NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15408508/

Possibly worse than making fun of someone's disability is saying that it's imaginary. That is not to mock someone's body, but to challenge a person's guts, integrity, sanity.

To Rush Limbaugh on Monday, Michael J. Fox looked like a faker. The actor, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, has done a series of political ads supporting candidates who favor stem cell research, including Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin, who is running against Republican Michael Steele for the Senate seat being vacated by Paul Sarbanes.

"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told listeners. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."

Limbaugh, whose syndicated radio program has a weekly audience of about 10 million, was reacting to Fox's appearance in another one of the spots, for Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill, running against Republican Sen. James M. Talent.

But the Cardin ad is similar. It is hard to watch, unless, for some reason, you don't believe it. As he speaks, Fox's restless torso weaves and writhes in a private dance. His head bobs from side to side, almost leaving the video frame.

"This is the only time I've ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has," Limbaugh said. "He can barely control himself."

'A shameless statement'
Later Monday, still on the air, Limbaugh would apologize, but reaction to his statements from Parkinson's experts and Fox's supporters was swift and angry.

"It's a shameless statement," John Rogers said yesterday. Rogers, Fox's political adviser, who also serves on the board of the Parkinson's Action Network, added: "It's insulting. It's appallingly sad, at best."

"Anyone who knows the disease well would regard his movement as classic severe Parkinson's disease," said Elaine Richman, a neuroscientist in Baltimore who co-wrote "Parkinson's Disease and the Family." "Any other interpretation is misinformed."

Fox was campaigning yesterday for Tammy Duckworth, a congressional candidate, outside Chicago, when he alluded to Limbaugh's remarks. "It's ironic, given some of the things that have been said in the last couple of days, that my pills are working really well right now," he said, according to a report on the CBS2 Web site.

After his apology, Limbaugh shifted his ground and renewed his attack on Fox.

"Now people are telling me they have seen Michael J. Fox in interviews and he does appear the same way in the interviews as he does in this commercial," Limbaugh said, according to a transcript on his Web site. "All right then, I stand corrected. . . . So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act."

Then Limbaugh pivoted to a different critique: "Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democratic politician."

'Hope to millions of Americans'
Limbaugh's shock at Fox's appearance is a measure of the disease's devastation, advocates say. Contrary to the charge that Fox might not take his medicine to enhance his symptoms, the medicine produces some of the uncontrolled body movements.

"Stem cell research offers hope to millions of Americans with diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's," Fox says in the Cardin ad. "But George Bush and Michael Steele would put limits on the most promising stem cell research."

Fox has appeared in ABC's "Boston Legal" this season. In his scenes, taped over the summer, Fox does not shake or loll his head as he does in the Cardin commercial, but does appear to be restraining himself, appearing almost rigid at times.

A source with direct knowledge of Fox's illness who viewed the Cardin ad said Fox is not acting to exaggerate the effects of the disease. The source said Fox's scenes in "Boston Legal" had to be taped around his illness, as he worked to control the tremors associated with Parkinson's for limited periods of time.

Staff writer Frank Ahrens contributed to this report.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Well, at least he apologized for it, but it seems he's most upset about the fact that Fox is campaigning for politics he doesn't agree with. So Limbaugh, being the world-class guy he is, decides to attack Fox's character. Jeez, are the righties so desperate that they have to resort to ad hominem attacks on people suffering from Parkinson's? Jesus F-wording Christ, this is ridiculous. Frankly, if not for how disgusting this attack on Michael J. Fox's character is, the level of desperation invoked by Rush Limbaugh would be somewhat amusing. As it is, he's proven himself to be even more of a fuckhead than when he claimed the NFL just wanted Donovan McNabb to do well because he's black.

To Mr. Limbaugh, I have a choice for you. In front of you are two drinks. One is a nice, cool refreshing glass of Common Sense. The other is a nice, hot cup of Shut the Fuck Up. Drink one. Hell, drink both; I don't care. Just pick at least one.

I don't know why anybody would fake looking like crap like that.

I don't know why anybody would fake looking like crap like that.

Yeah, me either. I wonder if Limbaugh thinks Muhammad Ali's faking too.

Shit, I thought everyone knew Republican pundits were renowned video doctors, able to diagnos illnesses at a glance.

Limbaugh is a giant douche, has always been a giant douche, and will always be a giant douche because a) he is a giant douche and (b) that is what his fucking douchebag viewers want to see: him being a douche to liberals. Bets 20 to 1 60% of his viewers think he only apologized because FOX people got on his ass and that Fox is really faking the illness.

Also, 10 to 1 odds Limbaugh isn't punished.

Errrrr......Hello???
Where's the rest of the transcript that says Mr. Fox admits as to NOT taking his meds prior to speaking engagements, and commercials to have a greater impact on his message.
Oh??? Who's the deceiver Mr. Fox???

That's all Republicans can do now. They've lost all of the issues. They've even lost security... All they can resort to now is ad hominem. Look at Tennessee, as well.

See.

Solid boo on the tastelessness.

Send Limbaugh to somewhere else.

No one is going to do anything to him. No radio station is going to drop him, FOX isn't going to fine him. Parkinson's patients and their supporters obviously arn't their constituents because they are regressive conservative assholes.

I don't know why anybody would fake looking like crap like that.It's called the Münchhausen Syndrome.

Errrrr......Hello???
Where's the rest of the transcript that says Mr. Fox admits as to NOT taking his meds prior to speaking engagements, and commercials to have a greater impact on his message.
Oh??? Who's the deceiver Mr. Fox???

The difference between deliberately not taking medication to make the effects more obvious and faking the effects is about the same as the difference between being elected President on a negative campaign and playing a President on MAD TV. Limbaugh accused Fox of something far different than what Fox has admitted to.

Limbaugh is an ass... Like O'Reilly and a lot of others.

But still, don't blame the "righties" - I don't like it when the "lefties" are lumped together, so I won't accept it happening the other way either. (Though for the record, this is the first time I've ever noticed someone generalizing the "righties" :) )

Errrrr......Hello???
Where's the rest of the transcript that says Mr. Fox admits as to NOT taking his meds prior to speaking engagements, and commercials to have a greater impact on his message.
Oh??? Who's the deceiver Mr. Fox???
wow. you're as big a scumbag as that fat shit Limbaugh.
How dare MJFox appear in public showing the full extent of his suffering! Has he no shame? Does he not realise some of us might find our sensibilities offended by seeing a very talented man suffering so much?
Shame on you, Michael, shame on you.

"All right then, I stand corrected. . . . So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act."
How generous of him to 'bigly' (is that even a friggin' word?) admit he was wrong. How noble of him. America, be proud! Limbaugh is 'bigly' enough to apologise for being a grade A scumbag.
Oh.
wait a minute:
Then Limbaugh pivoted to a different critique: "Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democratic politician."
Uhhh...someone please explain to me how Fox is being exploited when he agreed to appear in these adverts. The entire decision was his and his alone.
How is that exploitation?

Errrrr......Hello???
Where's the rest of the transcript that says Mr. Fox admits as to NOT taking his meds prior to speaking engagements, and commercials to have a greater impact on his message.
Oh??? Who's the deceiver Mr. Fox???Deceiver? Fox appears as he is, with Parkinson's Syndrome, so people can see what sufferers have to deal with. How is that deceptive in any way?

And by the way, where was Limbaugh two years ago when Fox was campaigning for Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, based on his support for stem cell research? Not bloviating about it, that's for damn sure. Fox supports candidates who support his cause, regardless of party. That happens to mostly be Democrats right now because the Republicans have lost their damn minds over the issue.

Limbaugh is an ass... Like O'Reilly and a lot of others.

But still, don't blame the "righties" - I don't like it when the "lefties" are lumped together, so I won't accept it happening the other way either. (Though for the record, this is the first time I've ever noticed someone generalizing the "righties" :) )

OK then, the "Limbaughites" if that's a word...better?

No, no, no. Fox's illness is being exploited. That is, Fox is exploiting the effects of his illness to try and convince people to support his side. In short, Limbaugh is saying the same thing he had to apologize for in much more guarded words.

Errrrr......Hello???
Where's the rest of the transcript that says Mr. Fox admits as to NOT taking his meds prior to speaking engagements, and commercials to have a greater impact on his message.
Oh??? Who's the deceiver Mr. Fox???

If you knew ANYTHHING about parkinson'd you would realize the wavering a result of the drugs themselves, not the lack therof. If he were not on these drugs hw would be stiff, rigid, and unable to walk or function. I seriosuly wish wignuts would know that they are talking about before going off half-cocked. But then that wouldn't make them wignuts would it? As for that quote, it was attributed to Mr. Fox in error by a wonderful rag. Please find it for us. Rush made that assertion in error, just like much of everything else he does.

As I understand it, dyskinesias (involuntary movements) are among the symptoms of taking levodopa, which I believe is the most common medication for treating Parkinson's.

It is also common to combine levodopa treatment with a drug called carbidopa, which helps to reduce some of the side effects of levodopa. This combination is often very effective, but advanced patients will frequently see a kind of "on-off" syndrome in which the drug simply will not work for unpredictable lengths of time.

UPDATE:

Just because I'm curious, I looked into Rush's claim that Fox admits to going off his meds for certain appearances. What I found was a July 24, 2002 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle where Fox actually said that his MEDICATION (yes, L-dopa) gives him dyskinesia. Fox does say that the timing of his medications has become important, but I don't get how Rush would then determine that Fox would be OFF his medications when he's showing MORE dyskinesia. If anything, shouldn't Rush have accused Fox of taking too much of his meds?

OK then, the "Limbaughites" if that's a word...better?

Yes :) - and if it wasn't a word before, well, then it is now :p

Would we be allowed to send our good friend Rush to Taraz in Kazakhstan?

No, no, no. Fox's illness is being exploited. That is, Fox is exploiting the effects of his illness to try and convince people to support his side. In short, Limbaugh is saying the same thing he had to apologize for in much more guarded words.
I don't know about this.

If somebody can demonstrate the Fox is deliberately enhancing or exagerating the symptoms of his illness for theatrical purposes, ok. But I don't think we've got any evidence of that.

So if Fox is simply being a Parkinson's patient in public, does that count as "exploiting" his condition? I don't think so. I don't think people with illnesses or disabilities should be expected to hide themselves away from public view, particularly not when debates that are essential to the quality of their medical care are going on. They should be as free to participate as anybody else, and they shouldn't be accused of "exploiting" the effects of their condition simply because they have visible symptoms and choose not to hide from public view.

Errrrr......Hello???
Where's the rest of the transcript that says Mr. Fox admits as to NOT taking his meds prior to speaking engagements, and commercials to have a greater impact on his message.
Oh??? Who's the deceiver Mr. Fox???

Well, maybe many Americans can't afford the medical treatments he gets. Maybe he's speaking for them. Let's face it, other nations are working on stem cell therapy. When it becomes a standard treatment Mr. Fox can go overseas and get cured. Most Americans cannot and the god-damned religious right will be to blame.

I don't know about this.

If somebody can demonstrate the Fox is deliberately enhancing or exagerating the symptoms of his illness for theatrical purposes, ok. But I don't think we've got any evidence of that.

So if Fox is simply being a Parkinson's patient in public, does that count as "exploiting" his condition? I don't think so. I don't think people with illnesses or disabilities should be expected to hide themselves away from public view, particularly not when debates that are essential to the quality of their medical care are going on. They should be as free to participate as anybody else, and they shouldn't be accused of "exploiting" the effects of their condition simply because they have visible symptoms and choose not to hide from public view.

And that's what seems to really piss the Limbaugh's of this world off--that the "freaks" don't just hide themselves away like any decent freak would. They don't like being faced with suffering because if they are, then in order to be a decent human, you have to at least acknowledge that they exist and are as human as you are. They don't want to clutter their "beautiful minds" with the ugliness of the real world.

And that's what seems to really piss the Limbaugh's of this world off--that the "freaks" don't just hide themselves away like any decent freak would. They don't like being faced with suffering because if they are, then in order to be a decent human, you have to at least acknowledge that they exist and are as human as you are. They don't want to clutter their "beautiful minds" with the ugliness of the real world.

Which is why Limbaugh abuses Oxycontin while condemning drug users.

And that's what seems to really piss the Limbaugh's of this world off--that the "freaks" don't just hide themselves away like any decent freak would. They don't like being faced with suffering because if they are, then in order to be a decent human, you have to at least acknowledge that they exist and are as human as you are. They don't want to clutter their "beautiful minds" with the ugliness of the real world.
I will freely admit that seeing terminally ill people makes me uncomfortable. It is hard for me to watch an advanced Parkinson's patient speak about their illness. I do have an emotional response to that sort of thing, and it's often a very strong one.

But that DOES NOT, in any way, mean that they should have to go away or stop being visible. It doesn't mean that what they have to say can be pushed aside, or that they can be blamed for the fact that their disease bums me out. If anything, the discomfort I feel should make me pay even more attention, and think about why I feel alarmed or disturbed by what I'm seeing.

If you knew ANYTHHING about parkinson'd you would realize the wavering a result of the drugs themselves, not the lack therof. If he were not on these drugs hw would be stiff, rigid, and unable to walk or function. I seriosuly wish wignuts would know that they are talking about before going off half-cocked. But then that wouldn't make them wignuts would it? As for that quote, it was attributed to Mr. Fox in error by a wonderful rag. Please find it for us. Rush made that assertion in error, just like much of everything else he does.

Don't call others dumb when you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

What are the symptoms? back to top


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symptoms of Parkinson's, which often appear gradually yet with increasing severity, may include tremors or trembling; difficulty maintaining balance and gait; rigidity or stiffness of the limbs and trunk; and general slowness of movement (also called bradykinesia). Patients may also eventually have difficulty walking, talking, or completing other simple tasks. Because Parkinson's has a wide range of early symptoms that are similar to other neurological conditions, diagnosis is often difficult unless the clinician has experience in the field.

