 |
 |
JaneRoss wrote: > > I wasn't going to comment on this subject because I understand very little > about how politics works. But I feel I have some input to the subject. Let > me keep this simple. I have been a research subject at NIH and stayed 12 > days with them. We had many conversations on many topics including > earmarked money. > > Let me jump to a story that happened while I was there. I was repeatedly > tested for fine motor skills (every ten minutes of each day) One day I had > a sore throat and my motor skills improved, Dr. Fang explained to me that > they know when the body is trying to fight off germs Parkinson symptoms > improve. He said that if they could reproduce the chemicals that the body > uses to fight diseases it might help PWP. > > That story is only one of many. How do you fund the unknown? If they use > earmarked money wouldn't that exclude new ideas? > The NIH is not crazy about earmarking, but it is a fact of life--without it more money might be spent on AIDS, cancer, heart disease etc. These are worthy projects -but so is Parkinsons. AIDS was not well funded until the patients with it demanded that the research go on and there has been great progress. It is out turn. Nita Andres> Jane you wrote They were not excited about The Udall Bill because of the earmarked statis. > I don't understand...... > > I know that we just won one battle getting the bill passed, do we dare > complain about how we will be given the money? > > jjjane