My blog

Cindy,
For us to help you, we need to know what software you are using for
email and what computer/operating system you are using. Some people
seem to be using software which will not read html and see html email as

Hi Bill and RFPSteed
Yes Anne is cold at 70 F! It is 65 F now and I have on a tee shirt,
jumper, cardigan AND socks under my sheepskin slippers!!
Tony has on shorts and a tee shirt!!!!! Heater is going on SOON!!!
We joke we need a house each!! Other suggestion from Tony is that he
will build a greenhouse in the garden for me to save on the bills!!!!
Love Anne

Dear Linda,
Did you have a nice Valentine's Day? I was in bed at 7:30...
You need to get your lung thing taken care of soon! It sounds like you
have walking pneumonia (sp?) to me! That is nothing to fool around with!
If I were there, I would pick you up and take you right now!
I'm glad it went well with the quilt! I had my fingers crossed that you
would have a good time! Was it nice to get out of the house and get
some fresh air????? What a whiz you are! It sounds like everyone
came out on the good end!
I hope you feel better today, and go see the dr, and try to eat some
more chicki-oodle soup!
Hugs & Prayers & Happy Thoughts,
Debi

Hi John
We got opposites!!!! I was beautifully cool during the summer when
everyone wads complaining about the heat! Now we are cooling down
(winter here 23 degs cel) I am freezing. I want the heating on and
Tony say's it is too hot. The heating goes on and he goes outside
periodically to cool down!!
Mind as soon as I go to bed it changes. THEN I am so hot, I am
throwing the donna off the bed and Tony is pulling it back on over
him. Cooler at night of course. It has been down to 13 deg cel.
That of course is when I get hot!!!! Our thermastats are sure up the
creek!!
Love to you from (remember Aussie Anne?! :o)

Yes, it worked! Thank you!
Cindy

In a message dated 2/14/01 8:23:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mayer@... writes:
Dear Dave, the name of the surgery is a pancreatectomy with autograft of the
islets into the liver. Don't confuse autograft with allograft which is when
the islets are transplanted from a cadaver to a person for diabetes and then
the person has to take anti-rejection drugs the rest of their lives. With
autograft of the islets which I had, since they were my own islets I never
have to take rejections drugs.
If you want information or if you are considering the surgery please only go
to Dr. Sutherland at the Fairview University Medical Center in MN. He has
been doing this surgery since the 1970s. He and that hospital have
experience in this surgery and so many pancreas transplants. Many hospitals
are now starting to do the pancreatectomy for chronic pancreatitis sufferers
but none of them have the experience that Fairview and Dr. Sutherland has.
Here where I live in Cincinnati they are now doing the surgery. Before I had
my surgery December 8 The University of Cincinnati wanted to do the surgery
on me but I wouldn't let them touch me since they had only done three
pancreatectomies and islet transplants.
I think you will find these sites very interesting. They are all about a
woman named Sue who I heard about the surgery from and to me she is my angel.
I also met others who have had the surgery and we keep in touch. We feel
like family. The other site I will give you are about the surgery, the
hospital and the doctors.
http://www.insulin-free.org/stories/rebello.htm
http://www.Diabetesinstitute.org
If you have any more questions just ask. Your friend, Shirley

My mother is taking 50mg Zoloft daily. She was up as high as 100 mg
daily but we reduced it thinking she wouldn't be so sleepy. I don't
want to remove it completly.
Zoloft is relatively fast acting, usually achieving its effect in 1-3
days. Similarly, it wears off very shortly after you stop giving
it. This is fast acting and fast disappearing in comparison to
Prozac which can take up to several weeks to ramp up or wear off.
At least this is the information given to me by two separate
docotrs. Hope that helps.

Dave,
that's because all vegetables of the brassica family (cauliflower, broccoli,
cabbage) have been known
to cause pancreatitis. Not common, but it can do it, mainly because brassica's
are slightly poisinous.
That's why the recommend you cook them, it usually leeches out the poisons.
Kimber

Pancreatitis-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Paula,
Yes I do have the problem with my family. My husband's family is very
supportive, but my family, to say the least, is not.
They think everytime I get sick I should stay at home and take care of my
son instead of going to the hospital. What they dont understand is I cant
even help myself, let alone take care of my son when I flare-up.
It is unfortunate that your family suffers from this disease. I am sorry
and if I can help in anyway, please let me know.
Sincerely, Alicia

Debi,
having a lot of dizzy spells if I don't eat, and this helps a great deal.
It also seems like when I have my "special time of the month", that it hurts
a lot worse.
It might also help to get either Ensure or Boost as it is meant to be a meal
replacement. Slim Fast has a lot of sugar in it. I also have an increase in
pain and nausea when its that "special time of the month". I think its
because the monthly bloating puts pressure on the other oragns in there,the
pancreas and the stomach. Heating pads tend to help me during that time.
Diane
Truly,truly I say to you,unless one is born again,he cannot see the kingdom
of God(John3:3)

Debi,
Um, I had that, only it wasn't from the pancreatitis. I had a heart attack due
to a blood clot in my heart, not long after. You might also want your doctor to
check
to see if you have mono(mononucleosis?, not sure if that's the correct full
name, but the doctor will
know what you mean if you just say mono). One of it's main symptoms is
exhaustion. If it's mono, take
lots of Vitamin B. My mother had it once
and got better quicker once she started taking Vitamin B tablets. There are
any number of things that have exhaustion as a side effect/symptom.
Kimber

Pancreatitis-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Groups Home

Pam,
I've been diabetic for twenty years, so if you want any advice, just
to talk because it's frustrating, etc. Let me know. You can get to
me through this website or at my home or work email addresses:
home: hominid2@...
work: kimber.allen@...
I've been the whole route of testing blood sugars, seeing dietitians, etc.
I currently take insulin and have since I was diagnosed when I was 10.
Kimber

Pancreatitis-unsubscribe@egroups.com

I am unable to open some of the attachments that are sent, specifically the
two today from Waverly. I get a message that says "The document's format is
invalid or not supported." Can anyone advise me on whether there is a way to
open these files. Do I need more software? If so, which?
Thanks much,
Cindy

Debi,
I've been thinking about checking into the Slim fast, but haven't had the
chance to yet. I also raid the baby food aisle. :.) Now I know why all
those baby spit out their food. Some of it is absolutely terrible. I usually
stick to the fruits and desserts and some of the graduate meals are okay.
(Real low in fat).
Kimber

Happy Valentines Day Debi.
I'm doing pretty good today. And yes, it does occasionally move around.
Normally it is just under the middle of my rib cage in the upper abdomen,
just under the bra line. But occasionally I feel it to the lower left or right.
It's probably because the pancreas kind of moves around all the time in between
all your other organs.
Kimber

Pancreatitis-unsubscribe@egroups.com

From The Washington Post Online:

A Cure for Milly's Parkinson's?
When his wife was diagnosed with Parkinson's, he sought more funding for research in a race against time. But Washington politics made that crusade more difficult than he ever imagined

Milly, Kondracke,Magazine Morton and Milly Kondracke have been married for 33 years. Since 1987, Milly has been battling Parkinson's disease, a debilitating condition affecting the brain that causes tremors and eventual immobility. (Family Photos)

^_____Web Resources^_____

o Human Genome Project: Background Information
o NIH: Research News
o APDA: Find Information and Referral Centers
o ClinicalTrials.gov: Browse Clinical Trials

[INLINE] E-Mail This Article
[INLINE] Printer-Friendly Version
[INLINE] Subscribe to The Post

By Morton Kondracke
Sunday, June 3, 2001; Page W14

"Marry Milly!" Joan Kehoe whispered in my ear. Then she repeated it, more insistently. We were at an Italian restaurant, Riccardo's, the favorite martini-lunch spot for reporters at the Chicago Sun-Times in the 1960s. Joan had introduced me to Millicent Martinez a few months before. Milly was sitting out of earshot as Joan importuned me. She also couldn't see the quizzical look on my face, which betrayed what was in my mind: Marry Milly? Out of the question.

Not that I didn't like her. I did. She was pretty. She was self-assured. And she was exotic, half-Mexican and half-Jewish. But she did not fit my life's plan, which was to become a big-shot Washington journalist. I figured that the person I planned to be someday should have a Vassar or Wellesley graduate for a wife, or possibly an heiress -- a woman whose family connections and intellectually stimulating company could help me attain the goal.

Eventually Milly overwhelmed this stupid idea and I realized that, wherever I went in life, I would regret it the whole way if she were not with me. So ultimately I followed Joan's advice.

We got married on October 7, 1967. We wrote our own wedding ceremony, praying for peace in the world and justice in America and also pledging in the traditional way that we would be there for each other in sickness and in health. Two photographers from the Sun-Times took different wedding pictures of us at separate moments leaving the church and walking to our reception. Both show Milly and me laughing, in a state of pure joy. I felt utterly confident that I had made the best decision of my life. I have never for a moment regretted it, in health or in sickness.

In fact, for 33 years we've lived a love story -- but of one kind for the first 20 and a very different kind for the last 13, after Parkinson's disease invaded our lives. We moved to Washington in 1968, and Milly developed into a dynamo -- a gifted psychotherapist, a strong mother to our two daughters, a wise neighbor and generous friend, and a formidable companion to me. We were bonded, almost welded.

In 1987, the first shadow of Parkinson's disease cast itself upon our lives. Milly was writing a check and remarked that she could not form the letter "K" correctly. She got a piece of paper and wrote her signature four or five more times, then more times, and said her handwriting just wasn't right. I saw no difference. Anyway, I thought Milly was both vain and perfectionist about her clear penmanship. Whatever was wrong -- if anything was wrong -- was in her imagination or was being exaggerated, I figured.

That May, Milly made an appointment to see her old boss at the Neurology Center in Bethesda, Marvin Korengold. In fact, after getting her master's degree in social work at Catholic University, Milly had counseled patients at the center for a few years. She'd brought home harrowing stories about people stricken with Alzheimer's disease, epilepsy and particularly Parkinson's. Korengold, a neurologist, examined Milly and diagnosed ulnar neuropathy, a nerve inflamed from pressure at the elbow. He told her to try to keep her arms straight and avoid leaning on the elbow. Milly reported these findings to me with relief that the problem was not serious. But, even though she followed instructions, her symptoms did not go away.

On a follow-up visit in June, Korengold had her swing her arms and noticed that the right did not move as smoothly as the left. He prescribed Symmetrel, which Milly took believing it was meant to help her nerve problem. He did not tell her what it was actually for, evidently not wanting to scare her. She went back to see Korengold a few times during the summer because her right little finger remained weak and she began to notice a slight tremor in her right foot when she pressed the accelerator or brake while driving.

One day in September she called me at work in tears, with a panic in her voice that I'd never heard before.

"Something terrible has happened," she said. "You've got to come home." I had a fleeting terror that one of the girls had been injured or killed. She said, "I looked up the medicine Korengold gave me in my pill book. Symmetrel is for Parkinson's disease!" I was relieved that this was not the worst possible news, but for Milly it was. "I know what Parkinson's is. I've seen people with it," she cried. "It's a horrible disease, People shake. They can't walk. They choke on their food. It can't be that!"

I drove home as soon as I could and found Milly utterly distraught. This was the first time in our lives together that I had ever seen Milly out of control. She said that if she did have Parkinson's it meant that she would have to give up her psychotherapy practice because clients would not want to be treated by someone "so pathetic." She predicted, "You won't keep loving me. You'll leave me. You don't know what Parkinson's does to people. You'll have to take me to the bathroom. You'll have to feed me. You won't want to do that."

I said rather automatically that I didn't care what happened, I'd never leave her. I meant this, too, although she was correct: I knew nothing about Parkinson's or the extreme disabilities it could cause. And, of course, her problems then were so mild that her grim predictions seemed speculative and extreme.

For five years, as is usual with Parkinson's patients, a medicine called Sinemet worked to keep her tremor and stiffness under control. But gradually, as is usual, it stopped working. She began to experience severe leg cramps. She sometimes froze in a chair, unable to move. Worst of all, she began to lose her sense of balance. She fell often, and we became regular visitors to the emergency room at Suburban Hospital, where she received stitches in her lips, forehead and chin.

In 1994, as Milly's condition continued to worsen, we began looking at drastic surgical therapies to relieve the symptoms. Basically, two were available -- a fetal cell transplant and a pallidotomy. I read a lot about both. Milly and I met up with Joan Samuelson, president of the Parkinson's Action Network, who got us involved in advocacy and lobbying for increased federal funding of Parkinson's research. Samuelson, a Parkinson's patient herself, put us in touch with some of the top neurologists in the country, whom I called for advice about what we should do next for Milly.

They told me that, theoretically, a fetal transplant would be the most advisable thing for a direct hit at Milly's Parkinson's. The procedure, made controversial by opposition from the antiabortion movement, involves injecting dopamine-producing cells from aborted fetuses into the brain of a Parkinson's victim to replace those that have died. At the time we were considering the operation, federally sponsored research trials were just beginning because President Clinton, as one of his first acts, had lifted a ban imposed by the Reagan and Bush administrations.

A few doctors were performing the operation without federal sponsorship, notably a surgeon in California who was reporting dramatic results. But the researchers I talked to warned me away from him, saying that he was not publishing any scholarly findings and stories were circulating about botched operations and brain damage. The experts I consulted also said that their review of results from Europe and elsewhere indicated that while fetal transplantation was a promising area of research, there were significant problems keeping cells alive after they were transferred. They advised looking seriously into pallidotomy instead. A doctor named Mahlon DeLong had been studying this daylong surgical procedure in which the patient is awake throughout, helping to guide doctors to the targets they would be trying to hit deep in the brain to slow the misfiring of hyperactive nerve cells. DeLong had been Milly's neurologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore before moving to Emory
University in Atlanta. He warned there was potential danger to a pallidotomy, but Milly begged him to perform the surgery. "I can't stand to live this way anymore," she said. "I'd rather die." He agreed to do it.

The first indications were good. When Milly was able to get out of bed after the surgery, she and I danced briefly around the room. Her balance wasn't perfect, but it seemed improved, and I thought she moved less haltingly than before the surgery. But the old pattern resumed: Some days, she could walk around the house safely by herself or using a walker. Other times, at home and away, she collapsed forward or to the side and was unable to break her fall. The emergency room visits recurred, and the stitches. One day when our daughter Andrea was home from medical school, Milly had almost reached the bottom of the stairs when she suddenly fell forward, hitting her head on a wall. We put our three-story house on the market and signed a contract on a one-story rambler.

There was no longer much hope that Milly could avoid being rendered a permanent invalid by Parkinson's.

Inside and out, the White House fairly shimmers with light at Christmastime. And so it did on December 15, 1993, when Milly and I made our first foray into politics as a way of saving her from Parkinson's disease.

By the time Bill and Hillary Clinton's Christmas invitation arrived, I was beginning to understand disease politics. My eyes were first opened earlier in 1993 by literature that Jill Schuker, Milly's best friend, sent to us from the Parkinson's Action Network. It pointed out that Parkinson's research was deeply underfunded by the federal government in comparison with other diseases. The minute I read it, I felt that I'd let Milly down by not taking action earlier. I knew I had to do something, but I didn't know what. I had a twice-weekly column in Roll Call, a newspaper read by practically everyone on Capitol Hill, but at first it struck me that using my position to campaign for more Parkinson's money constituted unethical special pleading.

But in July of that year I decided I could write something if I disclosed my personal interest. I phoned Joan Samuelson, whom I hadn't yet met. On the basis of the interview, I wrote a column saying that President Clinton had given a gift of hope to victims of Parkinson's, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes and prenatal disorders by lifting the ban that Presidents Reagan and Bush had imposed on federal funding of fetal tissue research. But, I wrote, Clinton then "dashed that hope by cutting the funding" for research -- $9 million from the budget of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and $4 million from the National Institute on Aging. I quoted Samuelson as saying that Parkinson's and Alzheimer's research were "sacrificial lambs to pay for cures for AIDS and cancer while trying to reduce the deficit."

Indeed, in his first budget as president in 1993 Clinton had asked for $225 million more for AIDS research, to bring the total to $1.3 billion, and $130 million more for cancer, for a total of $2.1 billion. According to what came to be known as Samuelson's "disparity chart," NIH then was spending an average of $1,000 a year on research to help each of the nation's 1.3 million HIV/AIDS victims. For each of 8 million cancer victims, NIH spent $260, while 4 million Alzheimer's patients got just $54 each, and 1 million Parkinson's victims $26 each. In this column I said that "a close relative of mine" had Parkinson's.

The next step in my education came just a few weeks before the White House party, at a big dinner honoring Abe Pollin, owner of Washington's pro basketball and hockey teams, whose wife, Irene, was Milly's friend and former social work colleague at the Neurology Center. The Pollins arranged for us to sit with Abe's political adviser, Washington health lobbyist Terry Lierman, who proceeded to completely demystify medical research politics. Lierman told Milly and me that diseases were allocated research money based on the clout of their advocates -- in the White House, in Congress, in the media and public opinion, and within NIH and the scientific community. Disease researchers who were receiving the most money one year had the best chance of getting more the next year, sometimes regardless of the scientific merit of their proposals. Parkinson's was bringing up the rear, he said, and probably would stay badly funded unless the whole of NIH got a major boost in funding.

Lierman also revealed to us that Bill Clinton, though he was helping AIDS and breast cancer research, was giving short shrift to every other disease studied at NIH, not just neurological diseases. This news stunned me, but it had credibility because Lierman was a Democrat. It was news that the public was unaware of -- something I could definitely write about, I said.

Now, as we moved slowly through the receiving line that snaked from the cavernous main-floor receiving room of the White House, down a stairway and through a ground-floor hallway, Milly rehearsed what she planned to say: "Mr. President, I love the two of you. I think you're great. I tell Morton that all the time. I tell him to write nice things about you. I want to say, I have Parkinson's disease, and there isn't enough money being spent on research. I hope you'll do something about that."

She repeated the speech two or three times. I was ready to cite some figures from Samuelson's disparity chart and tell the Clintons that Parkinson's was a disease that could be conquered soon with an extra effort.

When we reached the Clintons and were introduced by a military aide, Milly started, "Mr. President, I want to tell you something. I have Parkinson's disease . . ." Then she lost track. She turned to me, "Morton, what do I want to say?"

I, even less articulate, hiked my thumb into the air and blurted: "Increase brain research." Clinton just nodded, but Mrs. Clinton chimed in, "Oh, wait till we pass health reform. We're going to do a lot!"

You move on fast in these receiving lines. That's all we got to say. I felt embarrassed that I'd been so frozen-headed. But I muttered to Milly as we walked on, "Well, you've just been lied to by the first lady of the United States."

There was nothing in Mrs. Clinton's health care reform plan for neurological research, or much of anything at all for medical research. To make matters worse, the Clinton budget released the following February contained a mere 0.5 percent net increase for neurology after inflation. For NIH as a whole, Clinton requested a 4.7 percent increase, only 1.7 percent after inflation.

For the next year, fiscal 1995, Clinton was proposing less of an increase than had been enacted for the previous year, with the biggest increase going for just two favored diseases -- breast cancer and AIDS. Clinton had angered the gay rights movement, which supported him in the 1992 campaign, by failing to lift the ban on gays serving in the military, instituting the policy of "don't ask, don't tell" instead. However, in an apparent effort to mollify gays, he increased the AIDS research budget by 20 percent in his first year in office. In the meantime, women's groups were legitimately angered that breast cancer research was underfunded, and Clinton responded with a 33 percent increase in fiscal 1994 and another 28 percent the following year.

More than one conservative Republican we visited looked at Samuelson's disparity chart, expressed sympathy with our cause, and declared, "We can get the money for Parkinson's from AIDS." A few members added, "Preventable disease," referring to AIDS. I confess, I did not argue with them.

A Cure for Milly (Page Two)

A Cure for Milly Milly, flanked by the couple's two daughters, Alexandra and Andrea, in 1984. (Family Photo)

^_____Web Resources^_____

o Human Genome Project: Background Information
o NIH: Research News
o APDA: Find Information and Referral Centers
o ClinicalTrials.gov: Browse Clinical Trials

[INLINE] E-Mail This Article
[INLINE] Printer-Friendly Version
[INLINE] Subscribe to The Post

Continued from Page One

For four years a newly energized Parkinson's community rallied around the Udall bill, named after Mo Udall, the longtime chairman of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs who was diagnosed with Parkinson's in 1979. One celebrated effort was mounted by the Tucson real estate investor Bob Dolezal to get Arizona's senior senator, Republican John McCain, to support the bill. Diagnosed with Parkinson's in November 1992, Dolezal first wrote to McCain in 1993. He got back a form letter thanking him for his views. He shifted his attention to Rep. James Kolbe (R-Ariz.) and gained his support rather easily. Then he turned back to McCain. His mail and phone calls started getting answered -- impatiently -- by a particular McCain aide. Dolezal bombarded him with correspondence.

Finally, in March 1996, Dolezal exploded in an e-mail that ended: "One can reach one of three conclusions: The NIH is stonewalling and doesn't want [Parkinson's funding] data made public, that the request of the senior senator from Arizona has been cavalierly disdained by NIH; or that the senior senator from Arizona never seriously pursued this matter, and really doesn't give a damn. Which one gets your vote?" This outburst had consequences, short- and long-term. Somehow word got back to the University of Arizona, which promptly severed connections (since restored) with the Tucson chapter of the American Parkinson's Disease Association, which Dolezal headed. That response not only inspired Dolezal to launch a statewide campaign in Arizona's Parkinson's community to work on McCain but persuaded him to fly to Washington to visit McCain personally.

He took along Brad Udall, Mo's son and lookalike, who was a board member of PAN, and Mary Helen Davila, a Parkinson's activist and sufferer from Phoenix. Davila told McCain what Parkinson's was doing to her -- and cried. Dolezal launched into the Parkinson's case. McCain interjected that he did not like to earmark for specific diseases. Dolezal kept spouting statistics and arguments.

Suddenly McCain put up his hand. "Okay, that's enough. I'll co-sponsor the bill." This time Dolezal began crying. "It was one of the greatest experiences of my life," he told me.

When Oregon's Mark Hatfield retired in 1997 after 30 years in the Senate, it became crucial for the Parkinson's movement to find an influential Republican to carry the cause. Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, both of whose parents had died with Parkinson's, was the lead Democrat. In January 1997, Dolezal wrote to McCain, suggesting that it would be especially appropriate for him to take the lead given his friendship with Mo Udall. Within a week Dolezal got a call from McCain's office with the word: The senator would do it.

On September 3, 1997, McCain and Wellstone offered the measure as a floor amendment to the annual appropriation for the departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services. There was a brief floor debate in which McCain said that "there is a gross inequity here that needs rectification," citing figures from Samuelson's disparity chart. The vote to approve the Udall bill was overwhelming, 95-3. However, the Senate fight was not yet over. The next day, antiabortion Sens. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) and Don Nickles (R-Okla.) planned to amend the Udall bill with language reviving the Reagan-Bush ban on federal funding for fetal tissue research. Samuelson and PAN's policy coordinator, Mike Claeys, were at PAN's office in Santa Rosa, Calif., and from there spent all night soliciting statements from scientists on the importance of the research and faxing material to friendly senators in Washington. The next day the Coats-Nickles amendment was defeated, 60-38.

The Udall bill survived a House-Senate conference on the Labor-HHS appropriation. Its passage was hailed by Parkinson's advocates as a moment of triumph. Indeed, we were invisible no more.

But the passage of the Udall bill did not guarantee that one cent more would be spent on Parkinson's research. Even though it passed as an amendment to an appropriations bill, the Udall bill was not an appropriation; it simply authorized NIH to establish a Parkinson's-related research program.

Where should the money come from? My first instinct -- based partly on my knowledge of the funding disparities, and partly perhaps on prejudice -- was to take it away from HIV/AIDS. It struck me as deeply unfair that the government was spending something like 40 times the amount per victim on AIDS as on the disease that was killing my wife.

In 1996 I began working on a PBS documentary, "The Politics of Medicine," which ran on the network in October 1997. One of the first people I interviewed was the AIDS activist (and patient) Gary Rose, who had once attacked PAN over the disparity chart, calling it "AIDS-phobic." When I asked him about that, he accused me and PAN of telling Congress that the plight of AIDS victims was their own fault, that the money should be given to Parkinson's. He said that, after watching so many friends die, he found that argument repulsive. And to put the blame on the victim, whether the disease is HIV or lung cancer, is wrong.

"Most people don't have a choice about getting HIV-infected," he said. "I didn't have a choice. To say to someone, 'You should have worn a condom,' just think about that: If HIV were a disease primarily of middle-aged, white heterosexual men . . . you tell the entire community . . . 'You have to wear a condom for the rest of your life. Period. And if you don't, it's your own fault if you die.' That would not wash if you were telling those people that . . . Human beings like to have sex . . . and they like it to be natural, not negotiated."

As I sat across from him, I felt myself getting furious at the implication of his argument. I burst out at him: "Well, as a citizen and as somebody who's married to someone who has Parkinson's, the way I look at it is, I see a community that has a preventable disease. It has mobilized itself very carefully, using Hollywood and the gay community, has impacted Congress, has gotten an enormous amount of money spent on it . . . And the consequence of this is that an enormous amount of money . . . has been devoted to this group's disease . . . The diseases that I care about are defunded, underfunded. Why am I wrong?"

He burst back, underscoring how AIDS had ravaged "homosexuals, drug addicts, poor black people . . . If the most condemned sections of American society can pull together and do the remarkable and miraculous thing that we've done . . . We didn't have any power. We didn't have any money. We had nothing. We had nada. No one would talk to us. If we can build that out of those garbagey tools, I don't understand how anybody in good faith can now come after us and say, 'You really don't deserve your success. You could have stopped it. You can stop it now . . .'

"I'm just incredibly offended by being condemned for success that has cost me every person I cared about in my entire life. This epidemic has decimated my entire peer group. Everybody that I've worked with, cared about, lived with. And out of that pain, we've developed a movement, a process where we could cure this disease in 10 years. And I have to have somebody coming after me and saying, 'You don't deserve that? Give some of it to us.' I'm sorry, I don't think that's moral."

He finished me off with a challenge: "Are you going to stop working in television and become a full-time Parkinson's advocate? When you've done that, when thousands of other people, including people with Parkinson's, have done that, have given up your lives to find a cure, then you come back to me and say, 'You have to give up some of yours.' "

It was a powerful rebuttal, but Rose made an even stronger argument that convinced me that there was no future in trying to rob AIDS to help Parkinson's. Even if the money were cut from AIDS research, he said, it wouldn't go to Parkinson's; it would go to the next most powerful disease. He cited breast cancer research, which was being pushed by a powerful coalition of women's groups and the White House, and diabetes, at the time the favored disease of Republicans because House Speaker Newt Gingrich's then-mother-in-law suffered from it. I knew instantly that Rose was completely correct and that the funding definitely had to come from somewhere else.

The object of the Parkinson's movement's post-Udall lobbying was to get Congress to actually appropriate $100 million for Parkinson's research -- or to write language as close to a directive earmark as we could persuade congressional leaders to accept. Other diseases kept getting them. One year Gingrich and then-White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, whose child suffers from juvenile diabetes, quietly put an extra $300 million for diabetes research into a final budget agreement. Another year Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, became irritated that prostate cancer was getting less attention than breast cancer and added $50 million for that. In truth, Parkinson's also benefited from inside action when Rep. Joe McDade (R-Pa.), a member of the House Appropriations Committee who has since retired, was diagnosed with Parkinson's in 1996 and created a $25 million fund for neurotoxin disease research in the Defense Department.

In 1998, in an effort to get a $100 million earmark for Parkinson's in the NIH budget, I went with Samuelson to talk to McCain. We met McCain in an ornate room just off the Senate floor. He listened as we explained that NIH, despite the Udall bill, was refusing to significantly increase Parkinson's funding and probably would not do so without a command from Congress. Would he co-sponsor a floor amendment with Wellstone to write $100 million into the Labor-HHS appropriations bill? McCain became irate. "This is earmarking," he said. "This is pork. I have spent my entire congressional career fighting this sort of thing. If you're looking for somebody to do this, I'm not your guy."

Running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000 and eager to retain the support of abortion opponents, McCain later apologized for his vote lifting the ban on fetal tissue research and came out against federal funding of highly promising research using stem cells derived from leftover embryos at fertilization clinics.

On January 31, 2000, the day before George W. Bush lost the New Hampshire primary to John McCain, I slipped into a makeup room at Manchester TV station WMUR, where Bush was cleaning his face after a Fox News appearance. He knew who I was because I'd interviewed him for a profile in Reader's Digest the year before. I said, "Can I write you a letter about my favorite cause?"

"What cause is that?" he asked.

"Doubling the NIH budget," I started. "It's . . .

"I'm for it," he said. "I've talked to Connie Mack about it. I told him I'm for it. It's the right thing to do."

I said, just as inarticulately as I'd done at the Clintons' Christmas party, "Think brains."

"Brain cancer?" he asked.

"No, neurology," I said. I made a botch of my speech. "Great things are happening," I said. "Neurodegenerative factors . . . No, I mean, something called neural growth factors . . . Great implications for Alzheimer's, ALS [amyotrophic lateral sclerosis], stroke, Parkinson's. Great things are happening . . ."

I finished with my favorite political argument for Republicans: "Republicans in Congress have been increasing NIH by 15 percent a year, ramping up to double. They never take credit for it."

"They don't know what they are doing," Bush said.

"Al Gore only wants to double the cancer budget, not the whole," I volunteered, hoping he'd try to trump Gore and make doubling the NIH budget a centerpiece of his campaign.

"No," Bush said, "I'm for doubling the whole -- what, over 10 years?"

"No," I said, "five. They can do it over five. NIH can absorb it over five."

"Okay, I'm for it."

Besides writing columns, I kept nagging Bush's political and issues staff to get the candidate to make a major speech proposing a doubling of funding for medical research.

In September 2000, Bush came out with a rousing statement: "As president, I will fund and lead a medical moonshot to reach far beyond what seems possible today and discover new cures for age-old afflictions . . . Our government will promote medical advances with new resources and new resolve."

Bush's campaign staff produced a position paper that was thorough and sophisticated about the hopes that medical research might fulfill reasonably soon, including gene therapies for cystic fibrosis, Huntington's disease and some forms of deafness, and new drugs that strangle the blood vessels that feed tumors. The language on Parkinson's was pure music: "The world's leading neuroscientists have declared that Parkinson's can be cured within 10 years -- and what's learned in the process can help cure Alzheimer's, Huntington's and other neurodegenerative diseases." Bush promised to finish the job that Sens. Mark Hatfield, Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Rep. John Porter (R-Ill.) had started in fiscal 1998, doubling the NIH budget to $27.5 billion by fiscal 2003. He promised to increase spending over 10 years by $67 billion.

Even though his September speech was eloquent, the message was never repeated in the campaign, indicating it was not a core part of his program. And he didn't promise to redouble the research budget in the five years after 2003. The $67 billion he campaigned on would not pay for redoubling over 10 years.

In January 2000 Michael J. Fox announced that he was leaving his TV show, "Spin City," to devote himself to conquering Parkinson's. This produced a huge burst of publicity -- and an invitation from Hillary Clinton to sit in her box when President Clinton delivered his State of the Union message on January 27. I was sitting in Chicago's O'Hare Airport en route from the Iowa presidential caucuses. My cell phone rang. It was Fox. He said he was inclined to turn down Hillary's invitation. It would look like an endorsement of her senatorial candidacy, he said. I was a little startled, but in an instant I realized that he had shrewd judgment. I said, "You are absolutely right. All you'll get out of it is five minutes of face time with Hillary, if that. She'll promise you something for Parkinson's, but she'll lie just like Clinton did to Christopher Reeve. You'll just get used." (Reeve had visited the White House and was promised $10 million extra for spinal cord injury research.
But it never materialized.) Without accepting my invidious analysis, Fox skipped the State of the Union.

In the fall, just before the 2000 election, Fox wrote an op-ed column in the New York Times pointing out the differences between George Bush and Al Gore on the issue of embryonic stem cell research -- Bush remained against it, Gore was for it -- and urging that the research be allowed to continue in order to save lives. When Bush became president, he hinted that he might issue an executive order banning federal money for stem cell research. As it turned out, Bush had heard from numerous disease advocates -- including Sen. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) -- urging him not to stop the research. And he did not, ordering a study of the issue instead. The issue is still pending.

Fox wants to tell President Bush that he could be the president who presides over the conquest of Parkinson's. The request for a meeting is also still pending.

Ever since Milly was diagnosed with Parkinson's, the nation's leading neurologists have been saying that this disease could be cured within 10 years. They still say that, but Milly's time is running out.

She is confined to a wheelchair. It's progressively harder for her to eat solid foods. Four times, I have had to perform the Heimlich maneuver to prevent her from choking to death. Often she has trouble even drawing liquids up through a straw. She can barely speak. Her voice has no volume and she has difficulty forming intelligible words. Her mind, however, is sharp. We communicate mainly through portable computer, though she has difficulty punching the right keys. She is inexorably becoming a prisoner trapped in her own body.

I do not know how our love story will end, or when. Some days, she says she does not want to live like this any longer and, when the time comes, will refuse a feeding tube and starve herself to death at a hospice. Other times, she says she will agree to have a tube implanted in her stomach -- reserving the right, however, to have it removed when she feels utterly trapped and life becomes intolerable.

I pray every day that a medical miracle will save her. But it does not seem to be forthcoming. I am losing Milly. But when I lose her, if I lose her, our story will not end. Memory will survive. I remember the restaurant where we first met, the raincoat she was wearing the moment I knew I had fallen in love with her, the soft couch where we first made love, the smell and taste of her that I became addicted to for life. And 33 years of marriage -- our fighting, our children, her steel, her generosity. Her courage. I will keep working to end Parkinson's disease on her behalf, and I will hug her in my heart forever.

Morton Kondracke is the executive editor of Roll Call, a commentator on the Fox News Channel and co-host of Fox's weekly political show "The Beltway Boys."

© 2001 The Washington Post Company

Hi my dear Anne,
No Warren doesn't have any pain after eating but his b/p drops greatly after
a big meal. Right now his laying down b/p is not high, 143/80, sitting
114/90 and I couldn't take it standing he was shaking so badly the machine
would say "error 2", that means too much movement. That was yesterday, I
didn't take it laying down this a.m. but sitting 114/84 and standing 92/65.
His pulse runs between 52 - 64.
When he had pnuemonia, it was very low while lying down and they were giving
him proamatine at 9 pm, which I never do because it raise the b/p. and he
doesn't need it at night.
I'm so sorry that you haven't found help, my goodness 84 lbs is nothing.
I think of you very often and keep you in my prayers.
Mary S.

ice cream because of the fat content. I also eat and like sherbert.
Patricia,
I too can have milk on my cereal and ate lots of sherbet in the hosp...but
ice cream drives me to the pain meds.
Diane
Truly,truly I say to you,unless one is born again,he cannot see the kingdom
of God(John3:3)

For over twenty years I have not been able to eat cabbage, cauliflower, or
celery without a reaction thirty to forty minutes later. Sometimes other
foods caused a similar reaction but I just thought it was my strange
stomach. Maybe I had the start of this pancreatitis a long time ago.
Blessings, Dave

Dear Anna,
Hope you are doing better. My doctor wants me to visit him every two
months for blood tests. He told me the last time that the disease is
progressing. Right now we are in a wait-and-see situation. I guess he is
following the idea that "if it's not broken, don't try to fix it."
Blessings, Dave
Dear Shirley,
Thank you for the information about your operation and its success.
What is the operation called? I looked up information at the Johns Hopkins
hospital site and nothing like that operation was described. Blessings, Dave

Hi, Thought I would tell you about our experience yesterday. Al has several
previous chest x-rays, so they did compare the new one with the others. Said
they were not any changes. But, if there are no previous ones to compare,
they will still be able to tell from the new one, if there is pneumonia. This
how it was explained to me. Good luck with your Mother. I hope they go ahead
and do an x-ray! Your friend, Pat in OKC

Harvard Health Policy Review

Spring 2001; Volume 2, Number 1
In Focus

Implications of Policy Decisions on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research in the United States
Stephanie Oestreich

Although research with human embryonic stem cells was recognized as one of the most promising fields in science by Science, in 1991 (Bloom, 1999), the issue of public funding remains a powerful determinant in the future of stem cell research.

Because federal law prohibits the use of public funding for any research that harms a human embryo, research projects in this area are so far exclusively conducted by the private sector. Recently, promising scientific results have been achieved in this field, and applications in tissue engineering and transplantation are now clearly envisioned. These techniques could have a major impact on the treatment of a variety of still incurable diseases (see below).

While a number of very insightful experiments have been conducted with mammalian embryonic stem cells, clinical research will ultimately require the use of human embryonic stem cells. However, ethical issues linked to the production of human embryonic stem cells solely for research purposes pose a challenge to policy makers. Despite numerous promising applications, a significant fraction of the general public is strongly opposed to any research involving human embryonic stem cells. Policy makers therefore must weigh the potential life-saving benefit of this research for the patient versus public concerns and reservations.

Thumbnail of Table 1

click to enlarge

In order to balance the advancement of science in this field with ethical concerns, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) revised their funding guidelines. According to the new guidelines issued on August 23, 2000, federal funding is now available for fetal stem cell research and derivation of these cells. Derivation of embryonic stem cells is still not federally funded and research with embryonic stem cells is only funded if these cells are derived in compliance with the NIH guidelines (Vogel, Science 289 (2000), 1442-1443).

This research paper aims to analyze the scientific background that provides a solid basis for policy recommendations. After describing the current status of funding and regulation of human embryonic stem cell research, recommendations will be proposed to establish a persuasive regulatory framework.

Scientific Background

Recent scientific advances regarding the isolation and successful culturing of human pluripotent stem cell lines have generated great excitement and promise major benefits for public health. Scientific studies have demonstrated that embryonic stem cells can be made to differentiate into any specific cell type, ultimately allowing the generation of tissue that can be used for transplantation therapy without causing any adverse immunological reaction. Such research could also contribute to the understanding of complex events that occur during human development, facilitating gene discovery and drug development.

Although recent experimental success has raised expectations for the clinical potential of human stem cells, most experts believe that healthcare benefits will not be realized until after several years of research. They are concerned that during this time the credibility of the field could be damaged by over-optimism and suggest restraint in making exaggerated claims.

Thumbnail of Table 2

click to enlarge

In order to provide a solid background for political decision-makers, scientific terms must first be explained and clarified. There are essentially three different types of stem cells that are currently employed in scientific research:
1. Embryonic stem cells,
2. Embryonic germ cells and
3. Adult stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells can develop into any kind of tissue. Because of this fact they are termed totipotent. Embryonic germ cells are more specialized stem cells, which eventually give rise to the gonads of the embryo. Adult stem cells and embryonic germ cells occur in later stages of development. Adult stem cells, such as blood stem cells, are found in human adults and can develop into more specialized cell types, such as red blood cells.

Both adult stem cells and embryonic germ cells are pluripotent, which means that they can give rise to many but not all of the cell types necessary for fetal development. Thus, pluripotent cell types cannot develop into a fetus when placed into a woman's uterus (NIH: Stem Cells - a Primer, 2000).

To distinguish between a fetus and an embryo, an embryo in this context is defined as existing in "the period from after the long axis appears until all major structures are represented. In humans, this is from about two weeks after fertilization to the end of the seventh or eighth week."

A fetus, on the other hand, is "a developing human offspring in the postembryonic period, from seven or eight weeks after fertilization to the time of birth" (Harcourt Dictionary of Science).

Recent success in the field of stem cell research has triggered the hope of many scientists to eventually be able to treat a number of diseases, which are so far either entirely incurable or curable only in conjunction with the significant disadvantages of organ transplantation. Apart from the dearth of organ-donations being very scarce, the patient has to endure a life-long suppression of the immune system to avoid graft-host reactions.

A solution to this problem could be posed by advances in stem cell research: a number of cell types (see below) can be developed from undifferentiated stem cells. With tissue derived from these cells, all the diseases in Table 1 might eventually be cured without fear of graft-host reaction because the transplanted tissues being immunologically identical to the patient's own cells.

While stem cells are necessary during early human development, pluripotent stem cells are found in children and adults. However on the way to specialization, the potential of pluripotent stem cells to differentiate into other cell types decreases substantially.

A number of critics of embryonic stem cell research favor the use of cells in later stages of human development, such as embryonic germ cells or adult stem cells, mostly for ethical reasons. However, stem cells from adults may not have the same capacity to proliferate as younger cells do. Additionally, adult stem cells do not exist in all tissues of the body, are often present in small quantities, are difficult to isolate and purify, and their numbers may decrease further with age. In addition, adult stem cells may contain more DNA abnormalities than embryonic stem cells, caused by long term exposure to sunlight and toxins as well as by errors made during DNA replication over the lifetime of the cell. Adult stem cells could also be disadvantaged when compared to embryonic stem cells with respect to their shortened telomeres (the ends of chromosomes). These phenomena might trigger undesirable responses such as apoptosis (programmed cell death) which would undermine the
potential utility of adult stem cells in research and medical treatment.

Research on the early stages of cell specialization may also not be possible with adult stem cells since they appear to be farther along the developmental pathway than pluripotent stem cells. In order to determine the best source of the specialized cells and tissues of the body for new treatments and even cures, it will be important to study the developmental potential of adult stem cells and compare it to that of pluripotent stem cells (Aldhous, 2000).

Embryonic germ cells on the other hand are obtained from fetal tissue after miscarriage or abortion and thus carry a lesser ethical burden than the use of embryonic stem cells. Even though embryonic germ cells have some potential to develop into different types of tissue, these cells have led to abnormalities when introduced into embryos (McLaren, 2000). In addition, scientists have not been able to culture these stem cells for more than 21 days, a fact that clearly limits their use in scientific research.

It is crucial that relevant distinctions between the different cell types are made clear to both the public and to political decision-makers by disclosing possible consequences for stem cell research and future applications.

The NIH Guidelines

In compliance with federal law, the newly revised NIH guidelines state that NIH-funded scientists are allowed to work with pluripotent stem cells. The cell lines used in this research have to be derived by private companies from frozen embryos discarded after fertility treatment. The donor of the embryo must have expressed informed consent and cannot accept any compensation. The NIH guidelines also seek to ensure that embryos are not created specifically for this purpose and that embryonic stem cells are not combined with animal cells. In addition, any attempts of reproductive cloning and the use of stem cells to create human embryos are strongly opposed. The NIH guidelines therefore prohibit public funding to be utilized for any of the above mentioned purposes (Vogel, Science 289: 2000, 1442).

In determining which types of embryonic stem cell research should be eligible for funding, a number of points are worth considering. First, it is possible that the creation of research embryos will provide the only means by which to conduct certain kinds of research, such as research into the process of human fertilization. Second, as in vitro fertilization techniques improve, it is likely that the supply of embryos for research from this source will decline. Nevertheless, the NIH has concluded that, from a scientific and an ethical perspective, there is no compelling reason at this time to provide federal funding for the creation of embryos for research. According to the NIH, cadaveric fetal tissue and embryos remaining after infertility treatment provide an adequate supply of research resources for federal research projects.

Currently, the derivation of human embryonic stem cells is only permitted in privately funded laboratories. Once a cell line is obtained, the stem cells could be passed on to federally funded scientists.

Researchers on federal grants are however concerned that privately funded scientists will gain important insights and advantages through derivation and experimental manipulation of stem cells. NIH-funded researchers will be limited to the cell lines provided by private firms and will not be able to create and tailor cell lines to meet their specific needs.

Most scientists and their supporters do not view the derivation and use of embryonic stem cells as ethically distinct activities and believe that it is important that federal funding be made available for protocols to derive such cells. Researchers using human embryonic stem cell lines hope to obtain substantial scientific benefits from a detailed understanding of the process of embryonic stem cell derivation and argue that the methods of derivation may affect the properties of the embryonic stem cells. Those dissatisfied with the current funding policy of the NIH emphasize the close connection in practical and ethical terms between both derivation and use of embryonic stem cells.

Oversight and Review of Human Stem Cell Research

To ensure that the research involving stem cells is delivering the anticipated benefits and to identify any concerns that may arise, federal oversight at the local, national and institutional level is crucial to assure the public that this research is being undertaken in a controlled and legal manner.

When applying for NIH funding, scientists therefore have to submit their research proposals to four separate review bodies. In addition, the newly founded Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Review Group (HPSCRG) seeks to ensure compliance with the NIH guidelines. Despite the promise of the federal agency to work quickly, this process might however impose bureaucratic hurdles and delay research (Davis, 2000).

Another problem could arise if the embryonic stem cell lines currently used in federally funded research are not approved for further research according to the new guidelines because the process of their derivation did not occur in compliance with the new guidelines. In such cases some research projects could be substantially impeded and deferred or would have to be abandoned altogether (Kennedy, 2000).

Anonymous donation of embryonic stem cells to ensure privacy and informed consent of the donor might also conflict with the requirement of the NIH guidelines to trace back and document the precise origins of the cells (Marshall, 1999).

Conflicting Opinions

The new guidelines of the NIH received support from scientific groups (e.g. the American Society for Cell Biology), patient advocacy groups (e.g. the American Heart Association and the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International), a number of Nobel laureates, former President Clinton and former Vice President Gore. On the other hand, a number of right-to-life activists, religious groups, the American Cancer Society (ACS), the Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics (CARE), and some legislators oppose the use of embryos in research despite the potential medical benefits. The Vatican issued a highly critical statement on the moral implications of stem cell research and Pope Paul condemned human cloning and embryo experiments (Dickson and Smaglik, 2000). President George W. Bush has stated that his pro-life views would compel him to continue the ban of public funding for stem cell research, but he might not be able to overlook corporate interests in this field. Two British
patents which granted the U.S. company Geron the commercial rights to human embryos created by cloning also sparked protests (Hagmann, 2000).

The main concerns of the opponents of stem cell research are that abortions could be encouraged by pressuring fertility patients to donate their embryos - violating the premise of informed consent - and that ultimately the most vulnerable members of society, the disabled and aged, are put at risk through new views regarding eugenics or euthanasia. Some even relate this research to the horrible experiments conducted in Nazi Germany and to cloning humans.

Most of the conflicting opinions in this area arise between scientists and their supporters and groups who value ethical concerns and the protection of embryos more highly than scientific advances and potential medical treatments. Using a similar strategy to the NIH, opponents of stem cell research simply terminate or do not make any donations that might be used in the field of embryonic stem cell research. The American Cancer Society (ACS) for instance, which raises $500 million per year, has left the Patient's Coalition for Urgent Research (pCURE) since pCURE is lobbying Congress to support stem cell research. The ACS on the other hand had come to this decision through pressure from officials of the catholic church as some 100 lay Catholics had withdrawn from a breast-cancer fund-raising event and retracted promised contributions (Wadman 1999).

Ethical Considerations

Recent developments in human stem cell research have raised hopes for ground-breaking new clinical therapies, but deep moral concerns are related to research involving human embryos.

Opinions vary widely about whether the potential benefits outweigh the ethical costs of this research. Very few disagree with the view that the human embryo deserves respect as a form of human life, but there is considerable disagreement about the form of such respect and the level of protection of human life at different stages of development.

For those who believe that the embryo has the moral status of a person from the moment of conception, any activity that would destroy an embryo is unacceptable. At the other end of the spectrum, some argue that an embryo does not deserve any particular moral consideration. NIH, however, again claims that others accept the special status of an embryo as a potential human being, yet argues that the respect due to the embryo increases as it develops and that this respect, in the early developmental stages in particular, may properly be weighed against the potential benefits arising from the discussed research.

