 |
 |
perry, you are so right about congress. they have been acting in our behalf, but, i suppose, just not as quickly as we had hoped. doublecross wasn't the right word. this is precisely why i needed someone else to help write my letter! thanks. bba SORRY FOR THE SLOW RESPONSE. I HAVE BEEN HAVING ISP PROBLEMS SINCE SATURDAY AND HAVE BEEN OFF LINE MORE THAN ON. -----Original Message----- From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 10:16 AM Subject: oprah >Bruce Anderson: >Subject: Oprah Winfrey > >I think your idea of using your connections is wonderful, and I want to >encourage you to write the letter to Oprah's colleague. Oprah certainly has >a big audience and an ability to sway public opinion and her support could be >valuable. I agreed with everything until you said: > >........ Briefly giving the facts of PD, costs of not finding the cure, the >doublecross by congress, ......... > >There is one point I think you should be careful about, and that is >underestimating the effects of passing the Udall Act and the subsequent >Federal appropriations. NINDS did receive $200 million increase from >Congress this year, and while not rigidly earmarked for PD, a number of PD >initiatives are being launched, including funding of 5 new centers for PD >research, work on epidemiology of PD, and new initiatives in public >education and outreach for PD. As I reported earlier on the list, a group of >us including representatives from the major national PD organizations, met >last month with the Director of NIH and the Director of NINDS. In those >meetings and we sketched out some of the initiatives that NIH expects to take >with respect to PD and >suggested how PD representatives would have on-going input into developement >of the research agenda to find a cure for PD. Results are not in but give >the process a chance before you start suggesting a "doublecross" by Congress. >