Michael J. Fox vs Rush Limbaugh vs Reality

[mugaliens]

After reviewing the comments on youtube, I've come up with three possible realities and would appreciate informed comments as which might be the most expedient (not favored, just the best) course of action:

1. Michael J. Fox: We need stem cell research to cure Parkinsons and other diseases.

2. Rush Limbaugh: He's either exaggerating his movements (acting) or he didn't take his meds.

3. Reality (possibly): There are other ways of producing basal stem cells than by human embryos (if so, please cite evidence).

4. Reality 2 (possibly): A blue filter (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcO2oRv75I") drastically reduces the associated symptoms of Parkinsons.

Comments? Please note that number 4 might be of tremendous benefit to those suffering from Parkinson's but of no benefit to others for whom stem cell researsh may hold promise.

Question: Just how much "promise" does stem cell research hold? In what time frame? At what expense? What's the liklihood of actually finding workable solutions, given other such "blanket promises" from the past (interferon)?

[01101001]

After reviewing the comments on youtube[...]

See topic Stem Cell Research (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=48559) for answers to similar, and for a lesson on how to better excise the politics from the issue.

[Doodler]

Somehow, Rush Limbaugh complaining about someone not taking their meds is just painfully hysterical. People have been trying to get him not to take his meds for years.

For starters, Limbaugh's gone immediately to logical fallacy, this being arguement to the person. The blue filter is nice, but why stick with treating the symptoms instead of trying to cure the disease? That's like treating diarrhea with a rubber plug...

Sound tasteless? Good, you get the picture. Now imagine telling someone with a degenerative neurological disorder that you won't cure them because sticking with symptom treatment is easier on your conscience. Out of sight, out of mind.

[Gillianren]

My grandmother had Parkinson's. I find his symptoms perfectly believable.

[Vermonter]

It's been known for years that Mr. Fox has had Parkinson's.

[mike alexander]

Doodler hit the spot in his ad hominem reference. The nasty cleverness of Limbaugh's comments was that he was playing the old game of asking someone to prove a negative, working the old innuendo game ("COULD IT BE that Mr. Fox was faking for dramatic effect? If he can prove he wasn't, I'll apologize."). And as a result, he has produced a controversy that has taken the spotlight off the original thrust of the ad. It was very clever, and I'm sure Limbaugh is smiling hugely.

A spokesperson for a problem who is also a victim of the problem is a common practice. Shortly before he died of lung cancer, Yul Brinner made a short anti-smoking ad that was very effective.

Fox made an ad praising Arlen Specter for his efforts to increase funding in the area in 2004. Sen. Specter is Republican.

The sheer viciousness of the response in some quarters is apalling.

[Dragon Star]

2. Rush Limbaugh: He's either exaggerating his movements (acting) or he didn't take his meds.

Well duh, he wants people to see what Parkinson's is.

[Swift]

According to this article (http://people.aol.com/people/article/0,26334,1551561,00.html), Michael J. Fox wasn't off his meds or acting.
Michael J. Fox says he wasn't "off his medication or acting" in an ad for a Democratic political candidate, as Rush Limbaugh has charged, but was in fact overmedicated.

In a CBS Evening News interview with Katie Couric on Thursday, Fox explained that the effects of his medication are hard to predict: "I just take it and it kicks in when it kicks in. Sometimes it kicks in too hard and then you get what's called dyskinesia, which is that rocking motion."

As I understand it, the treatments for Parkinson's are not only just treatments (as opposed to a cure), but they are not a particularly good treatment, they only lessen some of the worst symptoms, and over time, as the disease progresses, they get less effective.

[teddyv]

Well duh, he wants people to see what Parkinson's is.

From a brief news clip on TV yesterday, his movements are actually related to the meds he is taking. Sorry no link.

[mike alexander]

http://medweb.bham.ac.uk/http/depts/clin_neuro/teaching/tutorials/parkinsons/parkinsons1.html

Here is a quick summary of the disease and treatments. There are many others out there.

Please note, for those not familiar with the condition, that the main external features are a slowing and reduction of movement. Involuntary movements are a significant side effect of medication, and may be stochasitc in occurance and related to dose.

[Gillianren]

A spokesperson for a problem who is also a victim of the problem is a common practice. Shortly before he died of lung cancer, Yul Brinner made a short anti-smoking ad that was very effective.

He wasn't the only one, either. John Wayne did, and I think Bette Davis did. It's been a long time since they aired, but I remember there were quite a few of them.

And Vermonter, I know. I'm just saying that I don't think he was intentionally making his symptoms worse.

[Launch window]

Nancy Reagan was also very supportive of stem-cell research and cared greatly for the former President before his death on June 5, 2004. Michael J. Fox had praised the former First Lady for taking the issue out of politics. I think Rush was getting emotional and being disrespectful of people with disabilities

[mugaliens]

The blue filter is nice, but why stick with treating the symptoms instead of trying to cure the disease? That's like treating diarrhea with a rubber plug...

Actually, it's more akin to treating it with Immodium AD, as the blue filter doesn't cause any side effects as would a plug.

[hhEb09'1]

doesn't cause any side effects as would a plug.bottom effects

[mugaliens]

My point is that there's absolutely no need for any continued controversy, as there are ways to produce stem cells without either using or harming viable human embryos:

One Way (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/16/AR2005101600754.html)

Another (http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t060627.html)

A Third (http://appropriations.senate.gov/hearmarkups/BatteyJuly121.htm)

[hhEb09'1]

My point is that there's absolutely no need for any continued controversy, as there are ways to produce stem cells without either using or harming viable human embryos:but the controversy is not about stem cells, it is about embryos :)

[mugaliens]

You're missing the point: The controversy is about destroying viable human embryos to obtain the stem cells.

That no longer has to happen, ergo, there's no longer any basis to maintain a controvery.

The only possible exception is to use it as a tool for political gain. Therefore, whichever side tries do to that is either dishonest or ignorant of the advances that have been made in the last year.

[hhEb09'1]

You're missing the point: I don't think so :)The only possible exception is to use it as a tool for political gain. Now you've repeated my point. :)

But, I'll grant, that seems to be your larger point as well. It's a shame to use embryos as politcal footballs, isn't it?

[Moose]

Please note, for those not familiar with the condition, that the main external features are a slowing and reduction of movement. Involuntary movements are a significant side effect of medication, and may be stochasitc in occurance and related to dose.

This bears repeating as often as possible.

[mugaliens]

I don't think so :)

Yes, you are. Please go back and re-read.

[Moose]

My point is that there's absolutely no need for any continued controversy, as there are ways to produce stem cells without either using or harming viable human embryos:

Sorry, mugs, but like others you're neglecting one very important, and very well published fact. Embrionic stem cells are gathered from embryos not used during In Vitro Fertilization (http://www.ivf.com/ivffaq.html) procedures.

Q: What happens to any extra pre-embryos? A: A maximum of four pre-embryos will be transferred to the uterus for possible implantation. Patients will have several other options regarding the disposition of the remaining pre-embryos. One option is to freeze pre-embryos for your later use. Other options are to donate or simply dispose of them. Excess pre-embryos, if any, belong to you, and you will determine what is to be done.
I repeat, the embryos used in stem cell research are ones that would have quietly been disposed of anyway.

So I guess the question needs to be answered* is: are those who are against embryonic stem cell research also against In Vitro Fertilization? If not, why not?

(* Purely rhetorical as far as BAUT is concerned. I really REALLY don't want to drag this into a religious or political discussion. If Mugs merely rethinks his position based on this "new" well-published information, I'll be satisfied. )

[antoniseb]

Well done everyone. This could have been a very hot tempered political debate, and it was not.