The course of Parkinson's varies substantially. Some patients have relatively few troublesome symptoms for many years, while others have especially severe cases that leave them with little or no mobility in just a few years.
Try keeping your arm out straight and rigid and see if it doesn't start to tremble after a while. Imagine if that was happening involuntarily in your whole body. Yeah, your muscles get stiff, but they tremble too.

Which is why Limbaugh abuses Oxycontin while condemning drug users.

Nah--that's just classic right-wing Limbaugh hypocrisy. What I'm describing is more of a desire to shut the ugliness of life away so you don't have to deal with it. There's a story from one of the Bush biographies, written by Kitty Kelley (so tread lightly on the credibility front) that insinuates that the Bush family has a retarded cousin, maybe Downs Syndrome, who has been basically excised from the family history. Very few pics, never seen at public gatherings--that sort of thing. And that attitude is prevalent among the privileged--you don't bring the freaks out in public because you don't want to be embarassed by them.

Here's a different kind of example--gated communities. People live in gated communities because they say they want a greater degree of security. What they really want is to be able to keep ugliness out. And I don't think it's a coincidence that wealthy people who live in urban areas, where it's impossible to avoid ugliness in any real degree, tend to be more liberal, whereas people on their estates or in gated communities tend to be more conservative.

And that's what seems to really piss the Limbaugh's of this world off--that the "freaks" don't just hide themselves away like any decent freak would. They don't like being faced with suffering because if they are, then in order to be a decent human, you have to at least acknowledge that they exist and are as human as you are. They don't want to clutter their "beautiful minds" with the ugliness of the real world.
Oh, I'm sure Rush & his ilk would like a few Joseph Merricks that can be trotted out on-stage for them to laugh at.
Maybe organised tours of Lunatic asylums and bear-baiting while they're at it.

Don't call others dumb when you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Try keeping your arm out straight and rigid and see if it doesn't start to tremble after a while. Imagine if that was happening involuntarily in your whole body. Yeah, your muscles get stiff, but they tremble too.
As I've already posted, dyskinesia is a symptom of the medication that Fox is taking to treat his Parkinson's. The fact that Fox shows involuntary movements could not be considered evidence that he is "off his medication." On the contrary; the increasing doses of his medication that would be required to keep up with his body's growing tolerance would result in increasingly severe dyskinesia.

And I don't think it's a coincidence that wealthy people who live in urban areas, where it's impossible to avoid ugliness in any real degree, tend to be more liberal, whereas people on their estates or in gated communities tend to be more conservative.
That's about as astounding a coincidence as finding out that people who have more contact with minorities are less likely to be racist than people who stick to their own.

I will freely admit that seeing terminally ill people makes me uncomfortable. It is hard for me to watch an advanced Parkinson's patient speak about their illness. I do have an emotional response to that sort of thing, and it's often a very strong one.

But that DOES NOT, in any way, mean that they should have to go away or stop being visible. It doesn't mean that what they have to say can be pushed aside, or that they can be blamed for the fact that their disease bums me out. If anything, the discomfort I feel should make me pay even more attention, and think about why I feel alarmed or disturbed by what I'm seeing.

Of course it makes you uncomfortable. You've got empathy, and you can feel their pain (to use a terribly worn phrase) to some extent. But unlike the Limbaughs of this world, you use that discomfort as a tool to learn about both the disease and about yourself.

Of course it makes you uncomfortable. You've got empathy, and you can feel their pain (to use a terribly worn phrase) to some extent. But unlike the Limbaughs of this world, you use that discomfort as a tool to learn about both the disease and about yourself.
I think the critical distinction is that I don't leap to blame other people for my personal emotional discomfort, nor do I automatically assume that if I feel sad then other people have to change what they're doing.

Rush seems to believe that he is entitled to never have his feelings hurt. He seems to think that he has some kind of constitutionally-protected right to never be offended. He's like a lot of right-wingers in that sense.

He seems to think that if something makes him feel bad, then that thing should simply be removed or banned. He should never have to feel sad or offended or uncomfortable. If he does feel any of those things, then whatever provoked his emotional response is clearly to blame and should be punished.

If seeing sick people makes Rush sad, then the sick people are bad and should be removed from view. If Rush's tender masculinity is offended by the existence of gay people, then gay people should be removed from view. Et cetera.

I doubt gay people really bother Rush, that man has a kong dong with a pistol grip. Bet money on it.

I doubt gay people really bother Rush, that man has a kong dong with a pistol grip. Bet money on it.
Well, it has long been my theory that the real reason wingers oppose societal acceptance of homosexuality is because they secretly get off on the taboo of it all. It's dirty, naughty, sinful...oooooooooh.

It's like how having a black mistress used to be so very very bad, until the liberals ruined everything by making interracial relationships legal and mainstream. That just takes all the fun out of it.

I think the critical distinction is that I don't leap to blame other people for my personal emotional discomfort, nor do I automatically assume that if I feel sad then other people have to change what they're doing.

Rush seems to believe that he is entitled to never have his feelings hurt. He seems to think that he has some kind of constitutionally-protected right to never be offended. He's like a lot of right-wingers in that sense. Which is another classic case of right-wing projectionism, because he's famoous for claiming that the left is always bitching about being offended by something and that society needs to remove all offensive things.

The real issue is this:


Why on EARTH should Michael J Fox be allowed to blatantly STEAL the name of such a reputable news source as Fox News to promote his own agenda? It's not like he has some divine right to the name "Fox" or anything.

Cheney should sue MJF, on behalf of Fox News, as soon as he finds an unwounded lawyer.


Court order: Mr Fox, please change your name to Michael J NPR, immediately.

The real issue is this:


Why on EARTH should Michael J Fox be allowed to blatantly STEAL the name of such a reputable news source as Fox News to promote his own agenda? It's not like he has some divine right to the name "Fox" or anything.

Cheney should sue MJF, on behalf of Fox News, as soon as he finds an unwounded lawyer.


Court order: Mr Fox, please change your name to Michael J NPR, immediately.
You win this thread.

The real issue is this:


Why on EARTH should Michael J Fox be allowed to blatantly STEAL the name of such a reputable news source as Fox News to promote his own agenda? It's not like he has some divine right to the name "Fox" or anything.

Cheney should sue MJF, on behalf of Fox News, as soon as he finds an unwounded lawyer.


Court order: Mr Fox, please change your name to Michael J NPR, immediately.

You win this thread.


We have a winnah! :D

Why bother Cheney, have the Attorney General do it.

I doubt gay people really bother Rush, that man has a kong dong with a pistol grip. Bet money on it.

Bill Hicks thinks otherwise (http://youtube.com/watch?v=PWtrp-Pt1SI&mode=related&search=). You have to wait for a bit to get to it, but it's worth the wait.

I think the critical distinction is that I don't leap to blame other people for my personal emotional discomfort, nor do I automatically assume that if I feel sad then other people have to change what they're doing.

Rush seems to believe that he is entitled to never have his feelings hurt. He seems to think that he has some kind of constitutionally-protected right to never be offended. He's like a lot of right-wingers in that sense.

He seems to think that if something makes him feel bad, then that thing should simply be removed or banned. He should never have to feel sad or offended or uncomfortable. If he does feel any of those things, then whatever provoked his emotional response is clearly to blame and should be punished.

If seeing sick people makes Rush sad, then the sick people are bad and should be removed from view. If Rush's tender masculinity is offended by the existence of gay people, then gay people should be removed from view. Et cetera.

What I dont get is rush and so many other righties are the first to scream about some sort of PC conspiricy when it is they who are pushing hardest to ban speach that offends them

You win this thread.

Seconded.

What I dont get is rush and so many other righties are the first to scream about some sort of PC conspiricy when it is they who are pushing hardest to ban speach that offends them
As has already been mentioned, it's usually about projection.

The best way to know what right-wingers are up to is to pay attention to what they accuse liberals of. If they accuse liberals of being sex-crazed maniacs out to molest children, you know that the wingers are hard at work grooming some pages. If they accuse liberals of trying to suppress free speech, get ready for another bill or signing statement that further violates Amendment 1. If they insist that liberals are fiscally irresponsible, watch as they help our record budget surplus disappear into the pockets of a few wealthy criminals.

Seconded.

Thirded by the OP and by a person who had to do a double-take a few times to avoid mixing up MJ Fox and FOX News.

From the Washington Post:

"An official of the National Parkinson Foundation said movements like those exhibited by Fox are the result of taking medication to treat the disease, which would otherwise result in rigidity.

“When you see someone with those movements, it’s not because they have not taken medication but because they probably have taken medication for some time,” the official said. “If you don’t take the medication, then you freeze.”"

As has already been mentioned, it's usually about projection.

The best way to know what right-wingers are up to is to pay attention to what they accuse liberals of. If they accuse liberals of being sex-crazed maniacs out to molest children, you know that the wingers are hard at work grooming some pages. If they accuse liberals of trying to suppress free speech, get ready for another bill or signing statement that further violates Amendment 1. If they insist that liberals are fiscally irresponsible, watch as they help our record budget surplus disappear into the pockets of a few wealthy criminals.
There is a theory that generalisations are always wrong. This should (if the theory is correct) mean that the generalisation 'generalisations are always wrong' is wrong....it seems Bottle that you've produced the proof that the generalisation 'generalisations are always wrong' is in fact wrong....

There is a theory that generalisations are always wrong. This should (if the theory is correct) mean that the generalisation 'generalisations are always wrong' is wrong....it seems Bottle that you've produced the proof that the generalisation 'generalisations are always wrong' is in fact wrong....

Huh?

There is a theory that generalisations are always wrong. This should (if the theory is correct) mean that the generalisation 'generalisations are always wrong' is wrong....it seems Bottle that you've produced the proof that the generalisation 'generalisations are always wrong' is in fact wrong....

*gets dizzy and falls down*

I don't think so...any cell with the ability to differentiate itself from a pluripontential state will, under the correct conditions, cause more problems than they're designed to combat. Since the brain is isolated from the rest of the immuno-system of the patient you've got to be careful when using anything with this ability. I am more interested in research that is now using inactive viruses to insert a genetic corretion into the cells that produce dopamine. IMHO

I don't think so...any cell with the ability to differentiate itself from a pluripontential state will, under the correct conditions, cause more problems than they're designed to combat. Since the brain is isolated from the rest of the immuno-system of the patient you've got to be careful when using anything with this ability. I am more interested in research that is now using inactive viruses to insert a genetic corretion into the cells that produce dopamine. IMHO
Stem cells aren't some magic bullet to solve all human ailments. Nobody with a clue is claiming that they are.

But they are one avenue of research, and a very promising one in many areas. I don't see why we should abandon this line of research just because there are also other avenues to try.

Stem cells aren't some magic bullet to solve all human ailments. Nobody with a clue is claiming that they are.

But they are one avenue of research, and a very promising one in many areas. I don't see why we should abandon this line of research just because there are also other avenues to try.After all, it's not like we have a shortage of scientists to do research, or that they're unable to walk and chew gum at the same time.

The best way to know what right-wingers are up to is to pay attention to what they accuse liberals of.

it's amazing how well that actually does work. i wonder if their inability to tell the truth or even to maintain the same lie is a related condition?

*gets dizzy and falls down*
Let that be a lesson to you! ;)

Making broad, sweeping generalisations is bad enough, to come up with one that appears to be entirely correct, in contradiction of the self-contradictory generalisation 'generalisations are never true', is just begging for confusion. The least you could have done was wait until after my coffee.:p

Michael J Fox uses his parkinsons disease to illustrate a point he is tring to make . He chooses not to take his meds and thats lets his symptoms become visable. How that can be translated into " FAKING " is beyond my understanding . I bet he WISHES he could " fake" parkinsons but thats not quite the same thing..he has the disease along with many others and they feel more can be done to combat it if we lose medievel attitudes and take religion out of medicine and stick to ethics and morality and do whats right.
I dont see how expanding the stem cell line by using fetal tissue that will have never been born nor was ever intended to be born as immoral or unethical norr do I see cloning as somehow unethical or immoral...but I dont believe in santa clause or that there's a guy in the sky. So I guess you must forgive me.

You say Limbaugh said he was " faking " his disease ...did he say the words faking or is that what you yourself are implying he meant?

"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told listeners. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."


Right ..so he is accurately portraying what Fox is doing...aside from the acting part..there is no way he could know if Fox was embellishing his symptoms.

Limbaugh represents a group of people that believe wholeheartedly that a fetus is sacred and is human life and that human life should not be used for experaments. They have very strong beliefs in religion and in the sanctity of life , Limbaugh is defending that point of view and feels Fox is " using his syptoms to promote Democrats " .

Well Mr. Limbaugh..Fox HAS Parkinsons and would like to live and feels that the Democrats give him and others like him now and in the future a better chance of it. Its his disease and if he chooses to do a dance to show the American people what its like to have it in an attempt to get them to choose a Candidate that supports HIS position on science and stem cells and cloning than its his fucking right and he is doing us all a huge service by putting himself out there in front of everyone and educating them .

You have your radio show to talk to the snake charmers and the talkers in tongues and the rest of the fanatics along with those that truly in their hearts believe that research using a fetus is against their religion. Fox has right to try to live and help others . NOT everyone in the US is in your audience and supports your views or the views of your audience .

There is no right side only an opinion on who is right . Unless of course the Guy in the Sky decides to come on your show and explain to all of us why your view is the right choice . ( wonder what guy it will be ? ).

Michael J Fox uses his parkinsons disease to illustrate a point he is tring to make . He chooses not to take his meds and thats lets his symptoms become visable. How that can be translated into " FAKING " is beyond my understanding . I bet he WISHES he could " fake" parkinsons but thats not quite the same thing..he has the disease along with many others and they feel more can be done to combat it if we lose medievel attitudes and take religion out of medicine and stick to ethics and morality and do whats right.
I dont see how expanding the stem cell line by using fetal tissue that will have never been born nor was ever intended to be born as immoral or unethical norr do I see cloning as somehow unethical or immoral...but I dont believe in santa clause or that there's a guy in the sky. So I guess you must forgive me.

