Stroke research grants, Australia Stroke Foundation Research Grant Round for 2020

This is specifically what is wrong with Stroke associations. They should be requesting solutions to exactly defined stroke problems. None of this having researchers shoot in the dark.  Maybe you want researchers to solve these problems in stroke, or this nihilism list.

Stroke research grants, Australia Stroke Foundation Research Grant Round for 2020 

• Home
• What we do
• Research
• Stroke research grants

Stroke research grants

Stroke Foundation Research Grant Round for 2020 

Applications are now open.

In the 2020 Grant Round, Stroke Foundation’s Research Grants program aims to further build capacity in the research community by offering Early Career Researcher Seed Grants.

This round also aims to address a research gap in carer support by allocating one of the four Seed grants available to this priority area.

 

Key dates for 2020 Research Grants

• Grant applications open: Monday 1 July 2019
• Grant applications close: 5pm AEST Friday 30 August 2019
• Grants awarded: mid-December 2019

2020 Early Career Researcher Seed Grants

Four (4) Seed Grants in total of up to $50,000 per grant available to early career researchers, addressing (at least) one of the following Stroke Foundation 2020 Research Priority Areas.
One (1) of the four Seed Grants is allocated to a Support for Carers project in the 2020 Round.
These grants are to conduct pilot or feasibility studies that will be used to inform a larger nationally competitive grant submission (e.g. NHMRC project grants).

2020 Research Priority Areas(These are way too general to be of any use.)

To improve access to and delivery of:

1. long term community support (e.g. continuity of care, health services, and rehabilitation) with outcome measures beyond 6 months;
2. interventions for long term psychosocial recovery (i.e. recovery of cognition, communication, and emotional and social wellbeing) with outcome measures beyond 6 months;
3. health services and pathways of stroke management, including proposals addressing implementation and change in practice (i.e. translation into practice for acute stroke care studies);
4. support for the diverse needs of Carers.

To Apply

For information on how to apply, download the Stroke Foundation Research Grant Application Guide and read in full before completing the application form.
The Application Guide includes important information including eligibility criteria, grant descriptions, application procedure and FAQs.

Tracking Neuronal Connectivity from Electric Brain Signals to Predict Performance

With any functioning neurons at all in the stroke medical world this would be looked at as a godsend to monitor in real time the problems in stroke brains. From that we could describe the problem and request researchers to solve it.  This is so fucking easy; Only 5 steps.
1.  Describe the problem exactly.
2.  Write an RFP to researchers to solve that problem.
3.  Fund it with foundation grants.
4.  Write stroke rehab protocols based on the research.
5.  Get the Nobel prize in medicine
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1073858418776891

Fabrizio Vecchio*, Francesca Miraglia*, Paolo Maria Rossini

First Published May 20, 2018 Research Article

Download PDF	Article information

Abstract

The human brain is a complex container of interconnected networks. Network neuroscience is a recent venture aiming to explore the connection matrix built from the human brain or human “Connectome.” Network-based algorithms provide parameters that define global organization of the brain; when they are applied to electroencephalographic (EEG) signals network, configuration and excitability can be monitored in millisecond time frames, providing remarkable information on their instantaneous efficacy also for a given task’s performance via online evaluation of the underlying instantaneous networks before, during, and after the task. Here we provide an updated summary on the connectome analysis for the prediction of performance via the study of task-related dynamics of brain network organization from EEG signals.

Pfizer confirms neuro cuts as it swings the ax on a host of other early projects

We can't expect any private firm to solve stroke, it is way to difficult and costly for them, but stroke survivors can solve this. For stroke this is so simple, that great stroke association writes RFPs to researchers based upon the stroke strategy they are following. Grants from foundations can be used to pay for the research.
https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/pfizer-confirms-neuro-cuts-as-it-swings-ax-a-host-other-early-projects?

Pfizer already forewarned that it was cutting jobs and projects out of its neuro unit. Now we have the full list of retired candidates, alongside a host of other experimental drugs up for the chop.

The neuro cuts come as no surprise, as during the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference at the start of the month, the Big Pharma giant announced, much to the disappointment of charities, that it was to cut around 300 jobs and a number of earlier stage projects from its neuroscience pipeline.
The move was set to see it back out of work in Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, two notoriously difficult areas for the industry, especially the former, which has not seen any real R&D advance in 15 years.
RELATED: Pfizer axing neuroscience jobs, but seeks new VC fund
Released during its financials this morning, Pfizer said that on the neuro side, it was axing eight projects in total, predominately phase 1 tests in Alzheimer’s, but also a midstage Parkinson’s drug, and a phase 2 drug for epilepsy, namely PF-06372865.
On top of this, it’s also cutting a phase 1 project in NASH that worked as a myeloperoxidase inhibitor and in hyperlipidemia, which was a diacylglycerol O-acyltransferase 2 inhibitor.

Also in phase 1 it axed three cancer assets: an ephrin-A4 targeted cytotoxicity; a chemokine (C-X-C motif) receptor 4 (CXCR4) inhibitor for a certain type of blood cancer; and an IDO1 inhibitor.
This IDO, a hot topic in cancer research right now, was partnered with Belgium's iTeos Therapeutics; back in September, the pair started work on the drug in certain forms of brain cancer.
In all, 14 projects were cut from its pipeline since the last quarter.

Read more on

neurodegenerative diseases, job cuts, Pfizer

Pfizer ends research for new Alzheimer's, Parkinson's drugs

You as a stroke survivor will likely need these. So start saving your pennies to fund your own researchers or create that great stroke association that will simply write RFPs to researchers to solve this and get foundation grants to pay for it. We stroke survivors are completely on our own to fix stroke. Our doctors aren't doing it, our stroke hospitals aren't doing it, our fucking failures of stroke associations certainly aren't doing it. The solutions are out there, we just need researchers to put them into translational interventions. Everyone so far is not a leader, I expect leaders to try for 100% recovery for all.

Your chances of getting Parkinsons.

Parkinson’s Disease May Have Link to Stroke March 2017

Your chances of getting dementia.

1. A documented 33% dementia chance post-stroke from an Australian study?   May 2012.
2. Then this study came out and seems to have a range from 17-66%. December 2013.
3. A 20% chance in this research.   July 2013.

Pfizer ends research for new Alzheimer's, Parkinson's drugs

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) is abandoning research to find new drugs aimed at treating Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, the U.S. pharmaceutical company announced on Saturday.

FILE PHOTO: The Pfizer logo is seen at their world headquarters in New York April 28, 2014. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly/File Photo

The company said it expects to eliminate 300 positions from the neuroscience discovery and early development programs in Andover and Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Groton, Connecticut, as it redistributes the money spent on research, according to the emailed statement.
Pfizer is not making any changes to research and development funding for tanezumab, which is marketed as a treatment for joint pain from osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia treatment Lyrica, or its rare disease program.
“This was an exercise to re-allocate spend across our portfolio, to focus on those areas where our pipeline, and our scientific expertise, is strongest,” the company said.

Pfizer Inc36.54

PFE.NNew York Stock Exchange

-0.32(-0.87%)

• PFE.N
• GSK.L
• LLY.N
• JNJ.N

Pfizer has invested heavily in research for Parkinson’s and Alzheimer‘s, and is one of several drugmakers, along with GlaxoSmithKline (GSK.L) and Eli Lilly (LLY.N), that is part of the Dementia Discovery Fund, a venture capital fund launched in 2015 by industry and government groups that seeks to develop treatments for Alzheimer‘s.
However, some of Pfizer’s investments have resulted in disappointment. In 2012, Pfizer and partner Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) called off additional work on the drug bapineuzumab after it failed to help patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s in its second round of clinical trials.
The company said on Saturday that it will launch a new venture fund to invest in neuroscience research projects.
Pfizer is expected to make a presentation on Monday at the JP Morgan healthcare conference in San Francisco, a key annual event for healthcare investors.

Reporting By Elizabeth Dilts, Editing by Rosalba O'Brien

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Can Industry-Funded Research Be Trusted?

For stroke this is so simple, that great stroke association writes RFPs to researchers based upon the stroke strategy they are following. Grants from foundations can be used to pay for the research.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/revolutionandrevelation/69692

• by Milton Packer MD December 06, 2017

In 2001, I led a large clinical trial that showed that carvedilol reduced the risk of death in patients with heart failure.

The news was carried live on major TV networks. During an interview, I was asked: "This trial was funded by a pharmaceutical company. Right?" I said yes.

The reporter continued: "Doesn't that make the data suspect?"

I was stunned by the question. For the record, the FDA audited the trial, verified its findings and expanded the indications for the drug. The trial's database is fully open to academic inquiry. The drug is used by millions of people.

