Part: 12         Session: 145678910111213141516171819202122         Page 318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368 of 999

I went there and I stayed for three days listening every day, and I saw that while our side was pretty good, they didn't really bring out the reason why the NIH shouldn't be allowed to be the court of last resort, and to be the -- that the head director should be reported to. It was his philosophy not to bring medical science down to the patient. That was never mentioned.

Who were some of the --?

Well, Schmidt and Farber and Holland and Pollard all testified for us. But they had a number of people testifying against the bill and saying oh yes it must be within the National Institute of Health, the National Institutes of Health were marvelous and had gotten a great deal done. Well, I made a summary which I'll give you showing that in 20 years the National Institutes of Health unfortunately hadn't caused any change in the death rate. Now, of course to change the death rate you have to change the death rate in cancer or in heart or both -- the major factors, see -- and they had not done it. I have a list of what they did accomplish and what was accomplished with prite money. Whatever was accomplished, a tremendous amount may be accomplished on which can be drawn for this next five years or this next decade, but they did not get anything down to people so that more people live longer in better condition. I showed this to Rogers and he was very couteous about it.

You had this summary prepared at the time of the hearings?

No, I went to him privately. I said, “I'll give testimony to you privately,” and I showed him this and I really gave him the works.