You say Limbaugh said he was " faking " his disease ...did he say the words faking or is that what you yourself are implying he meant?


Read the posted article - Limbaugh refers to Fox's involuntary movements as "purely an act". He goes on to say "either he didn't take his medication or he's acting." Now, since previous posters have provided us with evidence that Fox must be taking his meds (the cause of his tremors), that eliminates that possibility. So yeah, I don't think it's the OPs supposition that Limbaugh accused Fox of faking his tremors...Limbaugh does that pretty well himself.

Also, just to reiterate the point that others have already labored to make throughout this thread...it is the medication itself that causes Fox's involuntary movements (i.e., he IS taking his meds before appearances).

I for one am very thankful that Fox is using his celebrity to help advance the cause of stem cell research. Limbaugh and whoever else can call it exploitation if they want, but by that logic anyone with a means to communicate to the public and an audience who is receptive to them (such as Limbaugh) "exploits" their fame to get their view across. At least Fox's cause could save some lives.

I don't think so...any cell with the ability to differentiate itself from a pluripontential state will, under the correct conditions, cause more problems than they're designed to combat. Since the brain is isolated from the rest of the immuno-system of the patient you've got to be careful when using anything with this ability. I am more interested in research that is now using inactive viruses to insert a genetic corretion into the cells that produce dopamine. IMHO


From what I understand although promising the initial optimism over this line of research is being toned down because the sampling was too small and did not adequately take into account the placebo effect. But it sure as hell sounds logical that it would work. If you can induce the brain to produce the substance that those with Parkinsons lack ...why would'nt it ?

Read the posted article - Limbaugh refers to Fox's involuntary movements as "purely an act". Seems like he's pretty clearly suggesting that Fox is faking it.

Also, just to reiterate the point that others have already labored to make throughout this thread...it is the medication itself that causes Fox's involuntary movements (i.e., he IS taking his meds before appearances).

I for one am very thankful that Fox is using his celebrity to help advance the cause of stem cell research. Limbaugh and whoever else can call it exploitation if they want, but by that logic anyone with a means to communicate to the public and an audience who is receptive to them (such as Limbaugh) "exploits" their fame to get their view across. At least Fox's cause could save some lives.


You must have posted this before I finished editing my own post ;)


The following medications may be used to treat Parkinson's patients:

Levodopa: Levodopa helps increase the amount of dopamine within the brain. This can help improve symptoms of Parkinson's disease, particularly rigidity and slowness. Levodopa is usually combined with carbidopa, a medication that slows the breakdown of levodopa. This combination required medication every 4 to 6 hours in most patients.

Dopamine agonists: These drugs affect the brain in a way similar to dopamine. They may be administered singly early in Parkinson's disease, and in combination with other medications (like levodopa) later in the course of the disease. There is a possibility that these drugs slow the progression of Parkinson's disease.

Selegiline: Selegiline is usually given along with carbidopa/levodopa combinations. It interferes with the breakdown of dopamine in the brain.

COMT inhibitors: COMT inhibitors are taken with levodopa preparations. They help decrease the rate of breakdown of levodopa, so more is available to work in the brain.

Anticholinergics: These medications can decrease tremor and stiffness and improve muscle control.

Amantadine: Amantadine can help reduce stiffness and tremor and improve muscle control. Over time this medication can lose its effectiveness. However, new studies have suggested a possible neuroprotective effect of amantadine.

Dont believe what people post . Look it up it seems they are mistaken. The meds are taken to controll the tremors and other symptoms that parkinsons causes.

Also, just to reiterate the point that others have already labored to make throughout this thread...it is the medication itself that causes Fox's involuntary movements (i.e., he IS taking his meds before appearances).

http://parkinsons.alexian-neurosciences.org/info/treatment.asp

Guess they may be mistaken .

Its helps to kill you argument if you are posting something thats not truthfull or a falshood that can be easily uncovered.

Fox IMO is showing people what happens at the time the meds are no longer effective and right before he will die from it. He doesn't need any excuses about his meds .
But by drawing the argument into his meds you are hurting his message and diverting attention from the true issue .

Without research a cure will not be found and to place artificial limits on research is as immoral as the act you claim this research is responsible for...you are without a doubt destroying human life AND assuring needless suffering before they die .

The researchers are working with unborn tissue that is only potential life ...and even thats a stretch.
Fox and others like him ARE alive and there is no argument about it.

Logic and reason VS Religion .

Thirded by the OP and by a person who had to do a double-take a few times to avoid mixing up MJ Fox and FOX News.

And my first post too. Nice. What do I win?


Aside: I just started playing. Can I build an army and invade my friends? Thanks in advance.

And my first post too. Nice. What do I win?


Aside: I just started playing. Can I build an army and invade my friends? Thanks in advance.

Once I figure out what i won for winning another thread, I'll let you know. Around here, when someone makes a laugh-out-loud, possibly off-the-wall comment that relates in some way to the thread, someone will post "You win the thread" to them. I got that honor once and I recall giving it once.

Meanwhile, go nuts with the army thing; however, the folks over in the International Incidents forum will be a little more adept in telling you how to do that than I will, since I don't roleplay.

The only reason I brought up the drug issue was because you did (in your original post, anyhow). Like you, I don't consider it to be an important issue. The fact is, however, that dyskinesia and the on-off effect do result from taking the drug for years. Who knows whether Fox is taking or not taking his drugs before public appearances/commercials. Doesn't really matter - he's definitely not faking it - which was one the possibilities Limbaugh implied...hence the OP.

Dont believe what people post . Look it up it seems they are mistaken. The meds are taken to controll the tremors and other symptoms that parkinsons causes.

Levodopa combined with a peripheral dopa-decarboxylase inhibitor (DCI) has been considered the therapy of choice for Parkinson's disease (PD). Levodopa is nearly always effective, but has a high incidence of adverse effects with long term use, including response fluctuations (on/off phenomena) and dyskinesias.

Link to original (http://www.biopsychiatry.com/dopamine-agonists.htm)

Paroxysmal dyskinesias are neurologic conditions characterized by sudden episodes of abnormal involuntary movements (hyperkinesias). These may include any combination of involuntary, rapid, randomly irregular jerky movements (chorea);
Link to original (http://www.wemove.org/pdys/pdys.html)
If you cease to conflate the involuntary movements that posters are saying are caused by the medication with the tremors the medication is taken to treat, matters might become somewhat clearer to you.

OK then, the "Limbaughites" if that's a word...better?

the followers of rush limbaugh are called dittoheads.

he does this kind of shit all the time

the unfortunate truth is that limbaugh is the gentleman scholar of conservative radio talk show hosts

compared to sean hannity and that beck guy he is a bastion of well reasoned thought. compared to michael savage he is a master logician. (well ok, compared to michael savage that guy in the looney bin who thinks he is napoleon is sane)

with 2 weeks before the election, rush seems to think that HE is the lone conservative with his finger in the dike that is going to burst and drown us all in liberalism. he talks with a strange desperation that belies his apparent confidence that control of congress wont change. it leads him to say some pretty stupid things. this was one of them.

Errrrr......Hello???
Where's the rest of the transcript that says Mr. Fox admits as to NOT taking his meds prior to speaking engagements, and commercials to have a greater impact on his message.
Oh??? Who's the deceiver Mr. Fox???

Even if wasn't taking his medication, who gives a shit?

The disease is nasty. I know because some of my wifes relatives have it.

You listen to Rush don't you.....

Fatassed Windbag Manchild Limbaug is pretty agitated, maybe he's off his meds, by which of course is meant the illegal drugs he is so fond of.

My disrespect for Limbaugh has just increased significantly. Bastard. :mad:

So, has it reached the point where a national holiday can be declared on Limbaugh's inevitable cardiac-related demise yet?

So, has it reached the point where a national holiday can be declared on Limbaugh's inevitable cardiac-related demise yet?

"The Day of Dead Pigs"

"The Day of Dead Pigs"

That's unkind to pigs. :mad:

the followers of rush limbaugh are called dittoheads.

he does this kind of shit all the time

OK, fair enough; "Dittohead" is a little easier to say that "Limbaughite."

the unfortunate truth is that limbaugh is the gentleman scholar of conservative radio talk show hosts

Now you know why I don't listen to conservative talk radio, though I suppose if I wanted a good laugh, I might.

compared to sean hannity and that beck guy he is a bastion of well reasoned thought.

I can't speak so much for Hannity, but Glenn Beck is a fuckhead. He actually said, through a logical leap, that people who opposed tax cuts were Communists.

compared to michael savage he is a master logician. (well ok, compared to michael savage that guy in the looney bin who thinks he is napoleon is sane)

So how many things could he say in one minute that would make us collectively say, "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard"?

with 2 weeks before the election, rush seems to think that HE is the lone conservative with his finger in the dike that is going to burst and drown us all in liberalism. he talks with a strange desperation that belies his apparent confidence that control of congress wont change. it leads him to say some pretty stupid things. this was one of them.

Even when Congress isn't about to change hands, Rush Limbaugh is far from above saying outrageously stupid shit. Combine that with the potential loss of Congress for the GOP and it's a formula for a guaranteed shit-brained comment on his part.

Link to original (http://www.biopsychiatry.com/dopamine-agonists.htm)


Link to original (http://www.wemove.org/pdys/pdys.html)
If you cease to conflate the involuntary movements that posters are saying are caused by the medication with the tremors the medication is taken to treat, matters might become somewhat clearer to you.

I have seen Fox on his meds when he is in his " normal " mode and when he is off his meds and making a point .

I can see the difference .

Is THAT clear to you ?


Fatassed Windbag Manchild Limbaug is pretty agitated, maybe he's off his meds, by which of course is meant the illegal drugs he is so fond of.:eek: :D

In my annoyance I forgot to mention one very VALID fact!

If you knew ANYTHHING about parkinson'd you would realize the wavering a result of the drugs themselves, not the lack therof.

Stem Cells may be the cure for Parkinsons. As mentioned, I have seen in-laws that have it. It's a bastard disease and a horrible life.

I subscribe to Fox's message and really wonder where our country is heading when we have would be politicians that would seek criminalization of stem cell research.

Is the US really determined to have a dark ages?

Hell what do I know? I need my coffee!

Not just unfair, but inaccurate...should Limbaugh be compared to a pig? I heard pigs are intelligent animals. Does that sound like Limbaugh to you? :p

My disrespect for Limbaugh has just increased significantly. Bastard. :mad:

Hard to believe he could've sunk lower, isn't it?

I didn't think it was possible to be more of a scumbag.

At least, not without opening up a 'baptist' church in Westboro. ;)

In my annoyance I forgot to mention one very VALID fact!



Stem Cells may be the cure for Parkinsons. As mentioned, I have seen in-laws that have it. It's a bastard disease and a horrible life.

I subscribe to Fox's message and really wonder where our country is heading when we have would be politicians that would seek criminalization of stem cell research.

Is the US really determined to have a dark ages?

Hell what do I know? I need my coffee!

Thats what you get when you allow zealots from one side or another to controll the adgenda...that and intelligent design being taught in schools...and congressmen/ Senators using a dying woman in a vegative state to garndstand and remove her dignity even further along with OUR rights to die with dignity. Maybe having a split congress and two party rule ..genuine compromise on issues and non pandering to fanatics from both parties is a good idea ...huh ?

Hard to believe he could've sunk lower, isn't it?

I didn't think it was possible to be more of a scumbag.

At least, not without opening up a 'baptist' church in Westboro. ;)

LMAO :D

If anyone is interested, right-wingers in Missouri have put together this ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nguJQ_dRPXw) as a reply to the Michael J. Fox ad. Man, does it suck.

The Michael J. Fox ad is here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo&eurl=) in case you haven't seen it yet.

I have seen Fox on his meds when he is in his " normal " mode and when he is off his meds and making a point.
Ultra, that proves nothing whatsoever about the known side-effects of the medicants concerned. A little of the research you suggested the poster you were 'telling off' with such glee for 'getting it wrong' would have revealed the intermittency of the effectiveness of the medications at issue.


I can see the difference .

Is THAT clear to you ?
What's clear to me is that you erroneously accused someone else of having their facts wrong, and frankly were kinda snide and came over all superior about it. The error was yours and when this was politely pointed out to you, without the kind of snide remarks you had addressed to the earlier poster who you erroneously believed yourself to be correcting, you come back with some irrelevent comment that attempts to ignore entirely that you denigrated another poster because you couldnt get your facts straight, and even now remain in error...

Footage of Fox in tv programes is filmed around his condition, as has been stated earlier in the thread, and as looking it up would quickly reveal, the medication's effectiveness is intermittent, further the efforts taken to give Fox the appearance that he is not suffering from Parkinson, for instance the positioning of hands in his pockets to hide tremors and other symptoms.

Look you got it wrong (although it is not a difficult mistake to make) regarding the effects of the medicants concerned, you accused others of having it wrong and were snide and superiorly smug in telling them off. Someone gently corrected you. Your response is the peevish post I'm now replying to...are you trying to make yourself look bad or what?:confused:

Errrrr......Hello???
Where's the rest of the transcript that says Mr. Fox admits as to NOT taking his meds prior to speaking engagements, and commercials to have a greater impact on his message.
Oh??? Who's the deceiver Mr. Fox???

Beats me… where IS that transcript? I ask because everything I’ve read up on the disease seems to point out that in fact suffers from Parkinson go rigid when they’re off their medication and the shaking and rocking are a side effect of said medication, not the disease (http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=51219).


What you are seeing on the video is side effects of the medication. He has to take that medication to sit there and talk to you like that. ... He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff, and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk. And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of this movement, like what you see in the ad.

Oh, lay off Rush, You!

I've read Limbaugh's "See I told You so", "The Way Things Aren't" (http://www.amazon.com/Way-Things-Arent-Outrageously-Statements/dp/156584260X) and "Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot" by Al Franken just this month. Limbaugh, and the Circus around him, has become my sole comic relief.

A very good friend of mine had Parkinson's. He allowed himself to be a test subject for a half-dozen or more therapies, including having a box installed in his skull that would normalize his dopamine levels. Some of the therapies appeared to work for a time; others seemed to make things worse. None of them were a long-term solution.

Michael J. Fox isn't faking it. Rush Limbaugh is an unconscionable, partisan boor. Just like his faithful listeners.

His claim was he was exagrerating Parkinsons. Pick you words with more care and less sensationalism.

His claim was he was exagrerating Parkinsons. Pick you words with more care and less sensationalism.

I did pick them, with exceptional care.

His claim was he was exagrerating Parkinsons. Pick you words with more care and less sensationalism.

How the hell do you "exaggerate" Parkinson's?

How the hell do you "exaggerate" Parkinson's?

Maybe by putting it in all caps and bold and making it flash?

Ultra, that proves nothing whatsoever about the known side-effects of the medicants concerned. A little of the research you suggested the poster you were 'telling off' with such glee for 'getting it wrong' would have revealed the intermittency of the effectiveness of the medications at issue.

What's clear to me is that you erroneously accused someone else of having their facts wrong, and frankly were kinda snide and came over all superior about it. The error was yours and when this was politely pointed out to you, without the kind of snide remarks you had addressed to the earlier poster who you erroneously believed yourself to be correcting, you come back with some irrelevent comment that attempts to ignore entirely that you denigrated another poster because you couldnt get your facts straight, and even now remain in error...

Footage of Fox in tv programes is filmed around his condition, as has been stated earlier in the thread, and as looking it up would quickly reveal, the medication's effectiveness is intermittent, further the efforts taken to give Fox the appearance that he is not suffering from Parkinson, for instance the positioning of hands in his pockets to hide tremors and other symptoms.

Look you got it wrong (although it is not a difficult mistake to make) regarding the effects of the medicants concerned, you accused others of having it wrong and were snide and superiorly smug in telling them off. Someone gently corrected you. Your response is the peevish post I'm now replying to...are you trying to make yourself look bad or what?:confused:


This is were I work and what I do for a living...do you care to guess how many Parkinsons patients I deal with every day ? And not all of them are in the elderly program .

http://www.catchinc.com/location.htm

Dont tell me what I know .

Your playing games with words and not addressing the point that FOX is using his condition in its most viable form to make a point ...ONE I AGREE WITH COMPLETLY ALONG WITH HIS METHODS.

He has his condition under controll for now when he wants it to be ...when he wants to make a point ...a clear and VIVID point he makes a decision to allow the true effect to be seen.

GOOD FOR HIM he's a brave man .

Maybe by putting it in all caps and bold and making it flash?

LOL!

I'm pretty sure the man who said Michael J. Fox was faking knows he's being an ass.

How the hell do you "exaggerate" Parkinson's?

The same way you exagerate any disease. By overplaying the symptoms intentionally. Coughing far more than you need to if you have a cough, laying in bed for longer than you need with the flu, etc etc

I did pick them, with exceptional care.

You clearly did not. The person in question said he was exagerating the extent of his symptoms, not that he was faking having Parkinsons at all.

You clearly did not. The person in question said he was exagerating the extent of his symptoms, not that he was faking having Parkinsons at all.

Yeah his further statements "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act" implies faking as he use the words "PURELY an act"

He not only said he was exagerating but also that he was faking the shaking and moving around

You clearly did not. The person in question said he was exagerating the extent of his symptoms, not that he was faking having Parkinsons at all.

Then you're clearly incapable of reading an altogether straightforward post. I maintain Fox is not exaggerating the extent of his symptoms. Rush Limbaugh is a shoddy excuse for a human being.

He didn't attack Fox's character. He merely pointed out that Fox looked much worse off than he'd seen him previously, and was conjecturing on why that might be.

It turns out that Fox normally "goes off his meds" when it would help in his presentations in support of curing his illness.


If you or Rush had bothered looking into the disease, the shakes come from being on your meds.


That wasnot an ad hominem attack, as shown above.

Sure it was.

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Rush was appealing to his audience by suggesting MJF was being dishonest in his cause.


The left is taking much pleasure, and spending considerable energy, in bashing Rush for this incident.

Is Rush not allowed to fight back?


Sure. Rush should fight back. It only shows how stupid and low down he really is.....

Why do leftists love the "F" word so?
As if you have never used it.

Nice generalization you have there BTW.

Oh,.. that's right,.. character denigration is THE singular effective tactic of the left.


Kind of like the right implying you were a traitor for speaking out against the Iraq invasion at the start of the war.


I'm continuously forgetting that simple fact. Their just SO clever in disguising their single means of "persuasion" as something other than what it is.

:confused:


"Shut the F up"....

A person of sense would WANT RUSH to continue talking, if they really thought that more talking on his part would show him to be MORE EVIL, if they disagreed with him.

WHY would anyone want him to now shut up?

..because they know that more talking would bring more clarity to the situation, and possibly muck up the effect of making Rush look bad.

Now you are being pathetic.

Fact remains: Rush was picking on a disabled man. Just like when the republicans were picking on that disabled vet during the last election *blanked on his name*

What "clarity" or "truth" will come from this to show the gasbag is innocent. NONE. He doesn't even know WTF (opps theres that F word again :rolleyes: ) he was talking about proving by the fact that taking your meds is what give a sufferer the shakes.

I want Rush to talk. Just shows how stupid and low he really is.

You like him?


In other words,.. You suggest he "shut the F up" precisely because you don't want people to hear "the truth" and would prefer they take your "interpretation of the truth" as fact, which serves your purpose.

Thus, the "way of the left",... fooling the populous with superficial interpretations that keep them as slaves to the lefts whims.

..and it often works! :)

He should STFU (whoops again :rolleyes:) if he isn't even going to understand what he is going to barf on the airways.

Even though Im loathe to say much good about the Anti Elvis I have no qualms whatsoever about talking trash about Limbaugh and dont need to elevate MJF to do so.
Mega-nega-dittoes to Mr Limbaugh for this coarse public statement bout the relative blurrinesss of Mr Fox in the campaign ads he has recently been seen in..
The least excusable and most troubling bit of Limbaughs statements re the Anti Elvis is this: Rush Limabaugh of all people should know that a person will shake like a dog shitting a peach seed when they quit taking a drug they are dependemt upon. Hell Limbaugh apparantly shook so hard when he wanted recreational medication that he was able to shake down several MDs to write scrips for him in quantities that would have killed a human. He would probably still have his main drug habit and the shakes upon occassion but he was found out publicly humiliated and had to limp back home to realiity with a wounded ego and then a second time with his illegal viagra to hide his limp-at-home reality and another very bad time for his ego and any credibility he had regained. There's no known way to kill an ego that has grown that big without killing the human it has swallowed so Mr Limbaugh forgot all he had learned about medications and threw his ego into overdrive to pick on Mr Fox just because Mr Fox chooses to not take his meds before filming any statement he makes in which his disease is a focal point. Political or not.

Anyway as much as I dont much like defending the anti Elvis, I truly do not believe that MJ Fox does this to garner favor or pity from those who see his statements about his disease. I actually think he does it to show what the disease really is rather than show the artificially veiled version that his meds allow for most activities. His meds mostly let him hide it rather than cure him.No point in hiding the very thing you come to talk about.

OK Ive defended the Anti Elvis and now I shall go shower and swear off dwefending him again for the remainder of 2006

If anyone is interested, right-wingers in Missouri have put together this ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nguJQ_dRPXw) as a reply to the Michael J. Fox ad. Man, does it suck.

The Michael J. Fox ad is here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo&eurl=) in case you haven't seen it yet.Well what do you know, Jim "Jesus" Caviezel is against it...

Does that one woman argue against landfills as harshly as she does against stem cell research?

Then you're clearly incapable of reading an altogether straightforward post. I maintain Fox is not exaggerating the extent of his symptoms. Rush Limbaugh is a shoddy excuse for a human being.

You have the right to maintain that, but you are wrong to suggest that Mr Limbaugh is suggesting that Mr Fox is faking having Parkinsons, since what he is in fact claiming is that he is exagerating the symptoms. That is not the same thing.

If anyone is interested, right-wingers in Missouri have put together this ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nguJQ_dRPXw) as a reply to the Michael J. Fox ad. Man, does it suck.


*sighs*

I can see why one side of the family ran from that state. ;)

Well what do you know, Jim "Jesus" Caviezel is against it...


Well he was struck by lightning so he is not all there. :p

He didn't attack Fox's character. He merely pointed out that Fox looked much worse off than he'd seen him previously, and was conjecturing on why that might be.

It turns out that Fox normally "goes off his meds" when it would help in his presentations in support of curing his illness.

Whether or not Fox goes off his meds to demonstrate what Parkinson's does in irrelevant. If you have a talking frog who just doesn't like to speak up, you can put a microphone beside his mouth to allow people to hear him. That's what Fox does. Rush implies that Fox tries to speak for the frog and not let the frog speak on his own, i.e. he just acts like he has Parkinson's. That's a character attack by accusing him of faking a disease.

That wasnot an ad hominem attack, as shown above.

An attack on one's character is an ad hominem attack, at least in this politically-motivated situation. MJ Fox is pro-stem cell research. He has a personal interest in it, namely his Parkinson's disease. Rush Limbaugh is against stem cell research, so he attacks someone who is for it by accusing him of putting on an act with his Parkinson's disease. Put it all together and you have an ad hominem attack. Next.

The left is taking much pleasure, and spending considerable energy, in bashing Rush for this incident.

Is Rush not allowed to fight back?

This isn't about Rush fighting back. This is about what he did in the first place. If he wants to fight back, he needs to pick a better outlet than ludicrous ad hominem attacks.

Why do leftists love the "F" word so?

Oh,.. that's right,.. character denigration is THE singular effective tactic of the left.

I'm continuously forgetting that simple fact. Their just SO clever in disguising their single means of "persuasion" as something other than what it is.

Hmmm...let's see. Rush makes an ad hominem attack on Michael J. Fox. I call him out on it. You accuse me of character denigration...perhaps you accuse me of an ad hominem attack, something I don't recall doing. In fact, you accuse all of us lumped together in "the left" of ad hominem attacks, as if that invalidates us. Therefore, you have just committed an ad hominem attack against us here on the left. We state something. You counter with, "But you assassinate character!" Whether we assassinate character is irrelevant. Try again.

"Shut the F up"....

A person of sense would WANT RUSH to continue talking, if they really thought that more talking on his part would show him to be MORE EVIL, if they disagreed with him.

WHY would anyone want him to now shut up?

..because they know that more talking would bring more clarity to the situation, and possibly muck up the effect of making Rush look bad.


In other words,.. You suggest he "shut the F up" precisely because you don't want people to hear "the truth" and would prefer they take your "interpretation of the truth" as fact, which serves your purpose.

Thus, the "way of the left",... fooling the populous with superficial interpretations that keep them as slaves to the lefts whims.

..and it often works! :)

I don't advocate censoring Rush. I advocate Rush censoring himself, and by "censor," I mean to knock it off with these ridiculous character assassinations. It's one thing to be loud, opinionated, and always on one side of the line the way Rush is. It's another to be an asshole about it.

As for keeping the "populous" (the word is "populace", chump; "populous" is an adjective) as slaves to our whims...well, dad-gummit, you figured us out. Just like you figured out the upper brass of every political force on the planet. At least I don't care to keep people as slaves to my whims...maybe some others in my camp do.

Also, I used the F word because it just seemed so fucking fitting. You don't serve people nice hot cups of Shut the Fiddle-Faddle Up. And if I called Rush Limbaugh a stinky poo poo head, I would be laughed off the General forum. If I call him a fuckhead, it takes fewer letters to type, and damnit, it just feels so good to type that sequence of letters. Fuck. Fuckity. Fuck. That's all. Enjoy your day.

You have the right to maintain that, but you are wrong to suggest that Mr Limbaugh is suggesting that Mr Fox is faking having Parkinsons, since what he is in fact claiming is that he is exagerating the symptoms. That is not the same thing.

from the OP:
"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told listeners. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."

now that we have established that Limbaugh said that MJ Fox is faking, care to change your stance?

You have the right to maintain that, but you are wrong to suggest that Mr Limbaugh is suggesting that Mr Fox is faking having Parkinsons, since what he is in fact claiming is that he is exagerating the symptoms. That is not the same thing.

I am not wrong. Limbaugh gave himself all the rope he needs to hang himself with. One wonders why you are leaping to his defense - seeing as his position is indefensible, at best.

Well he was struck by lightning so he is not all there. :p
Twice--struck by lightning twice. You'd think that was a sign for a person who claims to be as god-fearing as that clown. And what's with that language? Is he speaking in Aramaic again at the beginning of the commercial?

What a group of people--a twice-lightning-struck actor, three athletes, and the lead actress from perhaps the worst popular tv show in history.

I am not wrong. Limbaugh gave himself all the rope he needs to hang himself with. One wonders why you are leaping to his defense - seeing as his position is indefensible, at best.

There's always at least one.

now that we have established that Limbaugh said that MJ Fox is faking, care to change your stance?

No. He said that the shaking was an act. IE What I orignally said, that he is exagerating his symptoms. He said that he is exagerating the symptoms and those symptoms are clearly an act.

I am not wrong. Limbaugh gave himself all the rope he needs to hang himself with. One wonders why you are leaping to his defense - seeing as his position is indefensible, at best.

I am not leaping to his defence. I am criticising the OP for his spin on the issue. Mr Limbaugh never said that Mr Fox was not suffering from Parkinsons disease, he said that he was exagerating the symptoms for political benefit. He did not say that Mr Fox was faking actually having the illness, which is implicit from the title.

