 |
 |
Before I can justify in my own mind the "campaign for Udall designated $$'s" I still need an explanation to a question that I have asked before that has never been answered in any way shape or form........ We quote $'s spent for other diseases in our lobbying efforts.........those $'s have never been broken down into $for disease (AIDS for example) and $for related basic research. This was done for Parkinsons research (by a team of PD researchers).... How can we say that the same percentage breakdown does not exist for breast cancer, AIDS, or Alzheimers. We do not know the cause of Parkinsons. How can basic research be ruled out as "non-productive". I seem to be the only voice expressing these questions in this arena (at least publicly). If there is someone who understands the impact of basic research and would like to comment, I would appreciate those comments. If we are only harranging re: apples and oranges....I would like to know that before I push NIH. There is A LOT more to Parkinsons research than push the next pill...........when we do NOT know why the dopamine producing cells are not producing or the receptors are not receiving signals. I am not trying to be a stick in the mud......but I do think this is a valid question that has not been answered re breakdown of funds comparison for other diseases. And also the basic related research question. Molecular biology is not well understood by most clinical neurologists.....that is not their specialty....Most molecular biologists are not clinical practitioners either....but the two specialties do need each other. Rita Weeks.