Most people do not understand the drug development process. Many routinely ask whether industry-sponsored trials can be trusted.

Some believe: if industry has paid for a trial, it must be biased. Industry must have manipulated the data so the trial would come out with a positive result.

My reply: "If industry could do that, then why do most clinical trials show that the new drug doesn't work? Does that happen because companies are too incompetent to make the results come out the way they wanted?"

I have led about 20 major clinical trials. In the vast majority of the trials, the results were a major disappointment for the sponsor.

Some people love conspiracies. Sometimes they are right. Years ago, I believed the sponsor had manipulated the results of a trial. For the record, I was not involved in the trial, and I reported my concerns to the FDA.

The FDA had different concerns about the drug and asked for a second trial, which failed to demonstrate a benefit. The FDA never approved the drug.

But if you think that every industry-sponsored trial is suspect, then you live in a strange world. And a very dark one.

Some complain that companies design trials that are biased or unnecessary. Sometimes they do. I can think of many post-approval trials that are just silly.

But the major trials for drug approval are all vetted by the FDA before the trial starts. When the trial is completed, the database is sent to the FDA, and the FDA carries out its audits and does its own analyses. Its analyses may differ from the ones that are published in a peer-review manuscript. Discoveries of discrepancies are all in the public domain.

Some think that companies aren't asking the questions that really matter.

I agree.

Companies conduct trials that serve their interests. Many cardiovascular trials can cost over a quarter of a billion dollars. When you spend that kind of money, your goal is to find out if a drug or device works. Your goal is not to answer big questions in public health.

Yet, I still hear people say that industry can't be trusted doing trials on their own drugs. They need an independent organization to do them -- like the NIH.

Such a response makes me smile: "Really?"

"Do you want the NIH to spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to test a drug so that a private company will benefit from the profits?"

And I remind them. In recent years, the NIH carried out two very large trials in cardiology. One was called TOPCAT in patients with heart failure; the other was called SPRINT in patients with hypertension. Both trials were plagued with major operational problems, which limited the interpretability and usefulness of the trials. The NIH doesn't have the resources to carry out a trial with the monitoring that is needed to ensure integrity.

So I ask professional cynics: Which organization would you trust to give a reliable result?

Cynics might say that they wouldn't trust either organization. They will tell you that they only trust other cynics. And of course, cynics want you to trust them.

That is really scary. Our society is consumed by a crisis of trust. It is destroying our humanity and our potential.

So if you are reading my blog because you are looking for a professional cynic, I am really going to disappoint you.

But I can certainly give you a referral.

Nanosensors Demystify Brain Chemistry

With these we should be able to answer the question of how exactly neuroplasticity works and make it repeatable on demand. But only if we destroy the existing fucking failures of stroke associations and get RFPs written and funded with foundation grants. Stroke is so fucking easy to solve  if you put your mind to it. I can do this and I'm stroke-addled.
https://www.rdmag.com/news/2017/11/nanosensors-demystify-brain-chemistry?
Fri, 11/03/2017 - 2:09pm

by AVS: Science and Technology of Materials, Interfaces, and Processing

Near-infrared microscopy (top) enables imaging of single-walled carbon nanotube sensors (bottom left) to image dopamine neurotransmission in brain tissue (bottom right).