I don't know why anybody would fake looking like crap like that.

Maybe for the emotional impact it might give to a sensitive issue?

Why are we arguing about what Rush Limbaugh meant when he said what he said? I expect Rush to try to discredit the people he disagrees with, just as I expect the same from Al Franken. This strikes me as just the same as a TV lawyer who makes some sort outrageous statement in court and then, as the other side leaps up to object, goes, "Withdrawn." The point's been made, the jury's heard it. Same thing here. "He's exaggerating or maybe acting" followed by an apology. Doesn't matter, Rush's audience heard what he wanted them to hear and they believed what they wanted to believe. After all, the man claims to be a commentator and an entertainer, doesn't he? All these shows, right and left ought to have frequent disclaimers: "The statements made on this show are opinion only and reflect the political stance of [insert name]." It's sort of like the disclaimers on porn DVDs that say they're for educational purposes.

Maybe for the emotional impact it might give to a sensitive issue?

Maybe because he wants to live and help others with a horrible condition and feels he can best do it by illustrating what the condition does.

Thats my guess.

When Michael J. Fox is on his medication, his body twitches a lot.

When Rush Limbaugh is off his medication, his mouth twitches a lot.

See a pattern?

When Michael J. Fox is on his medication, his body twitches a lot.

When Rush Limbaugh is off his medication, his mouth twitches a lot.

See a pattern?

I dunno about that. His mouth was twitching a whole bunch when he was an addict.

Rush is a dumbass.

Rush is a dumbass.

Short, to the point, and quite true. I like it.

Its not about Parkinsons disease its all about fucking politics and it disgust me. I see Parkinsons every damm day and its HORRIBLE .

These slime made it a political issue .






Rush Is Right!

Michael J. Fox Is Not Infallible; He's Just the Latest Victim Used by the Democrats


Democrats have long used infallible spokesmen to peddle their dishonest attacks, but we're not going to accept it anymore...

"All stem cell research is legal today in Missouri. Jim Talent does not seek to criminalize it, as Michael J. Fox asserts in his television commercial. The truth is that Amendment 2 would put human cloning in the Missouri Constitution. Michael J. Fox is participating in this disinformation campaign." Quotes



Michael J. Fox Is Not Infallible;
He's Just the Latest Victim Used by the Democrat

October 24, 2006




BEGIN TRANSCRIPT



RUSH: One of the big issues in the Missouri Senate race -- as you know, we touched on it yesterday -- is the Michael J. Fox commercial which is entirely misleading and which is in itself an attack ad, and it is filled with disinformation about embryonic stem cell research and how Jim Talent wants to criminalize it. Embryonic stem cell research -- and, by the way, Fox is doing similar commercials in Maryland now for Ben Cardin against Michael Steele. But embryonic stem cell research is currently legal and completely unrestricted in both Maryland and Missouri and in the vast majority of other states. It's largely personal and institutional ethics that keep scientists from cloning research

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102406/content/rush_is_right.guest.html

I an beginning to hate these people. ON both sides .

Maybe for the emotional impact it might give to a sensitive issue?

Does it lesson the cause?

This was not a case of an actor "faking" his plight.

Ever see somebody that has it?

Its not about Parkinsons disease its all about fucking politics and it disgust me. I see Parkinsons every damm day and its HORRIBLE .

These slime made it a political issue .



http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102406/content/rush_is_right.guest.html

I an beginning to hate these people. ON both sides .

The real point is that the research is being HINDERED. Yes, it's technically legal, but with, at the moment, no government funding or support.

Maybe because he wants to live and help others with a horrible condition and feels he can best do it by illustrating what the condition does.

Thats my guess.

So you agree with me. And enhancing the symptoms would be even more effective, no?

So you agree with me. And enhancing the symptoms would be even more effective, no?

:rolleyes:

Have you EVER seen a person with the disease?

So you agree with me. And enhancing the symptoms would be even more effective, no?

Kind of a red herring, to be honest. Point is, he doesn't NEED to 'enhance' them at all, because it happens to him naturally. Whether or not he's 'enhancing' it doesn't matter at all, it's what he says that matters.

Without stem cell research my mom would be dead.

I approve of Fox's statements and suspect that there is a special seat in hell reserved for Rush Limbaugh.

This is were I work and what I do for a living...do you care to guess how many Parkinsons patients I deal with every day ? And not all of them are in the elderly program .

http://www.catchinc.com/location.htm
Where you work and what you do for a living doesnt disprove the medical findings regarding the side-effects of the medication concerned - side effects that you denied while 'telling off' a poster (for not having their facts straight) who claimed that they occur.

Dont tell me what I know .
Oh, I didnt realise pointing our errors (whether actual or imagined) was a right wholly reserved to you personally.

Your playing games with words
No, that would be you.

and not addressing the point that FOX is using his condition in its most viable form to make a point ...ONE I AGREE WITH COMPLETLY ALONG WITH HIS METHODS.
There are many points I am not addressing, the point I am addressing is that the poster you so smugly told off for (in your stated opinion) not having their facts correct regarding the known side-effects of the medication concerned did in fact have their facts correct.

He has his condition under controll for now when he wants it to be ...when he wants to make a point ...a clear and VIVID point he makes a decision to allow the true effect to be seen.
I find that this is likely to be a gross oversimplification. Fox at his medicated best and Fox at his medicated worse are probably two different things. However this isnt the point of my earlier post. The point was that the effect you stated wasnt a side-effect of Parkinsons medications, is a side effect of Parkinsons medication. No doubt you now want to try to make this out as being beside the point and not very relevent, even though it was clearly relevent enough and important enough to you for you to lecture another poster about their failure to fact-check....you know back when it wasnt apparent you were the one with their facts wrong...:rolleyes:

Given that (aside from the ticking off you gave the earlier poster about getting their facts straight) the error concerned (conflating involuntary tremors resulting from Parkinsons with involuntary movements resulting from medicants) wasnt a hard one to make, why you continue to draw attention to it in order to try to pretend it didnt happen, is a mystery to me....seems to me just saying nothing (or even pointing out how easy it is to conflate involuntary movements with involuntary movements) would have been the best policy....:confused:

Does it lesson the cause?

This was not a case of an actor "faking" his plight.

Ever see somebody that has it?


They don't care they only care about how it can effect the election.

Fuck all of them both sides . Really ....whats next to sacrifice on the altar ?

We need a split congress and a bipartisan government to get us out of the stone age .

Two sides working together to compromise and keep the NUTS in the shadows. This is what happens when the base of one party gets too much influence...extremism . And it wont matter what party they both have their nuts.

Maybe for the emotional impact it might give to a sensitive issue?

Yeah cause someone with his condition really needs to fake it:rolleyes:

Now you are being pathetic.

Fact remains: Rush was picking on a disabled man. Just like when the republicans were picking on that disabled vet during the last election *blanked on his name*


I believe it was Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam while Bush and Cheney were making up excuses. They claimed him soft on defense.

If anyone is interested, right-wingers in Missouri have put together this ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nguJQ_dRPXw) as a reply to the Michael J. Fox ad. Man, does it suck.
They couldn't afford a lav mic kit? What's with the hollow hall sound in some of those clips, dammit...alright, that doesn't speak to the ad, just offends me professionally...

I wish that the ad had included a little tag that had a source for those claims. Don't they usually do that, or am I halucinating that? Usually when I see ads like that there will be a reference to some study or who came up with those numbers. Maybe they only do that in California.

(Oh, and it won't come up with a cure for 15 years? 15 years, well then forget it then...surely there won't be parkinsens suffers in 15 years so we needn't bother...silly rabbits...)

Where you work and what you do for a living doesnt disprove the medical findings regarding the side-effects of the medication concerned - side effects that you denied while 'telling off' a poster (for not having their facts straight) who claimed that they occur.


Oh, I didnt realise pointing our errors (whether actual or imagined) was a right wholly reserved to you personally.


No, that would be you.

medical student education - parkinson's syndrome


Parkinson's Syndrome is a neurodegenerative disorder which received its eponym in the "Essay on Shaking Palsy" published by James Parkinson in 1817.

There are several causes, and according to some authors, several types of this disorder. The different types can produce diagnostic challenges for even the most astute clinician. The January 1992 Supplement to the journal NEUROLOGY edited by William C. Koller, M.D., Ph.D. offers an excellent review of this problem.

However, I will dwell mainly on the more commonly seen and more readily treated "Parkinson's Disease" or PD. In practice this is a clinical diagnosis established by a comprehensive neurologic exam. The following criteria are those most often used by experienced movement disorder specialists and are frequently referred to as the four cardinal features:

1. TREMOR

This is most frequently 4-10 cps.

It is a resting or a static tremor

It can be confused with intention and essential tremors

2. RIGIDITY

This involves both sets of antagonist muscles.

It may be either waxy or cogwheeling in nature

3. BRADYKINESIA

This involves both voluntary and automatic motor responses.

This produces masked facies, decreased associational movements, micrographia, frozen posture, low intensity and slurred speech, simian posture etc.

4. POSTURE AND GAIT

The so-called righting reflex may be invovled in this.

Festination and shuffling

There are multiple other signs that may be seen.

Drooling

Orthostatic Hypotension and other minor autonomic symptoms

Dementia

Sleep Disturbance

Blepharospasm (positive glabellar reflex)

The treatment protocols are as numerous as there are clinicians. However, there are certain basics of therapy that most will agree upon.

L-Dopa (in all practicality this is the L Dopa/Carbidopa form)

This forms the basis for most patients

Never stop suddenly

Advance doses carefully and in a logical fashion

The 100/400 formula of carbidopa to L-Dopa is fairly accurate

The CR form basically is a delayed absorption form

Side effects are multiple and are dose dependent



Selegeline

Where is its place in RX?

Does it delay disease progression?

Can it smooth the day?



Dopamine agonists

In general are used at higher doses than the manufacurers recommend

There are several forms either on the market or to be released

Again have multiple side effects

Very expensive



Amantadine

usual drug

Slightly and extremely variably effective

Different side effect profile



Anticholinergics

Frequent side effects, expecially in the elderly

often very helpful with the tremor



Antihistamines

Mainly for tremors



Tricyclics

As above

Since none of the above treatments are without problems and don't offer a cure as such, other forms of therapy are being pursued.

Surgery

Fetal tissue transplants

Pallidotomies- thalidotomies-this and thatomies

B.R. & S.W.

Genetic manipulation


Look up the drugs and show how they can mimick the syptoms of Parkinsons...what they can do and what the problem is that they LOSE effectiveness and allow more and more of the syptoms to manifest...now unless Fox has suddenly had a major change in his condition ..it would seem this is NOT the case ... Inside your qquote so YOU can determine for yourself.....let me know when you find out his particular treatment regime and what drugs he is taking and what stage he is in .








There are many points I am not addressing, the point I am addressing is that the poster you so smugly told off for (in your stated opinion) not having their facts correct regarding the known side-effects of the medication concerned did in fact have their facts correct.

I find that this is likely to be a gross oversimplification. Fox at his medicated best and Fox at his medicated worse are probably two different things. However this isnt the point of my earlier post. The point was that the effect you stated wasnt a side-effect of Parkinsons medications, is a side effect of Parkinsons medication. No doubt you now want to try to make this out as being beside the point and not very relevent, even though it was clearly relevent enough and important enough to you for you to lecture another poster about their failure to fact-check....you know back when it wasnt apparent you were the one with their facts wrong...:rolleyes:

Given that (aside from the ticking off you gave the earlier poster about getting their facts straight) the error concerned (conflating involuntary tremors resulting from Parkinsons with involuntary movements resulting from medicants) wasnt a hard one to make, why you continue to draw attention to it in order to try to pretend it didnt happen, is a mystery to me....seems to me just saying nothing (or even pointing out how easy it is to conflate involuntary movements with involuntary movements) would have been the best policy....:confused:

Wrong -wrong and wrong ..I see the effect of the medication and know the side effects and I am telling you from SEEING Fox what he exibited were not side effects from his meds.
FACT - Period .

Now you can wait to read in the news the confirmation of my being right.
or you can have an expert prove me wrong..but until then its the end of this particular conversation .

Won't come up with a cure for 15 years? A cure for what? My own mother would have died of Lymphoma if it weren't for Stem-Cell research. I'm fairly certain it has already come up with a great many 'Cures' already.

So you agree with me. And enhancing the symptoms would be even more effective, no?


It would be better if he just showed the natural effects and not " enhance " it.
The natural effects are horrible enough .

From what I have seen he just let the side effects of parkinsons become visable and thats what happens after being on the current generation of meds when they lose effectivness. Then you die .

I doubt he enhanced anything I think he's a brave guy just to get up in the morning and not take his meds knowing what it will do.

You see "faking", I see "exaggerating". We apparently disagree on something! Shocking!



Rush is against someone "exaggerating" an illness AND NOT DISCLOSING THAT FACT to make a case for a POSSIBLY unecessary medical technology so as to inaccurately tarnish a political candidate.

It's not the "exaggeration" that Rush has a problem with, it's the NON-DISCLOSURE of that fact and the fact that an illness is being used in a political battle.



Once again,.. you see ad hominem, and I don't.

What he did "in the first place" was to comment on a clever leftist tactic to garner votes.



Rush makes a comment. You misinterpret his comment as an attack on MJF. I accuse you of not understanding that Rush made no attack, and by saying he did has attacked his character instead of the issue (the clever tactic).



I have no interest in invalidating you (as "the left"). Just describing what I see.

The left may do, and will do, as it wishes.

I merely comment on it when it does do something.



But what if he doesn't SEE what he does as "character assasination", merely commentary?

Why should he "censor" that which he doesn't believe to be worth "censoring"?

Because YOU say so!?

Typical leftist,.. "Do what I say because you are not entitled to disagree with ME!"



