Linda, I am a new PWP, work in an office, type, do graphic layout and design
with the computer.  My doctor recently told me he did not know why my typing
should suffer with this disease (this is the same doctor I have written
about before and am in the process of replacing-hopefully this month).  I
will print off your message - and explain to him again why I must find a
doctor who knows more about Parkinson's.  I can still type and do design,
but know now that it will inevitably become more and more difficult.  Good
thing is, now I can plan for it.
My "anniversary" is approaching, only two years since diagnosed - closer to
three since I noticed symptoms.

God Bless you this holiday season.  I will pray for you and a cure.
Melanie

-----Original Message-----
From: Parkinson's Information Exchange Network
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Linda J Herman
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 6:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: A parkinson's anniversary and an article


Dear list friends,
Today is the sixth "anniversary" of my Parkinson's diagnosis.
Six years ago i could have typed these few paragraphs in a just a few
minutes. This morning it took a great deal longer. Yet after 6 years i
know i am one of the luckier PWP. My functioning is more limited, but not
yet disabled.
As many of us have been told when we were first diagnoses --"a cure is
coming soon".."just around the corner"... "so many advances in the
research"...."a breakthrough in five years"... etc. etc.
What the neuros fail to tell us about are all the political forces
slowing or blocking the promise of scientific advances.
We've seen the same cycles with stem cell reseach -- announcement of
positive research results -- media hype in the news -- knee- jerk
reactions by politicians -- attempts by pressure groups actions to ban
public funding, or the research itself -- attempts by researchers and
disease advocates and journalists to publicize facts on what the new
technology is and what it isn't -- political reactions to stop or limit
the research while the ethics are further "studied."
In the European Union nations,  in Australia and other countries,
governments acted decidedly and swiftly in permitting and funding
therapeutic cloning for controlled research purposes and banning research
that would be used to create humans. While in the U.S,. the House of
Representatives  passes and the Senate is considering  a bill threatening
scientists with prison  if they pursue research that may bring the cure
for PD and so many other diseases.
As i begin year seven i'm hoping my  government won't toss out the key.
Linda

FROM: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
December 3, 2001 Monday FINAL EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 09A

HEADLINE: CLONING'S PERILS AND PROMISE;
Let's not toss out the key

BYLINE: MARIANNE MEANS

"President Bush's premature and ill-informed condemnation of the human
cloning
experiments by a private Massachusetts company stands in sharp contrast
to his
prolonged consideration of whether to deny federal funds for stem cell
research.
He ended that deliberation by allowing the research to continue, but on a
limited basis.

   The issues of cloning and stem cell research are not identical,
although they
are linked in the minds of those whose religion teaches that life begins
at
conception. Other religions teach that life begins later.

   Bush's emotional overreaction last week made no distinction between
cloning
to duplicate a human being, which the company says it's not doing, and
therapeutic cloning, which is aimed at producing stem cells that can
fight
terrible diseases. The latter, the company says, is its goal. The issue
is
whether reverence for an embryo is more important than the promise of
medical
cures to prolong life and relieve pain.

   "The use of embryos to clone is wrong," Bush snapped, immediately
after
Advanced Cell Technology announced it had cloned the world's first human
embryos. "We should not as a society grow life to destroy it. And that's
exactly
what's taking place."

   No, it isn't. The president panicked without knowing what he was
talking
about. He knocked down a straw man.

   Polls show there is no support in this country or abroad for the
cloning of
human beings to create their genetic twins, as researchers have done with
animals. There are powerful ethical questions about producing artificial
humans.
But that is not what ACT did.

   The definition of "life" depends on whether one believes an embryo is
in
itself a living human being or a collection of cells with human potential
if
implanted in a woman's uterus. The researchers insist they will never
place a
cloned embryo in a woman's uterus. So it could not grow into a baby.

   The very word "cloning" makes some people hysterical. And the
scientific
implications are complex and confusing.

   It is some stretch to claim that ACT grew "life." It has cloned some
embryos
to try to harvest their stem cells to combat degenerative diseases such
as
Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, for which there are no cures. None of the
clones,
however, lived long enough to produce any stem cells. Much more research
has to
be done.

   The laboratory announced the minimal breakthrough anyway in hopes of
getting
credit for being a pioneer in the field and attracting new financial
support.

   In many other countries, leaders seem to have no trouble
distinguishing
between cloning for controlled research purposes and cloning to create
humans.
The European Union recently rejected a proposed ban on human cloning by a
vote
of 316 to 37. Britain expressly permits and regulates therapeutic cloning
experiments but forbids human cloning. No European state has admitted it
would
ever permit a human baby to be produced by cloning.

   The U.S. House has approved a bill criminalizing human cloning for any
purpose. The Senate, however, has taken no action. It has been inclined
to
sympathize more with the scientists and the sick who need improved
medical
treatments than with the pro-life religious conservatives.

   Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) is pressing for a comprehensive
anti-cloning
measure that would either forbid the practice or impose a six-month
moratorium
on such research. But Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) is leading the
opposition. It
is unclear which side has more support, but Senate Majority Leader Tom
Daschle
(D-S.D.) says he will not schedule a vote on the issue until next year,
after
hearings can be held.

   "The scientific community is ready to put forward a very strong case,"
Specter said. "And I think that case will be persuasive to the Congress."

   Bush, of course, won't be listening. His mind is made up. He didn't
wait for
the facts or repeat the thoughtful deliberation he went through in
deciding to
block funding for research on new stem cell lines but to continue funding
for
existing cell lines.

   He should have stayed out of the new cloning issue, and so should
Congress.
The science in cloning is coming and can't be stopped. The toothpaste is
out of
the tube.

   If we ban the technology in America, we will fall behind other
countries in
the search for medical cures. The wise course would be to keep both
public and
private research legal so that it will be done in the open and can be
regulated.
The Bush administration doesn't approve of most regulations, but this is
one
area in which government supervision -- but not suppression -- is
needed."

   ------------

   Marianne Means is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn