 |
 |
Mary Y.... M'dear... It seems that even when you're "off" you're "right on!" "Serendipity" in medical research HAS happened every once in a while, but it's a rare event when it does. In those instances when for whatever reason there's a major medical breakthrough via a serendipitous route, it seems to take MUCH longer for the world-wide medical community to accept it as a bona fide treatment or cure. That means a much longer time for such a discovery to make it into the commercial marketplace and into the hands of the patients in need of such a drug/treatment. Historically, it appears that "legitimate testing," I.e., FDA standards of medical testing, dictates the specific protocols MUST be followed in pre-release testing AND specific criteria MUST be met prior to the FDA giving a "thumbs up" drug and/or treatment almost always is what eases a drug or treatment acceptance into the world of modern medicine. And you can count on it that the FDA doesn't thing too highly of or endorse "serendipity" when it medical research, discovery, and cures. Barb Mallut [log in to unmask] -----Original Message----- From: mary yost <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wednesday, April 28, 1999 1:06 AM Subject: Throwing Money at Problems -- a Debate >Last week the President of Caltech was interviewed on public television by >the charming Charlie Rose. He asserted that spending enormous sums on >research is not going to bring about the results that advocacy groups >expect. His line of reasoning seemed to be that scientific breakthroughs >depend a great deal on chance. There are just not enough young scientists >in the pipeline to make a big push towards curing various diseases. >Discoveries will happen gradually, dependent on the number of trained >people in the research community. > >Then today the president of Intel invited himself on the same show to give >a rebuttal. He's a prostate cancer survivor who has gone to great lengths >to educate himself about the disease, and has been an effective advocate >for increasing funding for research. The arguments he gave were the same >as the ones that the Parkinson's Action Network and the Parkinson's >Alliance have prepared for us: that when the right conditions are set up >and the key people are given the opportunity to share ideas, science >happens. It's not all serendipity. > >In the middle of the various grass roots efforts to push for a cure, I've >always harbored a lingering doubt. What if we're so far out of synch with >how the scientific community works that we're being ineffective, or even >worse, that we're alienating them? > >So it was reassuring to hear the Intel president, another warm and >thoughtful Hungarian/American like our Margaret, reaffirm that we're on the >right track. Adding up some experiences in the last few years, my doubt is >disappearing: Morton Kondrake's powerful television essay on "the Politics >of Medicine",and Dr. Langston last year at the PAN forum imagining a >"Manhattan Project" style effort towards curing neurological diseases. In >February, when I described the seed money project to parkinsonologist Dr. >Mathias Kurth at a patient workshop in Orange County, he said that if >Pennies for Parkinson's had existed when he was starting out, "it would >have changed the course of my career. > >Today was the first day that I was too "off" to stay at my job in the >afternoon. "Fund the Research, Find a cure." I'm ready. > >Mary Yost, 51, diag. 42 >[log in to unmask] >