Being an asshole is in the eye of the beholder, asshole.

Now, that's just my opinion, and therefore utterly without weight.



Thanks for the spelling lesson! :) I never could get the hang of adjectives..!



I'm an idiot when it comes to politics.

I just notice things that I notice and blither on about them.

Take my words with NO WEIGHT whatsoever. If you DO, accidently, have any mental activity at all that is in response to my jibberish, take that for what it's worth, as I make no claims for ANY actual value of it.



I actually don't mind swearing. I do find it amusing when the "oh so polite" leftists here resort to it, though, as to be "rude" in any way is SO against the rule around here. :)



Fuck, you're fuckin' absolutely fuckin' right, fuck it all..!

Fuck,.. if we fuckin' could get fuckin' rid of this fuckin' P-fuckin'-C bull-fuckin'-shit, we could fuckin' start fuckin' talking like fuckin' adult fuckin' human-fuckin-beings, and stop pussy-fuckin'-footing around like a fuckin' bunch of fuckin' first grade school-fuckin' teachers, damn it..!


..ow,.. that hurt. My "fuckin'"-typing fingers are sore...

Despite your disgustingly biased apologetics, there is no excuse at all for Mr. Limbaugh's comments. He has no idea about Mr. Fox's character or his personal life, and has absolutely no experience with Parkinson's disease. How dare he question the integrity of someone suffering from the condition when he a) has no proof or expertise to rely on for these accusations and b) is clearly only attacking the individual due to his own fear about the case being made for a practice that he is not fond of. Debate and ideas about issues should be made intelligently, and not rely upon baseless accusations said out of frustration that the other side may have a one-up on you in their public relations department. Any sort of excuses made for Mr. Limbaugh's comments will clearly only be made by morons or "Christian" (i.e. "we like to call ourselves this nice little label to feel morally superior even though our belief system is only consistent with Christianity and the Bible in the respect that we don't favor gay marriage or abortion, while ignoring its main tenants entirely") fundamentalists who wish to defend anyone trying to make a case against embryonic stem cell research, even if done so using ad hominem attacks. Pathetic, really, and quite contrary to Christian behavior, considering that among the ten commandments is "thou shall not bear false witness", also known as "you shall not lie." Distorting the facts when you know that someone is at fault (and come on, EVERYONE knows that Limbaugh is at fault here) is clearly a sin covered by this commandment, but there are many, including Mr. Limbaugh, who only follow the Bible where it is convenient to them.

Fuck all of them both sides.

...no. There's only the one side unneccesarily fucking up lives, in aid of God-knows-what. And they're being bolstered by a fatuous, drug-addicted clown with a bully pulpit that spans the continent.

No sale.

I doubt he enhanced anything I think he's a brave guy just to get up in the morning and not take his meds knowing what it will do.

If he didn't take his medication he wouldn't be twitching. The medication is what causes the twitching, not the disease.

I believe it was Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam while Bush and Cheney were making up excuses. They claimed him soft on defense.

Low even for them.

If he didn't take his medication he wouldn't be twitching. The medication is what causes the twitching, not the disease.


Wrong.


However, I will dwell mainly on the more commonly seen and more readily treated "Parkinson's Disease" or PD. In practice this is a clinical diagnosis established by a comprehensive neurologic exam. The following criteria are those most often used by experienced movement disorder specialists and are frequently referred to as the four cardinal features:

1. TREMOR

This is most frequently 4-10 cps.

It is a resting or a static tremor

It can be confused with intention and essential tremors
2. RIGIDITY

This involves both sets of antagonist muscles.

It may be either waxy or cogwheeling in nature

3. BRADYKINESIA

This involves both voluntary and automatic motor responses.

This produces masked facies, decreased associational movements, micrographia, frozen posture, low intensity and slurred speech, simian posture etc.

4. POSTURE AND GAIT

The so-called righting reflex may be invovled in this.

Festination and shuffling

There are multiple other signs that may be seen.

Drooling

Orthostatic Hypotension and other minor autonomic symptoms

Dementia

Sleep Disturbance

Blepharospasm (positive glabellar reflex)

Low even for them.

Yet unsurprising. The sad thing is that the voters bought it, hook line and sinker. A man who'd served in the army and been permenantly disabled was painted as a coward.

If he didn't take his medication he wouldn't be twitching. The medication is what causes the twitching, not the disease.


Wrong.


However, I will dwell mainly on the more commonly seen and more readily treated "Parkinson's Disease" or PD. In practice this is a clinical diagnosis established by a comprehensive neurologic exam. The following criteria are those most often used by experienced movement disorder specialists and are frequently referred to as the four cardinal features:

1. TREMOR

This is most frequently 4-10 cps.

It is a resting or a static tremor

It can be confused with intention and essential tremors
2. RIGIDITY

This involves both sets of antagonist muscles.

It may be either waxy or cogwheeling in nature

3. BRADYKINESIA

This involves both voluntary and automatic motor responses.

This produces masked facies, decreased associational movements, micrographia, frozen posture, low intensity and slurred speech, simian posture etc.

4. POSTURE AND GAIT

The so-called righting reflex may be invovled in this.

Festination and shuffling

There are multiple other signs that may be seen.

Drooling

Orthostatic Hypotension and other minor autonomic symptoms

Dementia

Sleep Disturbance

Blepharospasm (positive glabellar reflex)

http://www.usd.edu/med/neurosciences/parkinsons.cfm

Wrong -wrong and wrong ..I see the effect of the medication and know the side effects and I am telling you from SEEING Fox what he exibited were not side effects from his meds.
FACT - Period .

Now you can wait to read in the news the confirmation of my being right.
or you can have an expert prove me wrong..but until then its the end of this particular conversation .Will the American Associan of Neurosurgeons be expert enough?

Levodopa ... Side effects may include nausea, vomiting, dry mouth and dizziness. Dyskinesias (abnormal movements) may occur as the dose is increased.

COMT inhibitors ... Side effects may include diarrhea and dyskinesias. Since a levodopa/carbadopa combination is medication of choice, it's a fair guess that these are at least some of the meds he takes.

From what I have seen he just let the side effects of parkinsons become visable(emphasis mine)

I'm guessing you're an aide of some kind at best. I know of no health provider who would label Parkinson's symptoms (which you've been arguing is what is evident in the ad all along) as side effects.

Wrong -wrong and wrong ..I see the effect of the medication and know the side effects and I am telling you from SEEING Fox what he exibited were not side effects from his meds.
FACT - Period .

And that might be relevent if I had ever argued otherwise, rather than simply arguing that involuntary movements are a side effect of Parkinsons medications and your attempt to assert otherwise (post 56 of this thread) along with the ticking off you gave to another poster for believing that involuntary movements are known side effects of the medications concerned was erroneous. Your attempts to reframe the point at issue in my posts as being something else are silly and misguided.

Now you can wait to read in the news the confirmation of my being right.
or you can have an expert prove me wrong..but until then its the end of this particular conversation .
All the evidence necessary is in this thread. A poster claimed that involuntary movements were side effects of Parkinsons medication, you told them "Dont believe what people post . Look it up it seems they are mistaken. The meds are taken to controll the tremors and other symptoms that parkinsons causes."
But anyone who looks it up will see that people are not mistaken in claiming that involuntary movements are known side effects of Parkinsons medications...you were mistaken, your derision of the earlier poster concerned was unwarranted. I dont need a television or an expert to tell me that....it's not exactly journalistic or medical science. Simple reading and comprehension with a dash of logic suffice.

Where you work and what you do for a living doesnt disprove the medical findings regarding the side-effects of the medication concerned - side effects that you denied while 'telling off' a poster (for not having their facts straight) who claimed that they occur.


Where he works has more weight then you talking about it.

Will the American Associan of Neurosurgeons be expert enough?

Since a levodopa/carbadopa combination is medication of choice, it's a fair guess that these are at least some of the meds he takes.

(emphasis mine)

I'm guessing you're an aide of some kind at best. I know of no health provider who would label Parkinson's symptoms (which you've been arguing is what is evident in the ad all along) as side effects.


Medical therapy
Pharmacotherapy for Parkinson's disease includes levodopa, dopamine agonists, selegiline, anticholinergics, amantadine and, most recently, catechol O-methyltransferase (COMT) inhibitors. Each is described separately in this section. It is important to note that few randomized, controlled clinical trials and even fewer comparison studies have been done to evaluate these drugs.

Levodopa
The most effective drug for relieving the symptoms of Parkinson's disease is levodopa. Its use is associated with improved quality of life for most patients (2). A combination of levodopa and carbidopa (Sinemet) is usually used. The carbidopa decreases levodopa's peripheral conversion to dopamine. This in turn reduces side effects and increases the amount of levodopa that enters the central nervous system (CNS). Virtually all patients with Parkinson's disease show a response to levodopa; another cause of neurologic symptoms should be sought in those who do not.

Levodopa is a two-edged sword. Long-term drug therapy is associated with motor complications that can be as disabling as the underlying disease. It is estimated from the Deprenyl and Tocopheral Antioxidant Therapy of Parkinsonism (DATATOP) study that motor complications developed in 30% of patients after only 2 years of treatment (3). This rate may become as high as 50% to 90% after 5 to 10 years of treatment (2). However, in the recently completed CR Five-Year International Response Fluctuation Study (CR FIRST), in which immediate-release and controlled-release forms of carbidopa-levodopa were compared, the number of patients with motor complications after 5 years was only 20% (4).

One theory as to why motor complications occur is that as Parkinson's disease progresses, remaining dopaminergic neurons develop a reduced ability to store dopamine and thus rely more on exogenous dopamine. This dopamine basically comes in "pulsatile" form, as doses of levodopa wax and wane. Investigators believe that this pulsatile exposure to dopamine causes neuronal changes that create motor complications.

In an attempt to deliver more stable levels of dopamine to the brain, researchers developed a long-acting form of carbidopa-levodopa (Sinemet CR). As noted, CR FIRST was designed to evaluate whether sustained-release levodopa did have a better effect on motor complications than the immediate-release form (4). This randomized, controlled trial showed that both forms of levodopa produced a lower rate of progression to motor complications than expected and that there was no significant difference between the two. Patients treated with the sustained-release form did have a small but significantly greater improvement in activities of daily living than patients using the other form. On the basis of this study, initiation of therapy with the sustained-release form is generally recommended (5). However, the study is not without its critics, and further clinical trials are under way to confirm the findings.

Motor complications occur in two forms: (1) motor fluctuations, also known as the "on-off" phenomenon, and (2) dyskinesias. The on-off phenomenon refers to alterations between "on" periods, during which patients have good symptomatic control, and "off" periods, during which symptoms are under poor control. Initially, off times occur predictably as the dopamine effect begins to wear off. These periods are often easily treated with a dosage adjustment. Later, however, off times may occur unpredictably and have no correlation with levodopa dosage (2).

Dyskinesias are abnormal, involuntary movements that can be choreiform, dystonic, or myoclonic in nature. Initially, they may be predictable, typically occurring at peak dosage, and dosage adjustments alleviate them. Eventually, however, dyskinesias may occur at the beginning and end of a response cycle, and these are very difficult to treat. Ultimately, the therapeutic window for effective dosages that alleviate symptoms yet do not cause motor complications may be very narrow.

Other side effects from levodopa therapy include nausea, vomiting, orthostatic hypotension, and psychiatric disturbances.

Dopamine agonists
This class of drugs includes bromocriptine mesylate (Parlodel), pergolide mesylate (Permax), pramipexole (Mirapex), and ropinirole hydrochloride (Requip). The drugs stimulate dopamine receptors and have been used for many years in the treatment of Parkinson's disease. Recently, they have been gaining popularity for several reasons. For example, they are longer-acting, which creates more sustained stimulation of dopamine receptors and less pulsativity. In theory, this should reduce the progression of motor complications. There are, however, few completed comparison studies with levodopa to corroborate this.

There is also evidence that dopamine agonists may be neuroprotective through antioxidant effects and thus may slow progression of the disease (6,7). Short-term studies have shown that dopamine agonists are effective in early and later stages of Parkinson's disease, both as monotherapy and as adjuncts to levodopa (8-10). Pramipexole and ropinirole have an advantage over older dopamine agonists in that they do not stimulate serotonin receptors and thus do not cause some of the side effects of these medicines. All dopamine agonists can cause symptoms similar to those of levodopa, but these are usually transient. The drugs must be used with caution in elderly patients, who may have CNS effects, such as confusion and cognitive impairment (11).

Selegiline
Selegiline hydrochloride (Eldepryl), a selective inhibitor of type B monoamine oxidase, does not stop the progression of Parkinson's disease but has been shown in controlled trials to be neuroprotective, delaying the need for levodopa therapy through an antioxidant effect (2). Lately, however, this information has been debated (3,12). Selegiline is usually used early in the illness because of its putative neuroprotection and because it has only a minimal effect on symptoms. It has few side effects, but like other monoamine oxidase inhibitors, it cannot be used in a patient taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (13). Also, because of its CNS effects, it must be used with caution in elderly patients.

Amantadine
Fortuitously found to be effective in Parkinson's disease, amantadine hydrochloride (Symadine, Symmetrel), which is used to treat influenza, is most effective in patients who have more prominent akinesia or rigidity than tremor (2). It is often prescribed early in the course of the disease because its effects are short-lived. The drug can also cause CNS effects in elderly patients (13).

Anticholinergics
This class of drugs includes trihexyphenidyl (Artane, Trihexi-2, Trihexi-5) and benztropine mesylate (Cogentin). They are most effective in patients who have more prominent tremor than rigidity or akinesia. However, the anticholinergic side effects significantly limit their use, again particularly in elderly patients.