Although public policy in a pluralistic society cannot resolve all differences that arise regarding controversial issues, due to the sensitivity of this issue, it is imperative to proceed cautiously and to further stimulate the important public debate about the profound ethical issues regarding this potentially beneficial research.

The International Perspective

The position of NIH also has to be considered as being a major source of grants for scientific research not only in the United States but also for a number of laboratories abroad. The funding policy of NIH therefore significantly influences the decision-making process in other countries.

Other scientifically advanced societies, however, might apply less stringent ethical guidelines (such as those of Great Britain), thus leaving federally supported U.S. scientists in a disadvantaged position compared to that of researchers in other countries (Nature 406 (2000), 815; Kennedy, 2000; Dickson and Smaglik, 2000). New policy statements from these countries therefore also need to be considered carefully.

Japanese scientists are not allowed to work with human embryonic stem cells so far, but the Japanese Council for Science and Technology is currently discussing final guidelines for stem cell research. An advisory board of the European Union recommended in November 2000 to fund all types of research involving stem cells, particularly adult stem cells. Work that created embryos solely for research purposes was discouraged since "excess" embryos existed in fertility clinics, which would otherwise be discarded (Vogel, Science 290 (2000), 1673). In the United Kingdom - perhaps the most permissive country - the House of Commons recently passed a law that allowed cloning of embryos up to 14 days of embryonic development (Vogel, 2001).

Despite the recommendations of the European Union, the French Government will soon submit a bioethics bill to the parliament that proposes to permit research with human embryonic stem cells and would not explicitly forbid therapeutic cloning of human embryos to create embryonic stem cells (Butler 2000).

Germany's embryo-protection law prohibits research that harms a human embryo and bans the production of human embryonic stem cells. Although legislation is unlikely to be revised in the near future, the law does not prohibit the import of already-derived embryonic stem cells (Schiermeier, 2000).

Policy Recommendations

Recent advances in the area of stem cell research suggest substantial clinical benefits over existing treatments, as well as improvements of scientific knowledge in the field of embryonic development. In light of these encouraging results, achieved entirely by privately funded scientists, NIH has revised its funding guidelines in order to permit publicly funded researchers to actively engage in this important and rapidly evolving field.

In the long term however, the current guidelines of NIH fail to adequately provide a solution to the issue of providing public funding for embryonic stem cell research. They allow federal funds to be used for the actual stem cell research but not for the derivation of the cell lines. The guidelines satisfy the immediate needs of U.S. researchers while taking ethical concerns of the public into account, but rest on fragile logic. Researchers receiving federal funds will inevitably be using federal grant money to order stem cell lines from private companies who derive them - while the actual derivation is not allowed when using public funding. Federally funded researchers should however be permitted to use public funding also for the derivation of embryonic stem cell lines. This will not only enable government supported laboratories to adjust the properties of these cell lines to their own needs, but also allow them to conduct a number of very clarifying experiments to address
basic scientific questions in the field of embryonic development.

Reliance on the distinction made between the use and derivation of embryonic stem cell lines leaves the future of the research uncertain, subject to the influence of politics and the courts. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) proposed a bill to allow funding for the use and derivation of embryonic stem cells, which would end this ambiguity (Nature 406 (2000), 921; Kennedy 2000), but the Senate rejected it (Science 290 (2000), 261). Specter said that he would reintroduce the bill in the new Congress, but his influence in promoting federal funding for stem cell research might be diminished since he is resigning from his position as chairman of the appropriations panel overseeing the NIH budget (Davis 2000).

President George W. Bush will also have significant influence on the decision whether public funding of stem cell research will be continued. He has issued a statement criticizing the new guidelines, although corporate interests will most likely prevent him from banning federally funded stem cell research altogether.

The new Bush administration could reject the current distinction that the NIH makes between use and production of embryonic stem cells, or it might require a change in the guidelines at the administrative level. It is therefore not at all certain that the newly issued guidelines will remain unchanged in the near future (Kennedy, 2000; Davis, 2000; Aldhous, 2000).

Opponents of abortion state that funding stem cell research tacitly supports the derivation of stem cell lines, and as a consequence the destruction of embryos. Pro-life activists also point out that the NIH guidelines do not clarify existing laws, but rather circumvent them. Indeed, federal law prohibits NIH from funding work that harms or destroys a human embryo. However, considering that more than a million electively induced abortions are performed annually in the United States and that the embryos are normally discarded after such procedures, it seems unlikely that an abortion is encouraged solely to donate the embryo for research purposes.

Since accurate documentation of the source of embryonic stem cells will represent a task that cannot be completed satisfactorily due to patient confidentiality, assurance of informed consent and privacy of the donor of these cells should be emphasized. At the same time, it must be made clear to the donor that acceptance of compensation of any sort or specification of the purpose of the donation is impossible. Opponents of abortion could also still favor stem cell research since there exists a number of methods to derive stem cells without harming an embryo (Robertson, 1999).

These varying views have to be thoroughly considered by policymakers since it will not be possible to liberalize the NIH guidelines without the consent of right-to-life-advocates. Due to the conflicting values stated above it might only be politically feasible to relax the guidelines successively. A thorough but efficient oversight and review process should be established in order to assure the public that stem cell research is conducted in a controlled and scientifically valid manner and that ethical concerns are seriously addressed.

Although public opinion has to be taken into account when deciding about the distribution and utilization of federal funds, the NIH guidelines represent an unsatisfying compromise in order to balance the support of stem cell research and ethical concerns of the general public. In addition, the NIH guidelines fail to establish a clear ethical and regulatory framework for the private sector, whose research is not federally supervised or publicly disclosed, thus applying different moral standards to privately and publicly funded research.

Interestingly, the focus has been on governance of the federal funding process rather than on national regulation. But, the current NIH guidelines and their funding policy significantly limit the potential of stem cell research, leaving this promising field without the full benefit of the entire American scientific community, much of which operates in institutions that are dependent upon federal sources of support.

To promote research equally in the public and private sectors, privately funded scientists should either have to comply with the NIH guidelines or the guidelines should be made more permissive in order not to disadvantage publicly funded research. Strong emphasis must also be placed on adequate caution ahead of the pursuit of economic interests.

Although it is difficult to ethically control science that is progressing very rapidly, it is crucial that sufficient respect is attributed toward human life even in light of potential medical benefits of stem cell research. When considering the ethical implications of stem cell research, it has to be noted that a number of methods exists that allow the derivation of embryonic stem cells which do not harm an embryo and that such derivation and use of stem cells cannot be separated in neither practical nor ethical terms. In order to eventually achieve clinical benefits and important scientific insights, experimentation with embryonic stem cells, embryonic germ cells and adult stem cells has to be equally permitted for scientists utilizing public funding.

Society will have to define clear boundaries to provide scientists with appropriate expectations and requirements when conducting stem cell research. The transfer of an embryo created by cell nuclear replacement into the uterus of a woman (so called "reproductive cloning"), mixing of live animal and human embryonic stem cells or the creation of an embryo solely for research purposes should remain to be strongly discouraged. The guidelines, however, must be revisited as soon as scientific advances, possible new applications and considerations of the general public suggest any regulative changes.

It is also important to observe closely the policy decisions regarding stem cell research that are made by other countries, but ultimately the United States have to be aware of their leading role in this field. American decision-makers must consider their influence on the decision making process in science policy in other countries, but also have to distinctively state an independent position in research policy that is tailored to meet the specific concerns of their own country.

If the American public decides in the future that the potential benefits of stem cell research outweigh the ethical concerns and that it would like to support progress in this field, the NIH guidelines will have to be revised, becoming more permissive as scientific knowledge and public discussion advance.

References

Aldhous, P. "Stem Cells - Panacea, or Pandora's Box?" Science. 408: 2000, 897-898.

"Awkward Inconsistencies of a Stem-Cell Rule." Nature. 406: 2000, 921.

Birmingham, Karen. "UK Approves Human Stem Cell Research." Nature Medicine. 6: 2000, 950

Bloom, F.E. "Breakthroughs 1999." Science. 286: 1999, 2267.

Butler, D. "France Opens Door to Use of Embryos in Stem-Cell Research." Nature. 408: 2000, 692.

Cyrano, D. "Japan May Allow Human Embryo Stem-Cell Research." Nature. 403: 2000, 470.

Davis, M. "Stem-Cell Work in the Balance." Science. 408: 2000, 887-888.

"Decisions, Decisions." Science. 291: 2001, 25

Dickson, D. "Parliament Gives Green Light to Stem-Cell Research." Nature. 409: 2001, 5.

Dickson, D., and Smaglik, P. "U.K. Government Backs Change in Law over Stem Cell Research." Nature. 406: 2000, 815.

Frankel, M.S. "In Search of Stem Cell Policy." Science. 287: 2000, 1397.

Gearhart, J. "New Potential for Human Embryonic Stem Cells." Science. 282: 2000, 1061-1062.

Hagmann, M. "Protest Leads Europeans to Confess Patent Error." Science. 287: 2000, 1567-1569.

http://www.harcourt.com/dictionary/def/3/4/9/7/3497900.html

http://www.harcourt.com/dictionary/def/3/8/9/4/3894300.html

Kennedy, D. "Two Cheers for New Stem Cell Rules." Science. 289: 2000, 1469.

Kornblut, A.L. "Bush Says He Opposes Using Fetal Tissue from Abortions." Boston Globe. 27 January 2001, A13.

Lenoir, N. "Europe Confronts the Embryonic Stem Cell Research Challenge." Science. 287: 2000, 1425-1427.

McKay, R. "Stem Cells - Hype and Hope." Nature. 406: 2000, 361-364.

McLaren, A. "Stem Cells: Golden Opportunities with Ethical Baggage." Science. 288: 2000, 1778.

