On 10/02/96 10:54:39 J. Cordy wrote: > >I think that is one of the things we must do differently. We >need hard facts. What NINDS does with this additional $32 >million will be one fact. As the new budget gets analyzed, >we need to take note of the various areas of wasteful >spending that are sure to be there. Repeatedly we were >asked where should we get the money from? Next year I >want to have a list of answer >. Does anyone have any figures om the number of young-onset PWP, and the percentage of this group within the total Parkinson population, both within the US and world wide? It might be helpful to approach congress and research centers with these figures. This may be more productive than simply using the total number of cases. Unfortunately, there seems to be a perception on the part of the general public that PD is an affliction that only happens to the aged population, and that research monies are better spent on diseases that tend to afflict the young. It has been frustrating to find that the general public all too often mistakenly confuses PD with Alzheimers, with senility, and with the very old. I am afraid the underlying, unconscious attitude all too often is, why bother. A week ago, a local TV station aired a ten minute segment on a local man's pallidotomy. This was during prime time, and was a follow-up from the original telecast several months ago. It would be a very effective way to educate the public if we were to approach the program directors of our local stations about filming a story featuring local area young Parkinsons who are coping with jobs, family life, and a devistating ailment .... with an emphasis on what adequately funded research could do for them. By the way, my rep in congress: Calvin Dooley, 20th District California. (But maybe not after November) Also, within my sphere, George Radanovich, 19th District. Sometimes a setback can have its useful aspects, especially if it makes us mad. It looks like we may be coming back in January with world-wide reinforcements. Martha Rohrer