Nanosensors are incredible information-gathering tools for myriad applications, including molecular targets such as the brain. Neurotransmitter molecules govern brain function through chemistry found deep within the brain, so University of California, Berkeley researchers are developing nanosensors to gain a better understanding of exactly how this all plays out. 
During the AVS 64th International Symposium & Exhibition, being held Oct. 29-Nov. 3, 2017, in Tampa, Florida, Markita del Carpio Landry, a professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering, and Abraham Beyene, a doctoral candidate in the Landry lab, will describe their design and use of near-infrared optical nanosensors to image the neurotransmitter dopamine within the brain.
“Developing sensors for brain chemistry is an exciting area of research that could transform how we diagnose diseases based on imbalances in brain chemistry, such as depression and anxiety,” Landry said. 
These nanosensors are created by combining carbon nanotubes and biomimetic synthetic polymers with the assistance of sound waves to promote the recognition of a selected small-molecule target. The formed sensors produce a fluorescent signal in the presence of their specified neurotransmitter target. Landry and her team are then able to directly quantify the neurotransmitter levels using the fluorescence intensity as a function of time.
“These complexes form nanosensors that fluoresce only within the presence of dopamine, a key neurotransmitter implicated in psychiatric disorders and neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease,” Landry said. “We then build microscopes to detect the fluorescent response of the nanosensor so that we can image the nanosensors in living brain tissue.” 
The researchers are already using their sensors to explore how brain chemistry reacts to antidepressants. “We’re seeing some interesting results of how the antidepressant drug Merital affects the way the brain handles dopamine-based neurotransmission,” Landry said. “These key insights may help us to understand how antipsychotics and antidepressants work, and their side effects as well.” 
A simple method to assess brain chemistry is highly desirable for both research and clinical applications. While diseases such as cancer or diabetes are often diagnosed via methods such as blood tests that provide quantitative measurements of imbalances in blood or tissue chemistry, it’s impractical to take a “brain sample” to assess brain chemistry.
“My lab’s research focuses on the very challenging task of imaging brain chemistry with nanosensors that can report on neurotransmitter concentrations from within the brain and transmit their signals through brain tissue and the cranium,” Landry said. 
Landry and her colleagues are now building a new microscope, a “double infrared excitation-emission” form of fluorescence microscopy for deep brain neurotransmitter imaging, to allow them to image dopamine neurotransmission within the brains of awake and active animals.
“This will provide us with the capability to determine how antidepressants are affecting brain chemistry and to validate their effectiveness in a living animal model,” Landry said.

Keynote: Discover the Magic of Leadership from the Disney Institute

Maybe you can petition the boards of directors of the ASA, NSA, and WSO to send themselves and their president to this so they can learn what actual leadership is about. Right now I see NO leaders in stroke, everyone is hunkered down pushing the simplistic F.A.S.T., prevention and tPA. None of which helps ANY survivor get to 100% recovery.  This is so fucking simple to solve. You write up RFPs to researchers to solve a specific problem in stroke, get the money for it from foundations and soon results will start flowing in. The current scattershot approach to stroke research is a total disaster, from pie-in-the-sky stem cell research to repeating research that was done decades ago.

Keynote: Discover the Magic of Leadership from the Disney Institute

 Jeff James serves as vice president and general manager of Disney Institute, which is the professional development and business advisory arm of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts. A 20 plus year veteran of The Walt Disney Company, Jeff is an expert in the company’s successful core competencies and values.

The R&D 100 Conference is pleased to welcome Jeff to the stage as a Keynote for this year’s third annual conference, Nov. 16-17 in Orlando.

Learn about time-tested business insights on leadership, employee engagement and service that create a culture of excellence as Jeff presents Disney’s Approach to Customer Experience. For over 30 years, Disney Institute has helped organizations in a wide variety of industries apply the Disney approach to improve their own customer experiences. This is your special opportunity to learn from Jeff James, Vice President and General Manager, as he shares the business insights behind Disney’s success. Join us for this one-of-a-kind experience and learn how you can unlock the magic inside your organization. There’s still time left to register!

Register Now

Carbon nanotubes found safe for reconnecting damaged neurons

I don't give a shit that this is for spinal cords. Anyone in the stroke medical world with an ounce of brains could see possibilities for stroke. And in these last three months an RFP could have been written for researchers and grant applications put in. That's if we had ANY stroke leadership at all.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/carbon-nanotubes-looking-good-for-repairing-damaged-neuronsMay offer future hope for patients with spinal-cord injury

July 5, 2017

Multiwall carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) could safely help repair damaged connections between neurons by serving as supporting scaffolds for growth or as connections between neurons.
That’s the conclusion of an in-vitro (lab) open-access study with cultured neurons (taken from the hippcampus of neonatal rats) by a multi-disciplinary team of scientists in Italy and Spain, published in the journal Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology, and Medicine.
The study addressed whether MWCNTs that are interfaced to neurons affect synaptic transmission by modifying the lipid (fatty) cholesterol structure in artificial neural membranes.
Significantly, they found that MWCNTs:

• Facilitate the full growth of neurons and the formation of new synapses. “This growth, however, is not indiscriminate and unlimited since, as we proved, after a few weeks, a physiological balance is attained.”
• Do not interfere with the composition of lipids (cholesterol in particular), which make up the cellular membrane in neurons.
• Do not interfere in the transmission of signals through synapses.

