http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art43486.asp
Diabetes Site
Cindy Kimura
BellaOnline's Diabetes Editor
Conquer Diabetes Call-In
***Begin Quote***
{Content deleted at the request of the author. You'll have to visit her site to see what she said. I still think what I posted was a fair use quote, but I am an easy to get along with type. In summary she urged that you call the Congress to support R&D funding. I assume that because I differ with her tactically, not strategically, she wants to use "force" one me to silence my pov. Oh well. She'll learn that begging politicians for a pittance is a losing tactic as well as demeaning.}
***End Quote***
Dear Ms. Kimura,
While I am sure that you have the best of intentions, I don't agree that going hat in hand to the Federal Government is the best way to solve the problem. I am not unsympathetic to your quest. I'd like nothing more than to see Diabetes conquered in our lifetimes. My wife is a Type 1 and my best friend is a Type 2.
However, I am fundamentally opposed to using tax money for any such purpose. No matter how noble.
First, if it is a good idea, then funds should be able to be raised voluntarily. My experience is that funds raised that way are used more effectively and efficiently. I personally contribute to the Joslin Institute. Not because of the tax deduction, but because of the pioneering work that they do. I think that they have a real chance at a cure.
Second, the Federal Government is neither effective or nor efficient in what they do. You and I will long be dead and buried before they develop a cure or have any hand in developing one. Allowing them to call the shots is just plain silly. What expertise do they have as leaders in Diabetes Research to decide what the right amount is? How can they decide what is the next best use of the next dollar of diabetes research money? How can they determine diminishing returns? When you say call and urge, how do we know what the right number is? It is egotistical to think that this process will deliver anything but strife as the different special interest groups "battle" for a part of the budget. Isn't it much more efficient, effective, and peaceful, if we return this to the people for a decision? Let's cut the Federal Government out of the equation, and thus we lose their "handling fee" (estimated to be a half to 85 percent), and put that money back into taxpayers' hands. Let's assume the breakage of sending a dollar to Washington is 50% just to make the math simple. So if you had a check from the Federal Government representing your share of the R&D budget let's say it's a dollar, then you could send it to say Joslin. Now, instead of sending two dollars to Washington to get a dollar check to donate, how about if you just keep the two bucks. Then, you can send it to Joslin. The AIDS activists can send their two bucks where they want. The Parkinson advocates can send it where they want. You get the idea. It's effective because the research organization will have to impress you with progress to keep you contributing. It's efficient because the "handling charge" of the Federal Government will go to the charity. And, it's peaceful, because the various groups don't have to squabble among themselves and give the Federal Government the ability to play one off against the other.
Third, if you really want progress, then focus on "shooting" the FDA! It slows the process and makes it fantastically expensive. Eliminate them and the whole R&D pipeline will speed up and cheapen. Besides, do you really think the Drug Companies want to kill their customers? And, even if you do, do you think that the FDA is an effective remedy? If so, look at the Viox and such deaths.
Fourth, I can only think of one disease that was "cured" lately. That was polio. The March of Dimes flattened it. Without the Federal Government. My only gripe with them was that they didn't have the good sense to go out of business. They "adopted" another disease. And one that will have no cure. "Birth defects" probably can't be eliminated or cured, only minimized. But, if they can attract donations, then that's OK! When they get tax money or United Way, which is not voluntary for most people, then it's NOT OK.
So, if I was king, I would suggest to my subjects that I wasn't wise enough to figure out what to do. But, what I did know was that we, as a people, needed to develop a consensus. The logical addition of all our opinions would be better than mine alone. Since I wasn't smart enough to cure any disease, I would help my subjects figure it out what diseases we had and how to move ahead. So, I'd order the king's clerks to summarize the cause of all deaths for all the land. I would invite the king's doctors (a panel of fifty distinguished people selected by their peers serving pro bono) to identify the 50 biggest problems (either by deaths or death rate) and the organizations working on those problems. I'd proclaim the list throughout the land and invite my subjects to contribute to the charity of their choice. I, of course, would visit each organization (one per week) and encourage them to find a cure. If they did, I bestow a meaningless honor on the ones that cured their disease and went out of business. I'd compliment my subjects on their wisdom and remind them that we still had a list of problems. Notice that never once did I make anyone do anything. Or really really spend a lot of tax money.
I hope this little rant convinces you that, if you really really want to cure diabetes, as I think you and I do, that a different strategy will be required. After all, look where the current model has gotten us. Some wag defined insanity as doing the same thing and expecting different results. Depending on the Federal Government, to me, defines insanity.
Respectfully submitted for your consideration,
FjohnR
Ferdinand John Reinke
3 Tyne Court
Kendall Park, NJ 08824
732-821-5850 (Home Office)
781-723-3746 (Fax)
http://public.2idi.com/=reinkefj (Email form)
http://www.reinke.cc/ (Web page)
https://reinkefj.wordpress.com/ (Blog)
Posted by reinkefj 
You must be logged in to post a comment.