[Doodler]

Sorry, mugs, but like others you're neglecting one very important, and very well published fact. Embrionic stem cells are gathered from embryos not used during In Vitro Fertilization (http://www.ivf.com/ivffaq.html) procedures.


I repeat, the embryos used in stem cell research are ones that would have quietly been disposed of anyway.

So I guess the question needs to be answered* is: are those who are against embryonic stem cell research also against In Vitro Fertilization? If not, why not?

(* Purely rhetorical as far as BAUT is concerned. I really REALLY don't want to drag this into a religious or political discussion. If Mugs merely rethinks his position based on this "new" well-published information, I'll be satisfied. )
[/size][/font]

The difference there, without resorting to spirituality or policy, is a matter of intent. Its one thing to create embryos, in the mind of the opposition, with intent to fertilize a woman and fail.

Its another thing to divert the excess material for research. Its a waste, yes, but its the intent that's the sticking point. The idea of in vitro fertilization is to eventually reach the point where you don't have waste embryos. The diversion of excess embryos for research is a motivation NOT to improve on existing procedure.

[crosscountry]

I've heard some people say the political ad (party) was taking advantage of MJF. I think it's the other way around.

[Moose]

Its another thing to divert the excess material for research. Its a waste, yes, but its the intent that's the sticking point. The idea of in vitro fertilization is to eventually reach the point where you don't have waste embryos. The diversion of excess embryos for research is a motivation NOT to improve on existing procedure.

I see. But the intent of trying to cure things like Parkinson's, or Alzheimer's, or scores of other degenerative diseases doesn't count? And neither does the deliberate wasting of embryos while "reaching the point where you don't have to waste embryos". We don't have to "waste" these embryos now Doodler.

I guess I have a potentially snarkier-appearing question that isn't intended to be snarky at all. Have objectors of stem cell research ever had loved ones faced with Parkinson's, Alzheimers, MS, MD, or other degenerative diseases? It's hard for me to believe that someone could watch a loved one suffer like that and still object to stem cell research on claims of morality*.

(* I say "claims of morality" because I do not believe this is in any way "the" moral position, and I strongly question if it can even be considered "a" moral position at all due to the deliberate withholding of potential cures to deserving real people with degenerative diseases through no fault of their own and the deliberate and unnecessary support of the termination of embryos "in vain". )

I should repeat that I consider these questions and statements purely rhetorical and don't in my mind require answering. I'm still very worried about crossing the line in terms of BAUT rules. Provoking additional thought will satisfy me for the purposes of this thread.

[Moose]

I've heard some people say the political ad (party) was taking advantage of MJF. I think it's the other way around.

I know. The condemnation of MJF seems to me to be as crass as condemning Chris Reeve for promoting a public position while appearing in his wheelchair.

[Van Rijn]

My point is that there's absolutely no need for any continued controversy, as there are ways to produce stem cells without either using or harming viable human embryos:

One Way (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/16/AR2005101600754.html)



Did you read the article? From there:

But few scientists, ethicists or others, it turns out, are convinced that the new methods transcend the problems inherent in traditional stem cell approaches. Many say the new work only reveals how intractable the problem remains and how unlikely it is that science will resolve what is essentially a matter of spiritual belief.

That is because one of the new methods still subjects a human embryo to a small added risk, and, even more controversially, the other approach involves deliberately creating an embryo with a disabled version of a gene that is crucial to normal development.

(Emphasis added) Of course that research (the new methods) has only been done with mice so far.

[Moose]

I guess I should mention that the objection to stem cell research, and the means in which certain proponents (not BAUTers, thankfully) have been objecting, deeply offends me on just about every level it's possible to be offended.

Including the personal one. My grandmother (Rita) is dying of alzheimers right now. I've already lost an aunt (Pat) to it, so I know what my grandmother will be facing soon: constant fear at not being able to recognize anybody around her and eventually trying to fight off everybody that approaches her, then starving herself to death "deliberately" because nobody will be able to coax her into eating or drinking short of Terry Shiavo-style life support, only under deliberate restraint. I've seen it firsthand, and I can say that this may well be the absolute cruelest way to die naturally, both on the victim and on the loving family who has to watch it.

She's still docile, but she's showing signs of being about to transition from the child-like "happy" stage (which is relatively easy on my grandmother) to the final "fearing" one. It's horrible to contemplate, but we've been hoping for the mercy of the probable heart attack her doctors have been predicting for a few years now, before she truly begins suffering. It would be a far kinder way to go. Unfortunately for her, it's looking like my grandmother won't be that lucky.

The youngest part of me, who will always love my grandmother fiercely even if she doesn't really recognize me anymore, doesn't understand why she has to go through this, and is enraged at realizing how impotent I am to stop it. But in all candor, as I watch my grandmother die in a perhaps unnecessary and undignified way, that rage is becomming refocussed towards those who would deny her any potential hope for a cure. Something I can "fight", if only through my writing.

This isn't an ideology guys. These are real people, and real suffering.

[crosscountry]

No one wants to live like that. He's serving his best interest and that of many people in his situation.

[Moose]

From a MJF interview on Couric's show, which you should all watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8lsjfjgAA8). Right now. (Move.)

(Transcripted by me. Any errors are mine and mine alone. I'm not sharing them. Nyah.)

The point of it is the cells that we're not using, that are being wasted. Hundreds of thousands of cells that are left over from In Vitro Ferilization are being thrown away. Are being wasted. They're not going to become life. They're not going to become life, they're going to be thrown away. So in that sense people say "protecting the unborn" but they're going be destroyed anyway. So let's use those cells to protect the unborn that are going to be born with diabetes, that are going to be born with genetic pre-disposition Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, or are going to be injured as children and have spinal cord injury. That's the pro-life position. Those cells are going to be wasted. That's what people need to understand, is that, is that... Where was the outcry when In Vitro Fertilization was started twenty years ago. This has been going on for twenty years. Hundreds of thousands of these cells have been destroyed. Every year.

[Jeff Root]

as I watch my grandmother die in a perhaps unnecessary and
undignified way, that rage is becomming refocussed towards
those who would deny her any potential hope for a cure.
There is no possibility that anyone who now has Alzheimer's
or Parkinson's diseases will ever be helped by stem cell therapy.
Maybe people who show the first symptoms twenty years from
now can be helped by it.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Jeff Root]

Whether we want it or not, genetic therapy is going to go forward,
and in another 50 years or so, everyone will be genetically modified.
I can't begin to imagine what the modifications will be, or the
consequences of those modifications. I don't think anyone can.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Van Rijn]

There is no possibility that anyone who now has Alzheimer's
or Parkinson's diseases will ever be helped by stem cell therapy.
Maybe people who show the first symptoms twenty years from
now can be helped by it.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

And you know this how?

[Moose]

There is no possibility that anyone who now has Alzheimer's or Parkinson's diseases will ever be helped by stem cell therapy.
Maybe people who show the first symptoms twenty years from
now can be helped by it.

There's a tale about something Napoleon Bueneparte allegedly did. The story goes that he'd ordered trees planted about the roads of France so that his troops would have shade when they marched in the summer. One of his officers objected that trees planted now wouldn't fulfill that function for at least twenty years. "That's why we must begin right away!"

It might well take 20 years to find a cure for Alzheimers, Parkinson's, and/or other diseases. That, Jeff, is why we must begin right away.

[Serenitude]

As a Nurse, it's amazing sometimes how even family members will perceive a Parkinson's patient tremors as a lack of care. It's a pretty common misconception. Most people don't realize that the meds cause most of the effect. It's a shame that many people's perception of this is only going to be reinforced by Mr. Limbaugh's lack of understanding of the condition. It could have been a great chance to educate :confused:

[mugaliens]

But in all candor, as I watch my grandmother die in a perhaps unnecessary and undignified way, that rage is becomming refocussed towards those who would deny her any potential hope for a cure. Something I can "fight", if only through my writing.

This isn't an ideology guys. These are real people, and real suffering.

Good for you, Moose. I hope you get my point - since there's a way to produce stem cells without killing human embryos, there's no longer any basis for opposition.

I WANT stem cell research. I've lost a great aunt and a distant cousing to Alzheimers. But I want it in a way where there's not ideological opposition. The progress made over the last year is paving the way towards a solution that everyone can stomach.

So long as we remain focused on a goal that meets everyone's requirements, we'll succeed.

If we allow ourselves to become sidetracked into ideological arguements, the research will bog down in politicized arguements and will grossly and unnecessarily delay any advances.

[Moose]

Van Rijn already answered you, Mugs. So did I, and so did MJF in the Couric interview I posted.

[MrClean]

You really can't get into this issue without getting political, because the flairup with MJF and Rush issue is all political. MJF is allowing his condition to be used as a reason to vote for a Missouri Politician. Rush in his usual tactlessness as seen before with the Johnathen McNabb bit has managed to step into a political correctness game. Mean while Amendment 2 is the issue of trying to write into the Missouri Constitution the right for scientists to use Somantic Cell Nuclear Transfer as a research tool for use in trials such as stem cell research. The Amendment 2 website is very firm on their stance that this process is not cloning. Of course it's the exact process that was used to make Dolly the sheep but THEIR stance is that it isn't cloning. I can only assume they have reached this decision as they have no intention of placing the now viable ovum back into a uterous, therefore it's not a baby and they've wash their hands of it and walked away.

If passed and ratified, in ten years or less they could just turn around and say, ok, it's cloning, but it's our right and just try taking it away from us, it's in the constitution. It's the bait and switch part that makes my skin crawl and keys me into the fact that something isn't on the up and up. Somebody is trying to make you look at the MJF/Rush part and not at the actual issue.

[Moose]

You really can't get into this issue without getting political, because the flairup with MJF and Rush issue is all political. MJF is allowing his condition to be used as a reason to vote for a Missouri Politician.

I'd suggest that there's cause to believe that MJF's horse is exclusively the stem cell research. In 2004, he did a similar promo for Arlen Spector, a Republican, saying that "he gets it".

Rush, on the other hand, well, I don't recall Rush objecting in 2004.

That's as far as I'm going to take this line of thought. In any case, I again urge everyone to view the MJF-Couric interview I linked above, if you haven't already. It's worth watching, and puts the issue in perspective.

[MrClean]

I wouldn't listen to Couric if she was giving the friggin key to happiness, mostly because I could have gotten it a week earlier off the internet. And I don't need a heart tuggin fluff piece to form an opinion on facts. I could give a flip if MJF has Parkensons, I've got my own personal reasons to get rid of that disease that helped kill my father in law. But I won't select a group of people to die to make my life better, even if we create them ourselves.

Just the facts please

[Van Rijn]

But I won't select a group of people to die to make my life better, even if we create them ourselves.

Just the facts please

Facts? That's the whole point: This isn't about facts, but a philosophical difference of opinion.

First, I thought the interview was excellent (and this is from somebody who generally doesn't watch CBS news and avoided Dan Rather). Second, in my philosophy, groups of undifferentiated cells aren't people.

And that's as far as I'll go with it, since this topic is going downhill fast.

[Moose]

Just the facts please

That's precisely why I suggested watching the interview. Look, I've had a major "lifelong" illness myself (colitis) which was corrected by a few fairly extensive reconstructions of my digestive tract. Fourty years ago, I would not have had the option that allows me the freedom to travel without carrying "supplies". Maybe ten years from now, surgeries (or meds with difficult side effects) won't even be necessary. Heck, in twenty years, we may figure out how to use stem cells to regenerate tissue so that no-donor transplants are possible, or to alter a person's bone marrow so it doesn't release the whatever-it-is that causes intestinal inflammation anymore.