COMT inhibitors
This newest class of medicines includes entacapone (Comtan) and tolcapone (Tasmar). COMT is an enzyme in the periphery that breaks down levodopa. Thus, when given in conjunction with levodopa, COMT inhibitors may increase CNS delivery of dopamine. They also provide a more controlled concentration of levodopa, thereby decreasing pulsativity. Trials are under way to assess whether this will reduce progression of motor complications. COMT inhibitors allow a lower dose of levodopa, which can also reduce side effects.

Initially, there was enthusiasm about tolcapone, the only COMT inhibitor available in the United States. Some investigators recommended that it be started at the same time as levodopa (2). However, there have been a growing number of reports of fatal liver damage with tolcapone. These reports have led the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the manufacturer to change the package labeling to state that the drug should be reserved for patients who do not have severe movement abnormalities and who do not respond to or who are not appropriate candidates for other available therapy



I bolded the part that seems to be the basis for your argument...in that case FOX would exibit these side effects all the time would he not ?

IF that was his treatment of choice .

What are the symptoms?
A major symptom of Parkinson's disease is tremors. A tremor is a rhythmic shaking over which you have no control. Tremors of the hands and sometimes the head often occur along with a constant rubbing together of thumb and forefinger.

Over time you may stop making some movements that are normally automatic, such as the natural swinging of arms that makes walking smooth. It may become harder to:

write clearly
speak clearly
start to do something
change positions
keep your balance when you walk
get out of a chair.
In the earliest stages of the disease, symptoms may be very slight or may not be noticed. Someone close to you might notice a slight limp, stooped posture, or a mild hand tremor.

Other symptoms may include drooling and abdominal cramps. You may have trouble swallowing. In later stages, there is often a decline in the ability to think and remember.



Compare for yourself....excuse me for calling "syptoms" " side effects ' of a disease.

I bolded the part that seems to be the basis for your argument...in that case FOX would exibit theese side effects all the time would he not ?

IF that was his treatment of choice .

And he does exhibit those side-effects constantly, as has been established numerous times in the thread.

Look up the drugs and show how they can mimick the syptoms of Parkinsons...what they can do and what the problem is that they LOSE effectiveness and allow more and more of the syptoms to manifest...now unless Fox has suddenly had a major change in his condition ..it would seem this is NOT the case ...
The drugs have intermittent effectiveness and can cause involuntary movements (as the links I posted for you way back on page 4 show)....nothing you have posted evidences otherwise....

.let me know when you find out his particular treatment regime and what drugs he is taking and what stage he is in .
Irrelevent to my arguments, I have made no comment whatsoever on Fox's particular condition....however you have....so tell me do you know what his particular treatment regime is, what drugs he is taking and what stage he is, since of the two of us only you have commented on Fox's condition?

Or let me guess, just like pointing out errors, commenting about things you dont have the full facts on is a right reserved to you alone....ok, :rolleyes:

If he didn't take his medication he wouldn't be twitching. The medication is what causes the twitching, not the disease.Actually both the disease and (some of) the medications can cause involuntary movements. Resting tremor, especially of the jaw and peripheral limbs (and conversely rigidity) is a ckassic symptom of PD. The medication side effects tend to be dyskinesias, which are more classically tics and uncontrolled limb movement. (Think Tourettes.)

I bolded the part that seems to be the basis for your argument...in that case FOX would exibit these side effects all the time would he not ?

IF that was his treatment of choice .And indeed, Fox exhibits involuntary movements to varying degrees at all times. Whether it's incomplete control of resting tremor or medication side effects, we have no way of knowing, so it's irrational for you or anyone else to be saying it's one or the other.

....excuse me for calling "syptoms" " side effects ' of a disease.Um, actually no, I won't. You've implied elsewhere in this thread that you have special knowledge of this disease and its sufferers. I expect someone doing so to demonstrate that proficiency in order to be taken seriously.

And he does exhibit those side-effects constantly, as has been established numerous times in the thread.

Thats odd I have seen him give interviews with no indication of the effects he shows in the interview in question .

You think they can edit them out ? Live ?

I must be watching the other Michael J Fox. The one that was in "back to the Future" . And some other TV shows llike Law and order and stuff and one that gives TV interviews with his symptoms under seeming contoll.

Excuse me I must be mistaken .

I thought you were talking about this guy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T7GXCrQI0Y&NR

And that little twist in your stomach tells you the truth of who is REALLY the liar.

Tough talk coming from an attack puppet - what's the matter, too cowardly to post under your nation's real name?

...

what a sad little man. is your life really so empty that you've had nothing better to do in the past couple years than come here to get modbombed on sight?

Thats odd I have seen him give interviews with no indication of the effects .

Such as?

Where he works has more weight then you talking about it.
No it doesnt.
Even imagining it did, it still has much less weight than published, peer reviewed and widely accepted findings from the medical field, including those posted by Ultra....


Extracts from post #136 (this thread)
It is estimated from the Deprenyl and Tocopheral Antioxidant Therapy of Parkinsonism (DATATOP) study that motor complications developed in 30% of patients after only 2 years of treatment (3). This rate may become as high as 50% to 90% after 5 to 10 years of treatment (2).

Motor complications occur in two forms: (1) motor fluctuations, also known as the "on-off" phenomenon, and (2) dyskinesias. The on-off phenomenon refers to alterations between "on" periods, during which patients have good symptomatic control, and "off" periods, during which symptoms are under poor control.
So, why yes the medications used to treat Parkinsons do cause involuntary movements, quite aside from being known to manifest an 'on/off' effect in their control of Parkinsons symptoms...

Puppet much?Oy. I thought I smelled socks. ;)

And indeed, Fox exhibits involuntary movements to varying degrees at all times. Whether it's incomplete control of resting tremor or medication side effects, we have no way of knowing, so it's irrational for you or anyone else to be saying it's one or the other.

Um, actually no, I won't. You've implied elsewhere in this thread that you have special knowledge of this disease and its sufferers. I expect someone doing so to demonstrate that proficiency in order to be taken seriously.


Actually I work in a position that requires I keep a close eye on the " clients" and observe any type of behavior that may indicate they need assistance..
That icludes not only parkinsons patients and the disabled but also the menaly ill and drug addicted or combinations of all three. Along with DD clients

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T7GXCrQI0Y&NR


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKVfsjIp98w&mode=related&search=

Oy. I thought I smelled socks. ;)

No, you smelled a Delete-on-Sight player who makes new nations as fast as we delete them. Stop encouraging him, dammit.

Actually I work in a position that requires I keep a close eye on the " clients" and observe any type of behavior that may indicate they need assistance..
That icludes not only parkinsons patients and the disabled but also the menaly ill and drug addicted or combinations of all three. Along with DD clients Okay, so you're an aide.

To clarify, are you submitting the following as an interview in which MJF doesn't exhibit PD symptoms (as was asked of you)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T7GXCrQI0Y&NR

If so, I beg seriously to differ with your observation skills.

No, you smelled a Delete-on-Sight player who makes new nations as fast as we delete them. Stop encouraging him, dammit.Aye, aye, sir! :cool:

a DoS, eh? Might've known.

Okay, so you're an aide.

To clarify, are you submitting the following as an interview in which MJF doesn't exhibit PD symptoms (as was asked of you)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T7GXCrQI0Y&NR

If so, I beg seriously to differ with your observation skills.

Different level entirely . Are you blind ?

http://www.michaeljfox.org/parkinsons/

Send him an e-mail and ask him


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T7GXCrQI0Y&NR


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKVfs...elated&search=


http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/parkinsons_disease/parkinsons_disease.htm


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yve4KEwyunc

Just gonna say...
I don't think anybody could possibly be surprised that a gigantic ass like Rush Limbaugh would say something like this. If a guy who's suffering from Parkinson's is using his star appeal to spread awareness of the benefits of stem cell research, and support political candidates who are willing to allow the reasearch to go on, I don't see a problem. Instead of making an intelligent rebuttal by means of explaining the negative aspects of stem cell research, Limbaugh knows he's cornered and that the Democrats will get a lead because his Gods in the Republican Party don't support the techology. Hence, he goes to extreme lengths like feeding this BS to his empty-headed, mindless, clueless fans. It's easy to see who's the bigger man: Michael J. Fox (one of my all-time favourite actors, I should mention), who comes out and supports Democratic candidates who are like-minded on his cause, or Rush Limbaugh, who can't even assemble a half-decent argument for his cause and resorts to gutless ad hominem tactics. I guess he wasn't being as bigly as he thought he was.

Yeah Rush was right, and Christopher Reeve was exaggerating his paralyzed state too just to promote stem-cell research. He could actually have stood up and flown away if he wanted too. I mean, they've caught him on film doing this and I've seen his movies a few times? Him being paralyzed was sso fake and out of his mornal character.

Ask Unsane Extremeties

What's the real gripe, here? Rush's comments or the Bush Administration performance with regards to stem cell research?

If anyone picks the latter gripe, they have a lot of explaining to do. Stem cell research, in spite of what Fox says, isn't anywhere near illegal. Second, if the promise of stem cell research was so great, private companies would be doing the research. Last, which Administration has provided the greatest level of funding for stem cell research, ever? If you answered, 'Bush's', you'd be right.

What we should all be complaining about is the misleading way that Fox presents (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMliHkTDHaE)his case and the way everyone just sucks it up.

What we should all be complaining about is the misleading way that Fox presents his case and the way everyone just sucks it up.

Okay, you go right ahead and lead the charge on that windmill.

Different level entirely . Are you blind ? ... <much linkage snipped>

All I've got to say is, what the hell? You're not making any sense now and a list of unexplained YouTube links doesn't help your argument at all. To recap: You said you had seen interviews with Fox in which he didn't exhibit symptoms/side effects. Hooplah. Someone asked for examples. You haven't provided any so far (other than referencing some of his dramatic efforts...and do you have any idea how many takes those took!?).

Well, nothing to say, except I've got to run errands and won't be back until later; though I'm sure someone would still like for you to back up your "no shakes interviews" claim.

Yeah Rush was right, and Christopher Reeve was exaggerating his paralyzed state too just to promote stem-cell research. He could actually have stood up and flown away if he wanted too. I mean, they've caught him on film doing this and I've seen his movies a few times? Him being paralyzed was sso fake and out of his mornal character.

Ask Unsane Extremeties


English must not be your first language. And you obviously didnt read much of the thread nor understand it.

http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biography_video_preview/71/12/Michael_J_Fox.htm

You must have missed the part where I said I am in full support of Fox showing the people what Parkinsons is like...EVEN if it means he may be off his meds when he does it .

IMO from what I myself have seen of Mr. Fox in past appearances he is either in an extremely rapid decline in his condition or having a REALLY bad day. Or he simply decided not to take his meds to show the ravages of parkinsons and to better illustrate what is at stake .

GOOD FOR HIM .

I hope he succeeds...but IMO ...he is off his meds during this interview.

WATCH IT YOURSELF.




http://www.michaeljfox.org/parkinsons/

Send him an e-mail and ask him


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T7GXCrQI0Y&NR


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKVfs...elated&search=


http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/p...ns_disease.htm


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yve4KEwyunc

<much linkage snipped>

All I've got to say is, what the hell? You're not making any sense now and a list of unexplained YouTube links doesn't help your argument at all. To recap: You said you had seen interviews with Fox in which he didn't exhibit symptoms/side effects. Hooplah. Someone asked for examples. You haven't provided any so far (other than referencing some of his dramatic efforts...and do you have any idea how many takes those took!?).

Well, nothing to say, except I've got to run errands and won't be back until later; though I'm sure someone would still like for you to back up your "no shakes interviews" claim.


I never said he exibited NO SHAKES ...

look at the difference in the extremes..

Look you want to deliberately go out of your way to ingnore the difference ...meh..

I wish Fox all the luck and good health in the world...and I hope he makes his point in anyway he chooses because its for the right reasons and whatever is going on he isnt faking it .

Okay, you go right ahead and lead the charge on that windmill.

How about we lead the charge for enlighted health care and research instead ?

No, you smelled a Delete-on-Sight player who makes new nations as fast as we delete them. Stop encouraging him, dammit.

I wondered what a DOS was here. I didn't figure Denial of Service was correct.

Okay, you go right ahead and lead the charge on that windmill.
Hey, no one ever promised that life was going to be easy.

Fox was campaigning yesterday for Tammy Duckworth, a congressional candidate, outside Chicago, when he alluded to Limbaugh's remarks. "It's ironic, given some of the things that have been said in the last couple of days, that my pills are working really well right now," he said, according to a report on the CBS2 Web site.

Guess you can stop blaming his meds now...unless you want to say he is lying.


BTW watch the video .

see anything different ?

Errrrr......Hello???
Where's the rest of the transcript that says Mr. Fox admits as to NOT taking his meds prior to speaking engagements, and commercials to have a greater impact on his message.
Oh??? Who's the deceiver Mr. Fox???

If only to avoid masking the physical and psychological devastation of Parkinsons on those suffering from it and their families. Nothing like showing a disease for what it really is than the representation of the disease while under the effects of neuroleptic medication.

I'm gonna have to side with Michael J. on this one.

Thats odd I have seen him give interviews with no indication of the effects .


I never said he exibited NO SHAKES ...


What's the word to describe this type of situation again?

What's the real gripe, here? Rush's comments or the Bush Administration performance with regards to stem cell research?

If anyone picks the latter gripe, they have a lot of explaining to do. Stem cell research, in spite of what Fox says, isn't anywhere near illegal. Second, if the promise of stem cell research was so great, private companies would be doing the research. Last, which Administration has provided the greatest level of funding for stem cell research, ever? If you answered, 'Bush's', you'd be right.

What we should all be complaining about is the misleading way that Fox presents (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMliHkTDHaE)his case and the way everyone just sucks it up.

You conveniently left out all the restrictions he placed on the "funding"

http://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.org/WhatsNew/GovernmentFunding.htm

As to the other comment, you obviously don't know anybody with disease.

Hey, no one ever promised that life was going to be easy.

Ah yes the canned Libertarian response :rolleyes:

Can't you take up Dobb's challenge?

