#144

DNP is definitely a weird choice in hindsight :rofl:

3 Likes
#145

Acknowledgment of FOIA Case:

image
image1294×552 72.7 KB

7 Likes
#146

Apparently GlyNAC will be part of the next ITP cohort: Glycine+NAC vs Rapamycin - #231 by adssx

6 Likes
#147

Reminder (I didn’t even know about it… Thanks @invivo for the information…), there’s also the CITP (Caenorhabditis Intervention Testing Program):

Might be worth applying to both the ITP and the CITP.

2 Likes
#148

We’re all familiar with the ITP results, but what are the results of the CITP? Anything actionable?

#149

See here: Impact of worm genetic background on lifespan extension result

3 Likes
#150

Any update on the FOIA?
I wonder about finasteride, if it has ever been considered in the ITP.

1 Like
#151

Finasteride wasn’t tested, I saw similar drug (probably Dutasteride) that increased lifespan in worms by 20% - but it was only in 1 study - and not ITP

2 Likes
#152

No news… I’ll post it here whenever they get back to me.

1 Like
#153

I was wondering if anyone has tried to submit it to the ITP.

I forgot this regarding FOIA:

52 working days for simple requests
215 working days for complex requests

1 Like
#154

Answer:

This is the final response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request addressed to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Institute on Aging (NIA) FOIA Office, dated January 29, 2024, and received in this office on the same day. Your request was referred to the NIH FOIA Office because of our responsibilities under FOIA. You requested a copy of:

  1. All the proposals (PDF or Word file) submitted to the NIA since January 1st, 2022, as part of
    the ITP’s “Request for Proposals”
  2. The list of all interventions under consideration for the ITP’s 2024 cohort
  3. The list of all interventions under consideration for the ITP’s 2025 cohort

I have determined to withhold the documents in its entirety pursuant to Exemption 4 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(4); and section 5.31 (d), and of the HHS FOIA Regulations, 45 CFR Part 5. Exemption 4 protects from disclosure trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential. In this case, please note that we are prohibited by statute from releasing business and technical proposals as well as records supporting any unfunded grant applications.

Does anyone understand the grounds for refusal? I have 90 days to appeal.

1 Like
#156

I think Richard Miller has mentioned this before… many of the proposals are from companies, etc. that have proprietary information in their submissions, and they want that data to remain proprietary. So - I guess as part of the process the ITP agrees not to release that info.

But, @adssx thanks for your efforts on this! It would seem that we would at least get the information on non-proprietary compounds , and non-commercially related compounds? Perhaps if we scoped our request more narrowly?

Perhaps if we made the same request with the addendum that it not include “disclosure trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential”

2 Likes
#157

Thanks. I’ll appeal and ask them to at least release “non-proprietary compounds and non-commercially related compounds”. Unless there’s a better way to express that?

2 Likes
#158

I would also like the ITP to test berberine.

1 Like
#159

FOIA appeal sent… I’ll keep you posted.

2 Likes
#160

I don’t know the US law, but I have done various appeals including FOI in the UK.

If they have a statutory exemption I would expect that to trump any other argument.

#161

In Europe (including in the UK), human rights law trumps statutory exemption when it comes to access to public information. (I actually sued the French gov before the European Court of Human Rights on this ground: HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights )

In the US, I don’t know. But in any case:

  1. Which statute specifically prevents them from releasing the information?
  2. Are all requested documents “business and technical proposals” or “records supporting any unfunded grant applications”?
#162

Actually in the UK human rights law does not necessarily trump a statutory exemption. The 1998 Human Rights Act enables cases to be brought in accordance with ECHR in UK domestic courts, but in the end if statute conflicts with ECHR principles then statute takes precedence.

It is possible then to take cases to ECtHR. That’s true.

Article 10 is qualified, Article 6 is not.

#163

If a statute conflicts with ECHR principles, section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 “requires courts to interpret both primary and subordinate legislation so that their provisions are compatible with the articles of the European Convention of Human Rights”. If such an interpretation is impossible, section 4 allows them to issue a declaration of incompatibility.

And then, of course, you can bring cases to Strasbourg.

Yes, article 10 is qualified, and the FOI interpretation of article 10 is also qualified (see Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary, 18030/11).

1 Like
#164

Appeal of the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) response to my FOIA request received:

image
image1252×766 224 KB

Answer: in many many months or years?

3 Likes