 |
 |
It seems to me that we are all losing track of one basic fact. THere is a law, that was passed in 1997, called the Udall Law. This Law states that $100 000 000 is to be spent on research into Parkinson's Disease. ANd it seems to me, that if that money is spent on anything else, then that Law is being broken. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Further , it weems to me that this law makes a promise that has not been fuflfilled, and this confuses me. Because the money has been promised - and it is only for PD, but the money has not been forthcoming. ANd then we are asked to make do with handouts at the whim of NIH - and we have to bend over backwards to get what is rightfully ours! Lord knows I begrudge no other disease any money towards their own research But 1. this 100 million dollars was allocated to us after much discussion to arrive at that figure by people who presumably knoew what they were doing. 2. the scientists who are up there doing the foremost research say it makes the most sense to concentrate on PD bercause it is the neurological disease that is closest to a cure, and once the breakthrough is made in PD , the others will follow suit. You see, even I have been led away from my original point, which is , simply, The law states the money should go to PD And all the other arguments, however true they are, should not be necessary. that law was created because those arguments are true. So why second guess the Law. The Udall Law exists. It states the money should go to PD. ANd that's that. HilaryBlue. [log in to unmask] wrote: > > 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.