 |
 |
Camilla and list family: In response to Camilla's remarks(see below my post:) I really do a slow burn when staff or appropriations committee or any official government staff person says like the fellow on C-SPAN you mention below that NIH doesn't think the congress should earmark funds for any specific disease. Why can't our elected officials speak on our behalf, pass laws specifically earmarking funds for pd research? We elect rep/sen to speak in our behalf to spend the tax dollars we all contribute. Certainly $40 annually per pd diagnosed person in the USA/Canada that has previously been spent can be raised as per Udall bill lang. What are lobbies for if not to insure that tax dollars are spent the way taxpayers want? Most of the supporting sen/rep of Udall bill are more informed about costs/problems/devistation of pd than the fellow on C-SPAN probably ever might be and can speak for the pd community when they say "Keep the $$$ in Udall bill committed to pd research." Keep trying Camilla and the rest of you. We are being heard and we must not be quiet. Only by keeping tabs on the government funding and/or privately donated $$ for research will progress be made in finding a cure/cause for pd. In our case, Silence is certainly NOT Golden!!! Jeanette Fuhr 48/11mos. <[log in to unmask]> Camilla Flintman said in part: > > Friends-- on the C-SPAN "Washington Journal" this morning there was a guest > from the staff of the appropriations committee, so I sent the following > e-mail, and it was actually used: > > To: [log in to unmask] > > We worked for more than 2 years to pass the Udall bill for Parkinson > research and education, and it finally was approved as part of the > Labor-HHS bill. We understand that the NIH is resisting Congresdsional > pressure to "earmark" the $100,000,000. which was approved for the Udall > bill for that use-- can your guest tell us whether the money will be there > for us, now that research is so promising for a possible cure or better > treatment for this progressive, incapacitating neurological disease? > > His reply was the usual "party line" about NIH receiving a large increase, > but it's not being wise for Congress to tell the scientists how the money > should be spent. Ho hum.............well, I tried.........