National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Research Involving Human Pluripotent Stem Cells, 23 August 2000.

http://www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/stemcellguidelines.htm

NIH: Stem Cells - a Primer, May 2000.

http://www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/primer.htm

Robertson, J.A. "Ethics and Policy in Embryonic Stem Cell Research." Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 9.2: 1999, 109-136.

Saegusa, A. "Japan Bans Human Cloning." Nature Biotechnology. 18: 2000, 366.

Schiermeier, Q. "...but Germany Remains Unmoved." Nature. 406: 2000, 815.

Shapiro, H.T. "Ethical Dilemmas and Stem Cell Research." Science. 285: 1999, 2065.

Smaglik, P. "Embryo Stem-Cell Work Gets NIH Go-Ahead." Nature. 406: 2000, 925.

Triendl, R. "Japan to Permit Stem Cell Research." Nature Medicine. 6: 2000, 239.

Varmus, H. "The Challenge of Making Laws on the Shifting Terrain of Science." Keynote Speech at the Whitehead Policy Symposium 2000.

Vogel, G. "British Parliament Approves New Rules." Science. 291: 2000, 23.

---. "Stem Cells: New Excitement, Persistent Questions." Science. 290: 2000, 1672-1674.

---. "Researchers Get Green Light for Work on Stem Cells." Science. 289: 2000, 1442-1443.

---. NIH Sets Rules for Funding Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Science. 286: 1999, 2050-2051.

---. Harnessing the Power of Stem Cells. Science. 283: 1999, 1432-1434.

Wadman, M. "Charity Cools over Stem Cells after Boycott by Catholics." Nature. 400: 1999, 493.

Wadman, M. "Protesters Seek U.S. Ban on Embryo Stem-Cell Work." Nature. 400: 1999, 96.

page 1 | page 2 | references

Stephanie Oestreich is a Ph.D. student in biochemistry in the laboratory of Jack Szostak at HMS and also a student in the Two-Year Master of Public Administration Program at the John F. Kennedy School of Government

Good Day to everyone, and hope this finds you well.
Does anyone notice that your REALLY tired? I feel like every two
hours I could take a nap. When I get home from work, all I want to
do is go to bed. Is anyone else like this?
Hugs & Happy Thoughts,
Colorado Debi

My mother's neurologist is Dr. Ahmed at the cleveland Clinic. He is
very thorough in his testing and evaluation of my mother. There is
also a Dr. Stanley Burns at University Hospitals in Cleveland who has
had more experience with movement disorders. You want to make sure
you have a physician who (even though there is no real treatment for
MSA) is open to investigation and will order the necessary tests to
rule out other diseases.
Elizabeth

http://www.hopkins-gi.org/subspecialties/chronic/therapy/endoscopic.htm
Hi Linda,
How did the soup go down? Did it stay down? I wish you well on your excursion
today! I'm sure it will be good for your 'mental' health! You should post a
picture
of the quilt when the kids are finished. I just started quilting last year. I
have
made one for my son, one for my bedroom, and I'm in the process of making one
for my son's friend. I haven't had the energy to work on it much lately....
Here is the website. I'm sure you know most of the procedures and terminology
already. But, it was quite helpful to me.
Don't wear yourself out, but have a great time today!
Hugs & Happy Thoughts,
Debi

On the Lighter Side

Hi Pam!
I went to Elkhart Hospital in Elkhart, Indiana. I stayed there
for two
and a half months. (They tried to send me home twice but was back w/in
48 hours each time.) Finally, on Demerol and Morphine, not getting any
relief from the pain that was going to my back, they sent me to IU Med
Center. My doc there was Dr. Sherman (Stuart Sherman). From what I
understand he and dr. Lehman work closely together. I LOVE this man -
Sherman.
First, welcome to our group! I am so sorry you are having to deal with
this. I live in Warsaw, Ind.
I am glad you have been to IU Med Center. I saw Dr. Fogel at IU.
Karyn Williams is our group leader and founder she lives in Indy. She
has been off line for a bit due to health and comp problems.
Any way I just wanted to welcome you. It is nice to have you!
Becky

Hi Kimber,
Happy Valentines Day !
I have only a little pain today, but I have a terrible back ache. The pain is a
little
more left than usual. Does your pain move around, or is it in the same place
all
the time?
They told me to still take my heart medicine before my ercp next fri, so I guess
mine doesn't thin the blood. They told me not to take the 1 Bayer I take with
the
heart medicine because that does thin the blood.
I hope you have a pain-free day!
Hugs & Happy Thoughts,
Debi<br clear=all
href="http://explorer.msn.com"

Dear Shirley I'm glad that you are feeling better now, you deserve some
relief after all that you've been through! you keep up the good fight!
Love,
Henry
on 2/7/01 4:57 PM, shirlf3542@... at shirlf3542@... wrote:
In a message dated 2/7/01 12:41:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, howmtp@...
writes:
Your New Pancreas Friend,
Henry
Bless your heart Henry. You have been thru so much. I am so sorry that
you have to endure so much pain. I am praying for you. Love, Shirley

I didn't receive this:-

"Message: 23
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 22:16:56 -0400
From: Raymond Werre <b.werre@...
Subject: Re: Test/ Bill/ Perry/Barb
[This message is not in displayable format]"

But this came through:-

welcome pam. thanks for all the information on your illness. it sounds that
dr. sherman has been a god send to many on this site. you will find much
compassion, friends, and more here. your new friend, debbie (ark)

when i go back to uams next week, i will take a copy of your information and
see if they are familiar with it. thanks again for the information. your
friend, debbie (ark)

Hi Erma and Mary
Aussie Anne here if you remember me!!!! :o)
I haven't been on for a while. Get so tired with lack of nutriction
etc. I also have the nocturnal epilepsy back in full swing the last
week or so of nights. Meds were working so well for it I almost
forgot I had it but not now.
Anyway I wanted to talk to you about the bp and eating. It seems you
are having probs with this too. For my Neuro who has 15 years
experience of MSA and other nervous system diseases he is totally
baffled by mine. I have had to keep a tally of bp before eating - 12
mins after - 30 mins after and 1 hour after. He saw the first wekks
chart and now wants two more weeks.
I don't ever get the high bps you both mention, only low, but it sure
does change after attempting to eat. I eat very little as I also get
pain start within 10-12 minutes of eating or even from drinking
Sustagen. (food suplement liquid) This prevents me eating more.
I have noticed that how much I try to eat also effects the bp. The
more I eat the lower it goes. My Neuro quite rightly said that it
does drop a little after eating, that is normal, but not as mine is.
This is why your letters caught my eye.
If I take an example of mine it is say take one day.
All sitting on bed with feet up.
Before breakfast 108/58 P 101 12 mins 88/52 P 75 30 mins 73/44 P 61
1hour 62/40 P 45. Lunch and dinner are about the same. I don't
remember having higher than 108/50 laying down. Sitting cant
remember higher than 70/50 or standing over 40/30. Now more like
30/20 when standing. None can explain how I manage to still walk
unaided with this!!! My bp and pulse go very low during the night.
Cant do anything about the low night time pulse as it goes well over
100 when on my feet.
I don't take any meds for bp and my Neuro still is against it as I
have adapted, or my body has to tolerate these low bps.
Do either Dale or Warren get pain when they try to eat? 10 -12
minutes after, lasting 1 - 1 1/2 hours?
Because of all this I am not seen as am ideal candidate for a peg
tube! They are loath to try in case it causes a major bowel
obstruction. I have a very narrow messenteric artery too. (artery
to bowel)
In the meantime I am slowly starving!! Now weigh 84 pounds. So if
anyone has further input on this it would be very welcome.
Much love and missing you all from Aussie Anne
PS 22 years and still walking around. I am very fortunate in that
respect.

that is good. That is also our Neuro's feeling.
with you

In a message dated 2/13/01 11:19:58 PM Central Standard Time,
Tweeter1001@... writes:
alicia - i don't think you have ever offended anyone. sometimes i miss some
of the correspondence back and forth because i just don't feel like reading
all i have backed up. i just jump right back in on current things. sorry
to hear about your finger!! ouch!
debbie (ark)

Hi Betty,
I haven't had much luck replying since this new method was initiated, but
your letter sounds so much like my feelings a while back. that I will try.
The Parkinsons meds did not help my husband, and sinemet confused him(caused
hallucinations, and too real of dreams). Some of the other caregivers
mentioned that Aricept worked wonders for the cognitive losses. and after a
long time, the Docs at VA perscribed a low dosage. Did it ever help! The
neighbors even remarked about it. When he went back, they doubled the
dosage, and we saw another improvement. He does have problems remembering,
and doesn't always get things right, but such an improvement. He is still
working with his hands, although his vision is so vbad that he can hardly
see, and his legs so weak that they will hardly carry him, and his voice so
low that I have to strain to hear him, but he is thinking, and reasoning,
and he makes sense when he talks to me. '
Dorothy in Ut.

