 |
 |
At 12:05 AM 12/17/98 -0500, you wrote: >Hello, gee I just got back and I'm already MAD. They say you can make numbers say anything, but your convuleted thinking escapes and as a former accountant I know how to make the numbers dance. Your interprerarion of your own charts is puzzling to say the least!!!!\ You start out with what looks like a possibly valid point and continue to appear sane, right up to your chart whose figures I do idpute and the conclusion reasched as asinine. Where did you ever get the number of PWP (parkinsons) BOTTOM of your list, perhaps that's where your brain went sleep and the other end took over. 1! pwp to 56 heart disease, 28 osteo,40 arthritris, where on GGE did you get those figures. Somehow you come up wirh #'s that make sense. T,hr Columns of the two Worst diseases on the list Althyzmers and Parkinson's way above the 25,000 if you ever were to consider emotional aspects, in your index the personal suffering level and duration of illnes, these two diseases would blow the top of your chart. I wont question your calculations (i'm getting a headache),so ASSUMING our chart is correct (BIG?) even you could see 98 million on Pd research is less that that spent on diabetes. Diabetes "the 4th leadinf cause of death can also cause blindess and liver" To say it ranks above Parkinson's shows you are blind and death. With PD you get DEAtH, that is your future. A long slow humiliating one which will often take your mind as well. To compare rhe two on this listserv is an insult and is typical of the ill informed ignoramuses who oppose things like the Udall bill. Tell me mr.statitic what is the divorce/suicide rate amongst couples where one has DIABETES and one with one PWP. THat will give you a meaningfull fact. Angrily, Bill > >Bruce Anderson raised the issue of how much research funding each >disease should receive. In my opinion it should be based on what is >called the "disease burden," that is, the total of the personal and >societal economic costs with some kind of personal suffering index >factored in, which would include some indicator of how manageable >the disease is. Regarding current funding inequities, a year or so >ago I created the following chart using the numbers most commonly >quoted at the time. If you compare disease funding to disease cost, >you get something like this, keeping in mind that the prevalence and >cost numbers are rather approximate. (m) and (b) stand for million >and billion. (Note: columns will line up if you use courier font.) > > NIH Research Funding vs. Disease Cost > >+-------------+--------+---------+--------+---------+-------+-------+ >| | Approx | Annual | Annual | NIH | Rsch | Rsch | >| | Cases | Economic| Cost/ | Research| per | as % | >| Disease | (m) | Cost (b)| Case | 1998 (m)| Case | Cost | >+-------------+--------+---------+--------+---------+-------+-------+ >| Heart | 56 | 128 | 2286 | 1155 | 21 | .9 | >| Disease | | | | | | | >+-------------+--------+---------+--------+---------+-------+-------+ >| Cancer | 10 | 104 | 10400 | 2942 | 294 | 3.0 | >| | | | | | | | >+-------------+--------+---------+--------+---------+-------+-------+ >| Alzheimer's | 4 | 100 | 25000 | 349 | 87 | .3 | >| | | | | | | | >+-------------+--------+---------+--------+---------+-------+-------+ >| Diabetes | 16 | 92 | 5750 | 373 | 23 | .4 | >| | | | | | | | >+-------------+--------+---------+--------+---------+-------+-------+ >| Arthritis | 40 | 65 | 1625 | ? | ? | ? | >| | | | | | | | >+-------------+--------+---------+--------+---------+-------+-------+ >| Depression | 17 | 44 | 2588 | ? | ? | ? | >| | | | | | | | >+-------------+--------+---------+--------+---------+-------+-------+ >| Stroke | 3 | 30 | 10000 | 152 | 50 | .5 | >| | | | | | | | >+-------------+--------+---------+--------+---------+-------+-------+ >| Osteo- | 28 | 10 | 357 | 121 | 4 | 1.0 | >| porosis | | | | | | | >+-------------+--------+---------+--------+---------+-------+-------+ >| Parkinson's | 1 | 25 | 25000 | 98? | 98? | .4 | >| | | | | | | | >+-------------+--------+---------+--------+---------+-------+-------+ > >Since then I am told that 98 million for PD is way too high, as it is >based on NIH numbers that include non-PD research! > >Regarding diabetes, which Bruce mentioned, I'd put it higher on the >misery index than PD. It is the fourth leading cause of death, as >well as a cause of blindness and kidney failure. > >Phil Tompkins >age 60/dx 1990 > >