When MJF says he doesn't give a rat's backside about your (or Rush's) pity, that he doesn't want it, I can tell you that I believe him. Because I felt the exact same way when I was "suffering".

Yeah, MJF has a hard time holding still while medicated. It's uncomfortable, but far less uncomfortable than not medicating, as Rush suggested. But I've found MJF eloquent, very well informed, highly factual, and under that basis highly persuasive. He actually stopped Couric from trying to turning the interview into a heart-tugger.

It's your right to not listen, no matter how silly I think your reasoning for declining, but it's very much your loss. Good sense is good sense no matter who is saying it.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!] It's a shame that many people's perception of this is only going to be reinforced by Mr. Limbaugh's lack of understanding of the condition. It could have been a great chance to educate :confused:
Regretably, Mr. Limbaugh is not in it for education. I can say no more.

[Serenitude]

I can say no more.

Nor could I ;)

[Doodler]

I can. Limbaugh's in it for exposure. What with his recent drama over prescription drug abuse, he's been looking for something he can latch onto to get back in the public light as something other than a problem child.

It really isn't political with him, its a matter of trying to stay relevent by flailing at apparently easy targets in an attempt to roust the extremists on the issue into a froth.

Its not politics, its all sound and fury for the sake of a controversy he can put his name on.

[crosscountry]

not sure how to roll my eyes on this computer, but that's what I would do after reading Doodler's post.

[Celestial Mechanic]

not sure how to roll my eyes on this computer, but that's what I would do after reading Doodler's post.
I believe Doodler is referring to Rush Limbaugh in his post, not Michael J. Fox. If you still feel like rolling your eyes, here's how (delete spaces): : rolleyes : :rolleyes:

[R.A.F.]

And I don't need a heart tuggin fluff piece to form an opinion on facts.

You seem to have no problem reaching conclusions without examining all of the evidence...pity...

I could give a flip if MJF has Parkensons, I've got my own personal reasons to get rid of that disease that helped kill my father in law.

How odd...My Mom had the disease for years before she died, and I would NEVER make that sort of statement about anyone else having parkinsons.
It's not something you would wish on anyone for any reason.

[crosscountry]

I believe Doodler is referring to Rush Limbaugh in his post, not Michael J. Fox. If you still feel like rolling your eyes, here's how (delete spaces): : rolleyes : :rolleyes:


wow, I really misread that one. it was kind of ambiguous right?

[Doodler]

wow, I really misread that one. it was kind of ambiguous right?

I'll fix it. I thought being in a direct line behind a couple about Limbaugh's motives being unmentionable because of potential political content would carry through on context.

Believe me, even if you compare the two objectively, MJF has absolutely no need whatsoever to generate a controversy for publicity.

[korjik]

I can. Limbaugh's in it for exposure. What with his recent drama over prescription drug abuse, he's been looking for something he can latch onto to get back in the public light as something other than a problem child.

It really isn't political with him, its a matter of trying to stay relevent by flailing at apparently easy targets in an attempt to roust the extremists on the issue into a froth.

Its not politics, its all sound and fury for the sake of a controversy he can put his name on.

I disagree about this not being political. This whole post is essentially a political ad hom attack. I would suggest that Rush's antics and views be dropped completely.

[Donnie B.]

I disagree about this not being political. This whole post is essentially a political ad hom attack. I would suggest that Rush's antics and views be dropped completely.That might be a bit hard to do, given the topic of this thread. It is, after all, dedicated to one of Limbaugh's "antics", which in turn seems to have been motivated by his political views.

Or are you suggesting that the entire thread is out of bounds? That's certainly a tenable postion, though I think there are pretty strong issues of science involved.