The researchers also noted that they recently reported (in an open access paper) low tissue reaction when multiwall carbon nanotubes were implanted in vivo (in live animals) to reconnect damaged spinal neurons.
The researchers say they proved that carbon nanotubes “perform excellently in terms of duration, adaptability and mechanical compatibility with tissue” and that “now we know that their interaction with biological material, too, is efficient. Based on this evidence, we are already studying an in vivo application, and preliminary results appear to be quite promising in terms of recovery of lost neurological functions.”
The research team comprised scientists from SISSA (International School for Advanced Studies), the University of Trieste, ELETTRA Sincrotrone, and two Spanish institutions, Basque Foundation for Science and CIC BiomaGUNE.

---

Abstract of Sculpting neurotransmission during synaptic development by 2D nanostructured interfaces

Carbon nanotube-based biomaterials critically contribute to the design of many prosthetic devices, with a particular impact in the development of bioelectronics components for novel neural interfaces. These nanomaterials combine excellent physical and chemical properties with peculiar nanostructured topography, thought to be crucial to their integration with neural tissue as long-term implants. The junction between carbon nanotubes and neural tissue can be particularly worthy of scientific attention and has been reported to significantly impact synapse construction in cultured neuronal networks. In this framework, the interaction of 2D carbon nanotube platforms with biological membranes is of paramount importance. Here we study carbon nanotube ability to interfere with lipid membrane structure and dynamics in cultured hippocampal neurons. While excluding that carbon nanotubes alter the homeostasis of neuronal membrane lipids, in particular cholesterol, we document in aged cultures an unprecedented functional integration between carbon nanotubes and the physiological maturation of the synaptic circuits.

GlaxoSmithKline's new CEO prepares to trim drug pipeline

We need to get away from the dependency on drug companies providing research and the US government funding research.

Biopharmaceutical companies have 215 heart disease/stroke drugs in R&D pipeline June of 2013

You'll have to hope some made it to stroke use. I have no idea who you could ask for confirmation. 

 

With a defined stroke strategy getting foundation grants and individual donors to step up and fund such research would be damned easy.  Asking for general funding for stupid stroke association press release funding is complete insanity. Asking for funding to solve glutamate poisoning in the neuronal cascade of death would be a concrete proposal people and foundations could get behind. I.E, 'I helped solve the glutamate poisoning piece of stroke neuron death'. You could send out certificates of appreciation suitable to being framed. This is so fucking easy to solve the funding problem but will require destroying our fucking failures of stroke associations and replacing them with a great stroke association. 

GlaxoSmithKline's new CEO prepares to trim drug pipeline

Reuters Health News

GlaxoSmithKline's new chief executive, who has already made her mark with plans to divest some nutritional products, will turn next week to the main business of focusing the company's pipeline of new drugs.
Despite her non-pharmaceutical background in consumer brands, Emma Walmsley sees improving drug research productivity as her top priority, and she wants Britain's biggest drugmaker to have fewer but potentially more lucrative new medicine launches in future.
That means axing or licensing out some experimental drugs in non-core therapy areas, while boosting investment - as well as potential early-stage acquisitions - in the most promising fields, according to company insiders.
Even after recent expansion of GSK's vaccines and consumer health units, pharmaceuticals still account for nearly 70 percent of group operating profits.
Yet while GSK now has leading positions in vaccines and consumer health, it has a lacklustre record in prescription medicines and has not come up with the kind of multibillion-dollar products launched by big pharma rivals in recent years.
Walmsley will flesh out her plans for overhauling drug research when she presents second quarter results on July 26.
She has already flagged her readiness to scrap products not generating sufficient value with plans to sell off malted drink Horlicks in Britain and MaxiNutrition, while considering the disposal of older antibiotics.
Describing the approach after presenting her first set of results in April, she said: "We will need to be switching off some areas."
The goal is to sharpen what is currently one of the more diverse drug pipelines in the pharmaceuticals industry, spread across a wide range of therapy areas.
In some fields, like respiratory and HIV medicine, GSK has a clear leading position. But it lags in others such as cardiovascular, rare diseases and diabetes, and some investors worry it has been spreading its R and D budget too thinly.
The result can be sub-optimal product launches, such as Tanzeum for type 2 diabetes, which has generated disappointing sales after GSK launched the injection behind rival medicines from Novo Nordisk and AstraZeneca.
Others, like a novel pill for heart disease, have flopped in tests even before getting to market, while its lupus drug Benlysta has failed to hit initial blockbuster sales forecasts, despite GSK spending $3 billion to buy the firm that invented it.
In prioritizing areas where GSK has deep scientific and market expertise, Walmsley wants the R and D and commercial departments at GSK to work together much more closely in future.
In some ways, GSK looks set to follow in the footsteps of its smaller British rival AstraZeneca, which has divested a large number of non-core drug projects recently as it concentrates on core areas like cancer.Significantly, former AstraZeneca executive Luke Miels will be a key lieutenant for Walmsley during the shake-up. He will join GSK in September, several months later than planned due to a legal tussle with his former employer.
Analysts and investors have welcomed the idea of rationalizing GSK's R and D, but caution it will be a long haul.
"It’s a company which has struggled to do what you would hope a pharmaceutical company would do, which is do the R and D and successfully get the products through," said Insight Investment fund manager Tim Rees.
Rees said an R and D revamp made sense but it would take 5-7 years to yield results.
Fortunately, Walmsley has a window to make the changes. GSK is not expecting its next wave of new drugs until after 2020 and also has no significant patent expiries, barring the imminent loss of protection on lung drug Advair, until 2026.
—Ben Hirschler

