 |
 |
On Sun 18 May, Walter O. Huegel wrote: > My #1 priority in participating in this list service is to advance the > cause for a PD cure. I agree with with Walt Huegel that the over-riding objective which dominates my life is to bring about the conquest of Parkinson's Disease. However, as I read the rest of his note, I find that we are talking about Political Activism; the implication being that all that is needed to bring about the end of PD is the right actions from the Government - which I presume translates into more money for PD Research, since at the end of the day that is about the only power that a government can wield against something like PD. What concerns me is that I believe that there is a lot more to achieving a cure for PD than simply generating lots of money, and please, all you wonderful people who are breaking your backs to get the Udall Bill passed, don't take that as the slightest criticism of your motives or efforts. The passage of the Udall bill will be one of the most significant milestones ever in the battle against PD, but there does still exist the little matter of finding the cure ( or let's say 'A' cure- there may be more than one way to achieve a cure). The reason that money is so important at this time is that, as we are rounding the bend and coming into the home straight, the Researchers are starting to generate a growing volume of good ideas, all of which need money to either prove or disprove the value of the idea. What is he getting at (I hear you saying). Well, just this: I have a strong suspicion that, if we tried to follow every idea to the point of being able to say that it is right or wrong, the Udall Bill would begin to look like small change. This means that there will be, just as there has always been, a need for some sort of overall plan or strategy to exist, and there will be a need for a group of people to exist whose job is to make that difficult decision of where the funds should go. Now that team in my view should not be made up exclusively of those who hold the purse-strings, nor should it be made up of all Researchers. I believe that there should be representation from many walks of life; for instance, without giving it much thought, I could suggest :- Researchers, money men, Sufferers, Representatives from the Drug industry, etc. It was considerations such as those which I have mentioned above which led Phillip and Christine Young in the UK to form a group known as SPRING (Special Parkinsons Research INterest Group), of which I am proud to be a founder member. This group, which is properly constituted within the PDS-UK, has two broad aims: One is to seek greater funding for Research (We don't have a Udall Bill) and Two is to ensure that whatever monies are collected, they are put to the best use, consistent with the overall strategy which has been agreed. I hope I have conveyed my main message adequately: That there is more to beating PD than getting the polititians lined up and facing in the right direction. My dearest wish is that the next and future generations will grow up in a world where the term PD will be noted only as the first of the neurological diseases to be eradicated by Science. Regards -- Brian Collins <[log in to unmask]>