon of Hope expects 200-300 people with ALS to pay for?
If you somehow don't qualify for the $17,000 version of the "trial," will it cost $20,000 to go RTT via Beacon of Hope?
Is either the sponsor or Beacon of Hope a part of the upcoming symposium at the ALSA Florida Chapter (which is so convenient to the surgery center)?
And back to our original question, where's the bar for being listed at

Do we have a lot of questions?

We do.

Insights and answers and public discussion are always appreciated.

Saturday, July 6, 2019

Dear U.S. Healthcare Delivery,

Ten weeks ago out of the blue, I heard the words "canine lymphoma."  My beloved basset hound was old.  I could tell by the reaction at our vet's office that it wasn't good.  I had my preconceptions about what was appropriate in a senior dog.  My ALS training kicked into gear.  Gather as much information as you can as fast as you can.

Thanks to Dr. Google, I learned that it is indeed a bad diagnosis.  I also learned that you need to find out exactly what form and stage of lymphoma it is in order to make good decisions.  And you have to move fast.  This is speed chess with a cunning disease.  And there is always the lurking concern that maybe it's kindest not to do anything.

And again thanks to Dr. Google. I found that Purdue University has some of the best lymphoma expertise in the country.  Our local vet is a Purdue vet.  We are a 90-minute drive away.  The referral went quickly.

Here are some things that human healthcare delivery needs to learn from the Purdue University College of Veterinary Medicine --

Be capable of getting to the right diagnosis and action plan quickly.
You could tell they've done this before.  They had an efficient diagnosis process.  In one long day the testing, exams, and evaluations were completed.  The oncologist talked patiently with us about options, possible outcomes, realistic goals.

Leave the patient and caregiver in charge of the action plan.
We knew that we could always discontinue treatments if they weren't providing a good quality of life.  The goal was to have a dog who didn't know she's sick.  We never lost control of decisions.

Have good medical records and use them.
This was incredible.  Every visit we were provided with a visit summary that an oncologist or student reviewed with us before we left.  The records were readable and accurate and extremely helpful for our reference and for reference at the next clinic visit.  I noticed that nobody complained about the EHR system and nobody cursed using the words "Epic" or "Cerner."

Return your phone calls promptly.
I didn't call often, but when I did, I got a return call from an oncologist who was familiar with the case.  It never took more than an hour to get the callback.  They have a triage process that works.

Speak intelligently to the cost concerns that enter into decisions.
The doctors could actually speak to cost.  That matters in medical decisions.  Try that in human healthcare!  And at the end of every visit we knew what was on the tab for that day.  There were no delayed surprises later.  There were no mysteries.  Nobody punted cost questions to someone in another office.

Make it easy to choose clinical research.
I asked about clinical research on our first visit.  My goal was to make some good come from a bad situation.  It was easy.  My hound was enrolled in a trial that did not preclude the standard therapy and I was actually enrolled in a study for human caregivers.  And my hound qualified for a research-participant discount that her human appreciated greatly.

Get information for caregivers who are concerned.
One appointment when they were giving my dog a treatment seemed to be going on awfully long.  I asked the receptionist if everything was ok.  She called oncology and I got a reassuring message within a minute.  I didn't want to be a bother.  They told me that I wasn't a bother and they were glad to check.

Take initiative.
In the waiting room one day there was a water supply leak in a corner.  The junior receptionist asked the senior if she should call maintenance or get a mop.  The senior receptionist said that she should get the mop and that the senior would go ahead and call maintenance.  There is no "it's not my job" syndrome here.

We were never rushed while talking through the almost weekly decisions that had to be made.  Human healthcare aspires to shared decision-making.  This is shared decision-making in action. Some days it requires a lot of listening about things that may not seem important to the healthcare professional but are important to the patient and caregiver.

Do a sound check in your exam rooms.
I always find a ironic that human healthcare spends a bazillion dollars on HIPAA and I can typically hear exactly what is being discussed in the neighboring exam room (and I assume vice versa when it's my turn).  Build soundproofing to Purdue standards, please.

Take your patients personally.
On Tuesday, we drove to our appointment and I knew it was going to be our last one at Purdue.  The lymphoma finally outsmarted us.  I expected a different doctor that day.  Again I was amazed that our oncology team that had taken care of us every week for the last two months was with us through the entire process.  The oncologist told me they take their patients personally.  It was a hard day for all of us, but I'll forever be grateful for the kindness they delivered on Tuesday.

Right now it doesn't feel like our story has a happy ending, but once the heartache eases a tad, it will be good to know that we got to try, that my hound had two great bonus months where she could still dig holes in search of chipmunks, and that the people who delivered her care so well were together with us through a good finish for a great dog.

In ten weeks I learned that healthcare delivery can work a whole lot better than I've ever experienced before.  Human healthcare leaders,  spend a day at Purdue shadowing a caregiver.  Don't say, "We can't possibly do that."  Say, "How might we..."


A Human ALS Caregiver and Canine Lymphoma Caregiver

Monday, June 10, 2019

WOT Else?

Yesterday I read the recent ALSA publication, "Evaluation of the ALS Association Grant Programs Executive Summary Report."

It's a long read, but it is also insightful on ALSA's claims to success in research investment since the 2014 ice bucket windfall.  As I read the conjectures about how well things have gone, I also waited for the next paragraph that would cite the possible weaknesses or opportunities or threats to those successes.

What is the ultimate measure of success?  We have the end goal of meaningful treatments, and we have failed.  People are dying today from ALS just as they did before the ice fell.  We really need the rest of the SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis to help us change that most important outcome of all.

Following are from some thoughts and questions that I wrote in the margins of the report.  I hope that some will be helpful to move the conversation forward to the even more important WOT part of the analysis.

Page 1. "...the sharp trajectory..."
It's important to realize that before the ice fell, there was a significant amount of pressure on ALSA to increase its research investments (which historically were pretty paltry).  When the teacher grades on improvement, the student who was not performing well to begin with gets a big break.

Page 2. "...mirroring the upward trajectory of ... its research investments..."

There is a lot of interesting analysis of NIH funding relative to ALSA research investments.  Not to be lost in the conjecture is the fact that we have a causative vs. correlative puzzle here.  Which comes first, the ALSA funding or the NIH funding, or perhaps one would have happened without any help from the other.

Here are the basics.

There's a chance that they are independent. During the years since 2010, ALSA has instructed advocates to ask for increased NIH funding for all diseases.  Perhaps we did our jobs well in that regard, too.

Page 5

The new clinics are wonderful, but to the eye, we still have some large "clinic desserts" in the US.  Does anyone know how many more people with ALS were put within 25 miles of a clinic by the clinic expansion?

Page 9

There's an interesting twist to their chart that shows the NIH funding that was gained by ALSA research grantees.  I noticed that the NIH amounts on that chart were far larger than the NIH published totals for ALS.  I thought perhaps they were getting non-ALS NIH funds, but the text in the report leads me to think that is not the explanation.

The ratio of researchers' NIH dollars to ALSA dollars is impressive.  I wished they had a chart of the same data for the pre-ice years.  When ALSA research investments were so small, that would make a small ALSA denominator with a possibly huge NIH numerator for some researchers.

The whole idea of ALSA grants seeding more NIH money seemed unsubstantiated when we didn't have a lead-lag analysis of the numbers.  And the ALSA process for making grants is opaque to most of us.  Is it a blinded selection, or are the grantmakers aware of the researcher and her or his potential for bringing in other funding sources?  Again, it's hard to tell chickens from eggs.

The most compelling data I think might simply come from looking at the ALS percent of the NIH total pie.  We had been slipping or treading water for years.  This chart shows that perhaps the NIH is seeing some opportunities and urgency to investing more in ALS.  The percentage changes are small, but they are something.

Page 11

The publication analysis is interesting, but I wonder what it would look like if the analysis were done by institution and not invidivual.  My experience is that there are many individual names on some papers who are included because of their position at an institution but have a very peripheral role in the immediate project.

Does the manner in which ALS MND Symposium abstracts are published skew any of the data?

It would also be helpful for ALSA to include publications for research projects in their research project database that is available to the public.  Perhaps that could be a condition to a grant -- To supply ALSA for a non-paywall copy of publications for them to share.

Page 19 Research Grantee Survey

I think that there is a real possibility of "gratitude bias" in the responses.  The happiest recipients who want to talk the most about their results are clearly more likely to influence the survey.

It would be interesting to get some feedback from people who were not provided with grants (realizing of course that they may have "sour grapes bias").

I'm glad nobody went to jail over the raffle.

Page 23, Figure 12 "...Identified New Biomarkers..."
Should that not indicate "Identified Potential New Biomarkers?"

Page 26, Table 5 "... 3 clinical trials either initiated by [the Association] and fully funded by [the Association]..."
Were any of the three trials interventional?  That's a pretty impressive statement if they were.

Clinic information are interspersed in the document.  Clinics are not necessarily ALS research arms, and I believe that anytime they are included in discussions about research investments, we should be very sure that they are providing correct, pertinent, and timely information to people with ALS and caregivers on clinical research opportunities.  If they don't, then they don't deserve to be included in research accomplishments.

The ALSA Website Summary of the Summary

I think that the accrual of net assets is indeed a legitimate concern.  For many years before the ice, ALSA was a financially sound organization that ran responsibily on $20,000,000 or less in net assets.  Yes, thanks to responsible stewardship and cooperative markets, that amound is considerably larger than it was for many years before 2014.  We understand that there is a spend down, but it has taken five years of spend down and the assets are large and do not reflect the urgency that many of us feel.

The $2 billion quote for a new drug sets a perspective, but there are some facts that need to be added to that perspective --

  • $2 billion does not insure a new drug
  • Repurposed drugs like edaravone can be brought to market for a tiny fraction of that amount
  • The cost to find therapies is as variable as ALS itself is.

ALSA served over 20,000 people with ALS last year.  That number makes a most expensive ALS research project, the CDC Registry, look terribly ineffective.


We appreciate the successes and hope that all involved in this report will dig deeper with us all to figure out the weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. We must use precious resources in a smarter fight because by the measure that counts the most, people dying from ALS, we have not succeeded.