At 05:44 PM 4/18/98 -0400, Greg Leeman wrote:
>Why does MS get six times the
>funding while they have less than 1/2 as many sufferers?
>$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
MS has Bill Gates - and many, many sufferers. <G>
More to the point, Greg, the economic cost per Multiple Sclerosis patient
may be over twelve times the economic cost per Parkinson's patient. We'd
also have to assume that the likelihood of finding a "cure" is the same --
and then the economics that you discussed in your posting would work out
about even.
Over twelve times as much - yes, that's hard to believe - but "we" don't
know all the facts - certainly I don't. Even given economic breakeven,
however, we would expect that Congress and the NIH would choose to minimize
the number of people suffering and fund Parkinson's research fully and
adequately.
As you point out, the return on the investment is fantastic.
Art
____________________________________________________________________
Arthur Hirsch {} [log in to unmask] {} Lewisville, TX {} 972-434-2377
____________________________________________________________________
Always Remember This: Happiness Is Right, So Choose Happiness
____________________________________________________________________
