 |
 |
i think i understand the point you are trying to make. That because it seemss that the NIH may have I understand the point you are trying to make, i think That because the NIH possibly mishandled or misdirdcted some of the money that was allocated for AIDS research, and because there appears to be a likelihoood that this may have happened on other occasions, that they should be allowed to do this with the PD money as well. Well sith all due repect, if that is what you are trying to say, it doesnt make sense to me. My point, to reiterate: a law was passed granting a crtain amount of money to PD research. . hilary [log in to unmask] wrote: > > Hilary, > I will back up and rephrase my question.......... > > We have said that NIH spends $*** million on AIDS research (don't have the > current figure available) > > We have said that $100 million was allocated for Parkinsons research BUT > although NIH says $100 was spent on PD.....we say no.....$60 million on PD > and $40 million on related? research...we want the whole thing. > If we use that argument......in order to be accurate.....do we not have to > back track and say that NIH spent $***million on AIDS research....$@@million > was for AIDS and $## was for related? research. Those figures have NOT been > broken out so far as I know........ > > I don't question that the money should be allocated......my question is > whether it actually has been by the basis of the arguments that we used to > justify the figure in the first place. Or are we comparing our figures by > comparing grapes and grapefruit. > Rita 54/10