In a message dated 2/13/01 10:59:48 PM Central Standard Time,
Tweeter1001@... writes:
i know about staying away from high fat content - but for some reason i can
handle a little bit of peanut butter better than i can meat etc;. i don't
eat it all the time - just occassionally and it is the low sodium, low fat.
less grams of fat and calories with a small spread of it thatn a lot of other
things. it might make someone else hurt, but so far, not me. debbie (ark)

Hi All, yes, that would be an ideal info sheet. I always take about a two
page list. Some doctors appreciate it, others tell me they already have
access to the information. Today, when I went into get Al up and dressed, he
complained that his stomach hurt. I took his BP, was much lower than usual,
he felt really warm, so when I took his temp. it was 99.8, instead of 96.6 as
usual. To me that was all the signs of an infection. So we are at the VA ER
at 9: AM with all my info and record of temps and BP's I think it made a
difference in their treatment of him. Did a chest x-ray, that ruled out
phemonioua, then the blood work and urine tests showed a high white cell
count. He was on IV for fluids and meds all day. They released him at 5: PM
with antibiotics for a week. I really thought that he needed to stay for a
couple of days,(since he was almost fainting, when he stood) But, they said,
if he keeps having problems, bring him back!!!!! ???????? So, anyway we are
pooped, Al is over there muttering in his sleep. He talks more asleep than
when he is awake!! Oh yes, I think I forgot to say the DX
today was a UTI. I'm glad it wasn't pneumonia, which I was afraid it might
be. Hoping tomorrow will be better. Thanks for listening, I had to unwind a
bit to get some sleep. Take care and have a good week everyone.
Pat in OKC

Hi Betty,
I'm Judy Whittaker, wife and caregiver for my husband, Mark. I agree with
Barbara that this does sound like depression. Is he on any type of anxiety
drug? Mark also took Zoloft for a pretty long time and was switched to
Remeron about 3 months ago.
Do you take any type of anxiety drug? I was taking 50mg of Zoloft for about
the past year and last week my Doctor doubled my dosage because she said I'll
need it for the next six months anyway. I have no clue just how Zoloft
works, I don't feel any different but am much more at ease. My Doctor also
demanded that I walk every day, which I said unless I could do it from 3:00
AM to 4:00 AM it wouldn't get done but for the past 3 weeks I hop out of bed
at 6:00, hook up my youngest dog and out we go. I'm amazed at how much it
helps my attitude and it's actually fun.
Mark's mind has been terrible at times, he also accuses me of just about
anything he can think of. This week it was that I have a boyfriend that
comes every night at 10:00 PM. Even called his brother without me knowing to
run over to the house and find him because he knew he was here! Last week he
told me he saw a hawk in the backyard and it killed a squirrel then one of
the dogs killed the hawk. All three dogs were in the house. YIKES! He sees
people in the yard, etc. When I questioned the Hospice nurse she said that
because he tries so hard to be sharp throughout the day that his brain just
wears out by late afternoon. And, that's about the time he gets somewhat
crazy.
I would most certainly check out the depression for your husband, it sounds a
lot like that to me. I'm quit the taskmaster and force Mark to do things
that he doesn't want to do, he hates it in the beginning, would never tell me
otherwise, but usually enjoys what I make him do.
Take care of yourself, it's important for you and your husband. There is a
nine year difference between Mark and me and we get the same questions.
People are always looking at me and asking "and you are his?", I know they
want me to say daughter and when I say wife I get some pretty funny looks.
Mark is in the late stages, does have a trach, PEG tube, can't walk, can't
bathe, dress, brush his teeth, etc. but I still make him pretty every
morning!
Take care, this disorder is dreadful but can be dealt with.
Judy

In a message dated 2/13/01 10:36:59 PM Central Standard Time,
Tweeter1001@... writes:
it has always given me indigestion but not an actual attack or pain. fresh
garlic is supposed to be good for many things, incl your blood. debbie
(ark)

Hi Kathy,
I was surprised when you said they tried a CPAP on Dave with his trach. I
understood that when Mark got his trach that he no longer needed his BiPAP
and he hasn't so far. Mark's last hospital visit was due to a staph
infection also, but his was in his lungs and he also had a UTI.
Don't be afraid to go with Hospice. We've been with Hospice for the past
month since Mark got home from the hospital and they are wonderful. His
nurse comes twice a week and I feel much more comfortable with having her
here to check him regularly. Mark gets visits from a counselor and it has
done wonders for his dealing with the situation. Mine too.
Up to this point Mark has never had pain involved with the disorder but for
the past month he has had severe pain from the knee down on his left leg.
The nurse talked with Mark's Doc. and he is now on Neurontin and it helps
somewhat. We seem to have a more feeling of calm since we went with Hospice
and the people could not be any nicer.
Just know that we are going through about the same things you and Dave are
and we will keep you both in our prayers.
Take Care,
Judy

Dear Pam,
I cannot even fathom spending 2 months in a hospital! You (and all the others)
are
so brave! I am very sorry you had to go through that with such young children.
I'm having the sphincterotomy and stent next Friday. Your story regarding that,
is
much like others. But, I still have hope that it will work for me. Right now,
by back
is killing me. It has been for a week or so now. I want to take lots of pain
killers
and crawl into bed, but I have to work...
This seems to be a very emotionally draining disease for us who have it, but
also for
our loved ones that do the best they can to support us. And, if we don't get
the
support, it makes it tougher.
I am new also. I was diagnosed with chronic pancreatitis/ pancreatic divisum
just a
few weeks ago. I feel blessed that I am still able to function like a person,
and I pray
for all us in the group that we may wake up with just a little less pain than
the day
before.
Take care,
Debi<br clear=all
href="http://explorer.msn.com"

Barb,
It seems the only problem is with it going to the digest subscribers. I can send Perry the messages directly and he gets them fine. They also appear fine on the list website. I have tried every setting I can imagine and am not getting through in the digest - I tried one more way this afternoon - but have to wait for digest people to get the current digest to find out.
Digest people - we do not know what digest number or digest message number you are getting as that is a digest number only - so refer to the time and date of the message.
Take care, Bill
Gotcha clear in Texas.
--
"The Lord's blessing is our greatest wealth; all our work adds nothing
to it." Proverbs 10:22
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
shydrager-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Hi, I am new to this list and have been reading posts for the past few
days. I have spoken to so few people who have had pancreatitis, let
alone know what it is. The pain, emotions,and variety of issues you all
have gone through just breaks my heart.
I too have pancreatitis. My medical team all told me what a severe case
I had. However after reading what you all have been and are going
through I truely feel blessed and sad for your pain.
I was diagnosed Dec. 98 in the ER with necrotizing pancreatitis. I had
such excrutiating pain I thought I was dying. I now know I had been
having attackes of what I thought was indigestion for 3 months prior.
They say mine was brought on by pregnancy. When I was admitted to the
hospital my new baby was just 3 months old (I also have a 7 year old -
today's his birthday!). During the pregnancy my gallbladder was
aggrevated and a stone got stuck in the bile duct, causing the pancreas
to begin digesting itself.
I went to Elkhart Hospital in Elkhart, Indiana. I stayed there for two
and a half months. (They tried to send me home twice but was back w/in
48 hours each time.) Finally, on Demerol and Morphine, not getting any
relief from the pain that was going to my back, they sent me to IU Med
Center. My doc there was Dr. Sherman (Stuart Sherman). From what I
understand he and dr. Lehman work closely together. I LOVE this man -
Sherman.
When he did my first ERCP I had a cyst that had formed. They drained 3
liters of fluid, put in a stent and did a sphincterotomy. I stayed at
IU for two weeks and had two other ERCP's to change the stent. After
that I went back every 6 weeks for for a total of two more visits to
have ERCP's done. Three months after my last ERCP was done I had my
gallbladder removed. That was Aug. 99. From that time for about a year
later I was usually in some sort of pain or stomach upset. But nothing
that needed meds for.
Then suddenly, really it was sudden. I just started feeling so much
better. I absolutley felt great and could pretty much eat whatever I
wanted. In Early November I was diagnosed a diabetic from the loss of
the pancreas. Four days later I was in the ER again with my second bout
of pancreatitis. This time I only stayed for 5 days.
I don't have pain too often, however some foods really bother me. Then
there is the whole diabetic thing. The dr. has put me on meds for the
diabetes, but these certain meds really beat up the beta cells (Amaryl).
I'm trying to learn how to eat to manage my diabetes and not aggravate
my pancreas. It just amazes me how much this stupid disease I had never
heard of can change one's life.
Thanks for listening, and take care of yourselves.
Pam
Shop online with me, your Mary Kay Independent Beauty Consultant
www.mymk.com/pcherioli
Ask me about LOW Long Distance rates
5.9 cents a minutes 24/7, no gimmicks.
PSCherioli@...

Karen,
Several members of the list have been told not to have this operation for MSA as not enough is known about MSA to place the electrodes where they could do any good. The pallidomy operation is a definite no for MSA as it could do more damage than good in MSA. I would NOT suggest being one of the first to have the operation for MSA. The operation in PD from what I understand is primarily for tremor and MSA patients do not usually have tremor. Our neuro is a top rated movement disorder specialist and does not recommend it for MSA, she does not push it for many PD patients either - sort of a last resort. I would certainly contact a top person in the MSA field before having this type of operation.
Take care, Bill and Charlotte

Not to long ago I wrote a post about not finding much correspondence
with
everyone. I was having problems with the site. I did not correctly
setup
when I applied to the site and did not have my ID, could not navigate,
etc.
Finally after Tull gave me info about how to correctly make an ID I was
able
to navigate the site and find the wonderful correspondence everyone has
had
with one another. I am sorry to those of you who have put your time and
thoughts into the site. If I offended anyone I am sorry. I have been
able
to most of the past posts and am very sorry.
Sincerely, Alicia
Alicia,
You are forgiven, although no need to apologize! It is frustrating
when you are trying to get into something and can't! I often get
frustrated with my computer and my husband makes me get away from it!
Tull has been a life saver to this group while Karyn has been on
sabbatical! We do so much appreciate his time and his support!
Anyway, it is nice to see you posting with our group! Welcome!
Becky

I hope this finds you all having a good day...:
).. I havent really posted alot lately because I had a mishap with my
finger
in a van door so hence no need to say anything more on that subject..
Peggy,
I certainly hope your finger is getting better! Van doors can be so
hazardous!
Take Care, Becky

Hi all,
I've gotten a couple of inquiries about the video tape of the
Symposium on Pancreatitis, and since we have qui