Dear Barb: I have read your pithy comments along on the board with interest
and have enjoyed them. When I read your reaction to Bob Fink's statement, I
was faced with a dilemma. How can I tell her that I think that she's over-
reacting without overreacting myself, and not getting the message through. I
see reading the days mail that you realized that and have apologized to
Bob.
I understand that you felt that he was being too negative. I too am
pretty impressed with what I have seen aabout pallidotomies. We may be
lucky with this one; it seems to work. But there are many things that
do not work,yet people believe in them. Science has been dedicated to
trying to trying to sort fact from fancy. And it seems that there haasn't
been enough science in the pallidotomy followup. I sincerely wish that
there had been more done on this.
Bob sounded caution. He was a messenger bringing a message that
many of us didn't want to hear. But we must hear it, and do such things as
push like the devil on the Udall bill (when it comes forward again).
Alan is right; the board should be for all opinions, even the negative
ones. Barb, you clearly have the right to sound off; I don't want you to feel
the chill of negative feedback. But then I don't want Bob Fink or others
in that position to feel that chill either.
Thanks to everyone for putting an oar in on this one. The WSJ article
was great publicity for us, and well done. Nice to see it on the front page.
All the best, Bob Newbrough