Federal budget proposal would deal ‘devastating blow’ to medical research

If this doesn't change our fucking failures of stroke associations approach to funding stroke research then we truly have no one helping us get to 100% recovery.
With a defined stroke strategy getting foundation grants and individual donors to step up and fund such research would be damned easy.  Asking for general funding for stupid stroke association press release funding is complete insanity. Asking for funding to solve glutamate poisoning in the neuronal cascade of death would be a concrete proposal people and foundations could get behind. I.E, 'I helped solve the glutamate poisoning piece of stroke neuron death'. You could send out certificates of appreciation suitable to being framed. This is so fucking easy to solve the funding problem but will require destroying our fucking failures of stroke associations and replacing them with a great stroke association. 

Federal budget proposal would deal ‘devastating blow’ to medical research

“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” -Sun Tzu, The Art of War

There is NO STRATEGY AND NO LEADERSHIP in stroke. Being rudderless means that stroke will never be solved..
With NO strategy and NO leadership nothing will get done for decades.
1. Only 10% of patients get to full recovery.
2. tPA only fully works to reverse the stroke 12% of the time.
3. No protocols to prevent your 33% dementia chance post-stroke from an Australian study.
4. Nothing to alleviate your fatigue.
5. Nothing that will cure your spasticity.
6. Nothing on cognitive training unless you find this yourself.
7. No published stroke protocols.
8. No way to compare your stroke hospital results vs. other stroke hospitals.
With a defined stroke strategy getting foundation grants and individual donors to step up and fund such research would be damned easy.  Asking for general funding for stupid stroke association press release funding is complete insanity. Asking for funding to solve glutamate poisoning in the neuronal cascade of death would be a concrete proposal people and foundations could get behind. I.E, 'I helped solve the glutamate poisoning piece of stroke neuron death'. You could send out certificates of appreciation suitable to being framed. This is so fucking easy to solve the funding problem but will require destroying our fucking failures of stroke associations and replacing them with a great stroke association. 

Mick Mulvaney is proposed to lead Office of Management and Budget - "[D]o we need government-funded research at all," he wrote in a Facebook post on September 9

This is going to be the reason that stroke research funding needs to completely change. With a defined stroke strategy getting foundation grants and individual donors to step up and fund such research would be damned easy.  Asking for general funding for stupid stroke association press release funding is complete insanity. Asking for funding to solve glutamate poisoning in the neuronal cascade of death would be a concrete proposal people and foundations could get behind. I.E, 'I helped solve the glutamate poisoning piece of stroke neuron death'. You could send out certificates of appreciation suitable to being framed. This is so fucking easy to solve the funding problem but will require destroying our fucking failures of stroke associations and replacing them with a great stroke association. 

More on 21st Century Cures Act

The 21st Century Cures Act passed, but the American Heart Association noted none of the money is earmarked for heart disease and called the use of prevention funds to offset the new spending on research "very disappointing.".


This is the complete reason why the funding for stroke research has to completely change. The US government can not be trusted to provide funds. We are completely on our own to solve this problem since our fucking failures of stroke associations will not lift a finger here.  Foundation grants and individual donors will gladly step up to fund research if they can see a strategy being followed.  Press release funding is the stupidest use of donor money.

Congress needs to pass a final budget by December 9 or funding for NIH and NSF could remain flat for the coming year.

This is the necessary reason that funding for stroke research needs to completely change. With a defined stroke strategy getting foundation grants and individual donors to step up and fund such research would be damned easy.  Asking for general funding for stupid stroke association press release funding is complete insanity. Asking for funding to solve glutamate poisoning in the neuronal cascade of death would be a concrete proposal people and foundations could get behind. I.E, 'I helped solve the glutamate poisoning piece of stroke neuron death'. You could send out certificates of appreciation suitable to being framed. This is so fucking easy to solve the funding problem but will require destroying our fucking failures of stroke associations and replacing them with a great stroke association. 
Email from here:

In the Spotlight

Don’t Let Congress Stall Research FundingCongress needs to pass a final budget by December 9 or funding for NIH and NSF could remain flat for the coming year. NIH Director Francis Collins warned Congress that passing another continuing resolution (CR) instead of a full budget will endanger biomedical research by further limiting resources. Specifically, he highlighted an increase in funding for Alzheimer’s disease research that will be unrealized under another CR.

Contact your senators to tell them to support biomedical research funding by passing a final budget.

Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke 2017 Fiscal Year Budget Congressional Justification

Because we have NO stroke strategy we can't look at anything here and identify research that will help stroke survivors. Our fucking failures of stroke associations don't have any strategy and won't be doing anything to make sure fundings goes to helpful research. Nothing will get fixed until we destroy the existing associations and replace them with survivor led ones. The main takeaway from this is to ignore the NINDS and get funding from foundations and individual donors. Federal funding can't be counted on.

NINDS 2017 Congressional Justification

Virtual Lobby Days: Advocating for stroke through the end of 2016--and beyond - National Stroke Association

Absolutely nothing here that the NSA is doing will directly solve any of the problems in stroke. It is all indirect action which means they can't be blamed to not accomplishing anything. The solution you stupid assholes is to define a stroke strategy that solves all these fucking problems in stroke, write RFPs for researchers, and get foundation grants to pay those researchers. Simple huh?
http://support.stroke.org/site/R?i=rmeEKfw7EJ0PLQMjnkyOHA

Dear dean,

While the elections are over, there's still work to be done in the coming weeks. Members of Congress, whether they've been re-elected or not, still have decisions to make between now and the end of the year. Many of our stroke-related issues are on the table, so we'll need to stay vigilant and active. That's why we're asking you to participate in our "Virtual Lobby Days" taking place Nov. 28 through Dec. 9.

We'll have to be flexible about the exact actions we'll ask you to take as we face uncertainties. Outlined below are a few of the issues we believe may be considered. Yet even if these issues don't move forward before the end of 2016, we still must act. We'll have a much higher likelihood of success if we go into next year showing how much we care.

Some potential policy changes include:

The Furthering Access to Stroke Telemedicine Act (FAST act), to improve access to life-saving treatments. Right now, Medicare covers telemedicine services for stroke survivors only if they are provided in a rural hospital. If passed, this bill would direct Medicare to cover stroke telemedicine services regardless of location, ultimately making diagnosis and treatment faster nationwide.

Telehealth Legislative Initiatives, including the CONNECT for Health Act, the Telehealth Innovation and Improvement Act, the Telehealth Enhancement Act, and the Medicare Telehealth Parity Act. Each of these would improve access to all telehealth services, making it easier for stroke survivors to receive the treatment they need.

The 21st Century Cures and Senate Innovation Initiatives, which seek to improve the discovery, development, and delivery of cures for a wide variety of diseases. Among many other things, this bill would establish a program at the National Institutes of Health to track neurological diseases.

Funding for federal research programs that conduct critical biomedical and health research on stroke. This research primarily takes place at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. NINDS research has led to significant advancements in stroke diagnosis, treatment and recovery. The BRAIN Initiative aims to map the brain in an effort to better understand it and lead to cures and treatments for neurological diseases like stroke.

Watch & share: https://youtu.be/RUw3MTm_gAo

As these bills move forward, we'll be asking you to contact your policymakers seeking their support. For specifics on each action, check your e-mail and the advocacy page on the national stroke association site at STROKE.org. Here you'll find background information, pre-written letters you can personalize, as well as sample social media posts you can use to engage others. In short, you'll have everything you need to make a difference.

As Congress considers essential stroke-related legislation, your voice is more important than ever. Our goal is to help you be as effective as possible in delivering your message, so you can be heard in Washington, D.C., and beyond.

Sincerely,

Mitchell Ronningen, J.D.
Manager, Government Affairs