[farmerjumperdon]

I don't see that it is out of bounds to criticize Limbaugh. I'm not knocking the party he supports in saying that if there was ever a person that deserved the title of Mouthpiece, he is it. My guess is that he's an embarrassment to all but the extreme end of the conservative spectrum, regardless of what party label they wear.

I'd feel the same way about someone so flagrantly biased, so narrow of vision, and so outlandish in opinion who happened to support the extreme liberal point of view.

Limbaugh is a symptom of the political polarity from which we currently suffer. He's like the cancor sore that tells you there in an infection to be treated. And the particular political party he supports has nothing to do with that, or my opinion of him.

I don't wear a party label, but if I did, I'd keep as far away from him, or being percieved as linked to him as possible.

[R.A.F.]

I would suggest that Rush's antics and views be dropped completely.

I agree...I think that Rush should drop his antics and views...

...what's that?...oh...we're talking about the discussion of his antics on this thread??

Nevermind...:)

[danscope]

Somehow, Rush Limbaugh complaining about someone not taking their meds is just painfully hysterical. People have been trying to get him not to take his meds for years.

For starters, Limbaugh's gone immediately to logical fallacy, this being arguement to the person. The blue filter is nice, but why stick with treating the symptoms instead of trying to cure the disease? That's like treating diarrhea with a rubber plug...

Sound tasteless? Good, you get the picture. Now imagine telling someone with a degenerative neurological disorder that you won't cure them because sticking with symptom treatment is easier on your conscience. Out of sight, out of mind.
Well said and right on point. Michael J. Fox has it right.
When some idiot like Rush stands in the way of genuine medical progress
and life or death, it says volumes about his intellect and his moral center.
Best regards, Dan

[Celestial Mechanic]

Before this thread dissolves in acrimony, let me admit that I'm only human, and like most humans I enjoy nothing more than seeing some pompous, self-important windbag being deflated.

Hey, why are you looking at me like that? Put that pin away! Get away from me!! NO!!! AUGGGGH!!!

POP!!! PFFWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ... pfft!

;)

[Darasen]

It seems part of the issue is that ads like the one from MJF are not truthful. Stating that a pary opposes stem cell research is false. Not distinguishing between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells is simply a political tactic targeting those without the scientific knowledge to know they are being lied to.

[crosscountry]

Well said and right on point. Michael J. Fox has it right.
When some idiot like Rush stands in the way of genuine medical progress
and life or death, it says volumes about his intellect and his moral center.
Best regards, Dan


I like that:clap:

[Van Rijn]

It seems part of the issue is that ads like the one from MJF are not truthful. Stating that a pary opposes stem cell research is false. Not distinguishing between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells is simply a political tactic targeting those without the scientific knowledge to know they are being lied to.

Is there a specific misstatement in the ad that you can point to? Adult stem cells are far more limited in their developmental abilities, and therefore far less useful for research.

[Moose]

Stating that a pary opposes stem cell research is false.

On top of that, this is factually incorrect as well. MJF stated no such thing, which you can plainly see by simply viewing the commercial. He was speaking about specific individual candidates in one specific race.

In any case, as I mentionned before, MJF did a commercial in 2004 for Arlen Spector, a Republican, saying "he gets it".

[danscope]

I like that:clap:

Hi, Great quote and ..beautiful pictures!!
Best regards, Dan

[danscope]

On top of that, this is factually incorrect as well. MJF stated no such thing, which you can plainly see by simply viewing the commercial. He was speaking about specific individual candidates in one specific race.

In any case, as I mentionned before, MJF did a commercial in 2004 for Arlen Spector, a Republican, saying "he gets it".

Correct. Arlen Spector is one of the few who actually understands the enormous advantages of embrionic stemcells.
In time, others will come around. But we must needs not lose the talent
residing within our country. Without access to the best situation, they will
press on ....else where.
Best regards, Dan