 |
 |
Dear List Members, I think it is important we address the issue of private industry vs. government funded research. I still stick by original question: when has the government ever cured anything? Some have said the government must take on research responsibilities because private industry can not be trusted to pursue it. Because private industry could not be trusted to develop a cure that would put them out of the business of selling drugs, the government must intervene. Did anybody explain this logic to Jonas Salk? According to Encarta at the height of the polio epidemic in 1952 there were 50,000+ cases annually(sounds like PD) in a population base probably half today's numbers. He and Sabin did not become millionaires by curing 50,000 people. They effectively eliminated the disease. Today, oral vaccine is taken by every child before the age of two. What if PD could be treated this way? The greatest revenues to be received are not from developing a cure for PD but from developing a test and vaccine for preventative medicine to be administered to every man, women, and child in the free world and then some. Estimate those numbers. One billion people times let's say $60 each for a medical treatment. If $60 billion is not enough incentive, how is $100 million going to turn anybody's head? Sixty dollars is cheap. My step son takes a Genentech growth hormone for undeveloped kidneys that costs $2000/month and he must take it for three years. That's right - $72,000. Would you pay $72K for a PD cure? When did the government become all knowing and powerful about PD research? The answer is when we developed a budget surplus and the politicians start pandering to us voters. A great way to supervise medical research! Wrong! I wonder what percentage of the federal funds - our tax dollars - earmarked for PD research goes to pure research and how much goes to bureaucrats and lobbyists. I say quit the spending, cut my taxes, and I'll have a lot less stress in my life. Symptomatic relief. Larry Fleming [log in to unmask]