What's the word to describe this type of situation again?

that I didn't add "that he is exibiting now."

thanks I'll go fix it.

You conveniently left out all the restrictions he placed on the "funding"

http://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.org/WhatsNew/GovernmentFunding.htm

Doesn't matter. He's still the first President to fund any stem cell research. Period.

As to the other comment, you obviously don't know anybody with disease.
Explain.

Ah yes the canned Libertarian response :rolleyes:

Can't you take up Dobb's challenge?

Dobb's challenge was rhetorical. It got what it deserved.

Dobb's challenge was rhetorical. It got what it deserved.

Why shouldn't all stem cell research be funded by the government ?

Would not seperation of church and state mandate that using religion as the moral grounds not to support fully stem cell research be invalid ?

Why shouldn't all stem cell research be funded by the government ?

[red herring alert]
Would not seperation of church and state mandate that using religion as the moral grounds not to support fully stem cell research be invalid ?
My question is 'Why should any research be funded by the government?'. I don't see where there is any inherent function of government that includes research.

Doesn't matter. He's still the first President to fund any stem cell research. Period.

It doesn't matter he was the first. Stem Cells Research is new and was being investigated as part of the revitalization of the NIH back in 93.

The fact the shrub signed money doesn't mean anthing.

He signed the bill for no child left behind and didn't fund it.

He signed the bill for Stem Cells and has tightly restricted the use of the money.

Explain.

I have family with the disease. Why don't you explain how MJF is misleading the public.

My question is 'Why should any research be funded by the government?'. I don't see where there is any inherent function of government that includes research.
Precidents....there are tons of them.... but start here.
Appollo program.

manhattan project .

The constitution .

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


medical research and funding provides for the " general welfare of the United states " wouldnt you say ?

My question is 'Why should any research be funded by the government?'. I don't see where there is any inherent function of government that includes research.

Why shouldn't the government fund research?

Oh wait libertarian; don't like the tax thing......

Why shouldn't the government fund research?

Oh wait libertarian; don't like the tax thing......


Yep but you can smoke all the cigarrettes you want all the pot ...no gun contoll...no or hardly any government...you gotta take the good with the bad.

Why shouldn't the government fund research?

Oh wait libertarian; don't like the tax thing......

It's a cheap excuse, but it'll serve his needs 'til (re-)election day.

Yep but you can smoke all the cigarrettes you want all the pot ...no gun contoll...no or hardly any government...you gotta take the good with the bad.

He is the libertarian. I'm all for taxes going to disease research.

The only thing I like about the liberts are their views on drugs......

He is the libertarian. I'm all for taxes going to disease research.

The only thing I like about the liberts are their views on drugs......


Well just give me the drugs you can keep the libertarians...is anyone currently in an elected position in the US a member of that party ?


http://www.faqs.org/faqs/libertarian/party/officials/national/


Cool I found a few !

http://mainstreamlibertarian.com/_wsn/page2.html


Ummm but they threw in republicans ???

Shit, I thought everyone knew Republican pundits were renowned video doctors, able to diagnos illnesses at a glance.

Limbaugh is a giant douche, has always been a giant douche, and will always be a giant douche because a) he is a giant douche and (b) that is what his fucking douchebag viewers want to see: him being a douche to liberals. Bets 20 to 1 60% of his viewers think he only apologized because FOX people got on his ass and that Fox is really faking the illness.

Also, 10 to 1 odds Limbaugh isn't punished.

Well he wasn't punished for drug use and extortion, I can't imagine why he'd be punished for saying the sort of stuff he says everyday just because he insulted someone more popular than he is.

Well he wasn't punished for drug use and extortion, I can't imagine why he'd be punished for saying the sort of stuff he says everyday just because he insulted someone more popular than he is.

There is no reason to punish him(ie court action what not). Let the public punish him by no listening to him or as the Religious types do; hassle their sponsors. ;)

My question is 'Why should any research be funded by the government?'. I don't see where there is any inherent function of government that includes research.

Because corporations devote funds to projects that have the potential for short term profits treating long term diseases.

It's the same reason that they don't do research into which herbs will treat diseases in their natural state (they do exist). It isn't profitable.

Funding projects that will not reap any financial benifits for a long time, and even then might not do so long term. You can make millions of dollars by selling drugs that treat Parkinsons over decades of each patients life. What if stemcells cure it with only a $5000 injection, and then that patient never pays the company another penny? Where is the incentive for a coproration to fund that kind of research?

a weekly audience of about 10 million

It appears 10 million Americans are idiots.

There is no reason to punish him(ie court action what not). Let the public punish him by no listening to him or as the Religious types do; hassle their sponsors. ;)

The problem is, the sort of people who listen to him are the sort of people who enjoy this sort of ignorant hate-mongering. They're not going to punish him.

The sort of people who are... you know... not evil, already don't listen to him.

Your idea is like telling a pig to eat shit. You might think it's awful, but the pig doesn't see what the downside is.

Not that I'm saying he should be punished legally. However, the Fairness Doctrine should be brought back. That would just about kill Limbaugh, but that's not why I think it should come back.

It appears 10 million Americans are idiots.

No. 10 million Americans are idiots and have 3 hours of free time between 12 and 3 PM. There are many more idiots who would agree with him, but have to work those hours and don't get to pick the radio station in the office.

No. 10 million Americans are idiots and have 3 hours of free time between 12 and 3 PM. There are many more idiots who would agree with him, but have to work those hours and don't get to pick the radio station in the office.

I was driving through Kentucky and There were around 15 stations playing Rush Limbaugh.

Because corporations devote funds to projects that have the potential for short term profits treating long term diseases.

It's the same reason that they don't do research into which herbs will treat diseases in their natural state (they do exist). It isn't profitable.

Funding projects that will not reap any financial benifits for a long time, and even then might not do so long term. You can make millions of dollars by selling drugs that treat Parkinsons over decades of each patients life. What if stemcells cure it with only a $5000 injection, and then that patient never pays the company another penny? Where is the incentive for a coproration to fund that kind of research?
I <3 big pharma!!!

[this message brought to you by Merck©]

I
[partisan crap deleted]


I have family with the disease. Why don't you explain how MJF is misleading the public.

Look, I've had family with ALS. I understand degenerative diseases. But, I don't think it would be appropriate for Stephen Hawking to get on the stump for stem cell research in the manner that Mr. Fox did. Did you watch the youtube presentation of the ad? It was nothing but a play for the sympathy of the electorate. I'd be embarrassed to see anyone (Cindy Sheehan comes to mind) take advantage of their misfortune to advance a political agenda in this fashion.

Because corporations devote funds to projects that have the potential for short term profits treating long term diseases.

It's the same reason that they don't do research into which herbs will treat diseases in their natural state (they do exist). It isn't profitable.

Funding projects that will not reap any financial benifits for a long time, and even then might not do so long term. You can make millions of dollars by selling drugs that treat Parkinsons over decades of each patients life. What if stemcells cure it with only a $5000 injection, and then that patient never pays the company another penny? Where is the incentive for a coproration to fund that kind of research?


Dont forget Vaccines ! You need sick people to sell the drugs to !

Hmmm Didn't the US fund aids research.....got to add that to my protect the public welfare list...


Polio too right ?

I'm riddled with ADD or I could come up with more I am sure...

Because corporations devote funds to projects that have the potential for short term profits treating long term diseases.

It's the same reason that they don't do research into which herbs will treat diseases in their natural state (they do exist). It isn't profitable.

Funding projects that will not reap any financial benifits for a long time, and even then might not do so long term. You can make millions of dollars by selling drugs that treat Parkinsons over decades of each patients life. What if stemcells cure it with only a $5000 injection, and then that patient never pays the company another penny? Where is the incentive for a coproration to fund that kind of research?
'What if...'? What the hell kind of argument is that? A pharmaceutical company is motivated by earnings. Absolutely. The incentive to do research is to own the patent. Even if no pharmaceutical were to ever do research again, that doesn't mean that an inherent function of government is to do research. If it's been done in the past and it hasn't been to protect us from force or fraud, it was done in error. That fact doesn't mean we need to continue the making the same mistakes.

Look, I've had family with ALS. I understand degenerative diseases. But, I don't think it would be appropriate for Stephen Hawking to get on the stump for stem cell research in the manner that Mr. Fox did. Did you watch the youtube presentation of the ad? It was nothing but a play for the sympathy of the electorate. I'd be embarrassed to see anyone (Cindy Sheehan comes to mind) take advantage of their misfortune to advance a political agenda in this fashion.

So wait, the people with the most vested interest in the issue should not do anything for it or campaign that issue and should, what? Wait for someone healthy to do it instead?

I was driving through Kentucky and There were around 15 stations playing Rush Limbaugh.

I would have exercised my Kentucky given right to shoot the fucking radio.

Precidents....there are tons of them.... but start here.
Appollo program.

manhattan project .

The constitution .



medical research and funding provides for the " general welfare of the United states " wouldnt you say ?

Absolutely not. The general welfare clause certainly doesn't mean any and everyone is entitled to a bed and three squares, anymore than it means the government should take care of all their ills. In fact, if you apply the context of the times, it was applied to States, rather than individuals. Look at this excerpt from an 1829 Webster's dictionary.
http://alanchapman.org/images/welfare.png
It's clear from the context of section 8 that the second definition applies.

So wait, the people with the most vested interest in the issue should not do anything for it or campaign that issue and should, what? Wait for someone healthy to do it instead?

Fair question. I need to watch the ad again.
*watches*
Okay. My objection to the whole ad is that I can find no evidence to support the claim that Talent has done anything to criminalize stem cell research. Show me that and I'll retract everything I've said about Mr. Fox.

'What if...'? What the hell kind of argument is that? A pharmaceutical company is motivated by earnings. Absolutely. The incentive to do research is to own the patent. Even if no pharmaceutical were to ever do research again, that doesn't mean that an inherent function of government is to do research. If it's been done in the past and it hasn't been to protect us from force or fraud, it was done in error. That fact doesn't mean we need to continue the making the same mistakes.


Section 8 of the US Constitution covers it.

So, has it reached the point where a national holiday can be declared on Limbaugh's inevitable cardiac-related demise yet?

If there was any justice in this world, That fat fuck would get Parkinson's himself.

Look, I've had family with ALS. I understand degenerative diseases. But, I don't think it would be appropriate for Stephen Hawking to get on the stump for stem cell research in the manner that Mr. Fox did. Did you watch the youtube presentation of the ad? It was nothing but a play for the sympathy of the electorate. I'd be embarrassed to see anyone (Cindy Sheehan comes to mind) take advantage of their misfortune to advance a political agenda in this fashion.

He was trying to put a face on an issue. He wasn't taking advantage of his illness, he was taking advantage of his celebrity to promote a cause he believes in. i.e. Finding a cure for his illness.

Why is it wrong to appeal to the compassion and sentiment of the electorate like Fox did, but OK to play in their ignornace, fear, and intolerance the way that the GOP does (the sleaze campaign against Max Cleeland comes to mind)?

He was trying to put a face on an issue. He wasn't taking advantage of his illness, he was taking advantage of his celebrity to promote a cause he believes in. i.e. Finding a cure for his illness.

Why is it wrong to appeal to the compassion and sentiment of the electorate like Fox did, but OK to play in their ignornace, fear, and intolerance the way that the GOP does (the sleaze campaign against Max Cleeland comes to mind)?



Section 8 of the US Constitution covers it.


Read Dammit!

Look about three or four posts up and come back with better posts. And, by the way, Cleland wasn't smeared. He made his bed with the DNC, rather than represent the State of Georgia. That's why he was voted out.

So wait, the people with the most vested interest in the issue should not do anything for it or campaign that issue and should, what? Wait for someone healthy to do it instead?

I think what he meant was "I can't argue with what he says, and I can't argue with what he stands for, so I'll just argue that it shouldn't be said."

After 9/11 Democrats critcized Republicans and Republicans responded by sleazing them out of office with disgusting, decietful, unfounded attacks on their character.

Then they started getting spokesmen who couldn't be sleazed in such a fashion without making the Republicans look bad, like war widows and 9/11 widows. Some of the more vitriolic Republican's tried to sleaze them, like O'Reilly and Coulter, and often look the worse for it (remember that whole "...bunch of women that happy to loose their husbands statement?") So the GOP responded by saying that the Democrats were "taking advantage" of them. i.e. "They're right and we can't call them horrible names, so now what are we supposed to do to get people to believe us?"

If you're right, they'll attack you as a person. If it's too obvious that you're a better person, then they'll argue that you shouldn't be allowed to speak because you'll sway the public. What the fuck are the GOP trying to do?

Goddamn assholes.

Absolutely not. The general welfare clause certainly doesn't mean any and everyone is entitled to a bed and three squares, anymore than it means the government should take care of all their ills. In fact, if you apply the context of the times, it was applied to States, rather than individuals. Look at this excerpt from an 1829 Webster's dictionary.
http://alanchapman.org/images/welfare.png
It's clear from the context of section 8 that the second definition applies.

The people are the state and its the general welfare of the people that the government is sworn to protect...this is not France . we didnt go the route of Rousseau

We are a government for the people and by the people

I guess the second ammendment only gives the states the right to keep and bear arms right ?

The government is expected to step in during any natural disaster...or you dont aggree with that ? They consider that the general welfare of the people..

Epidemics and the CDC ? What about it ?

cancer is not an epidemic ? Stem cells are being used for cancer research as well as a bunch more.

Aids ...the government funding for aids...whats that for ? I'd be hard pressed not to say it is not for the general welfare of the people of the US .


Ahhh I see you you mistook me for someone who doesn't read....shame on you .

How do you explain Nasa and the CDC and the Manhattan project as any less or more important than cutting edge medical research...that BTW the government IS funding ...just limiting.

Please explain how it can be both ways .

The people are the state and its the general welfare of the people that the government is sworn to protect...this is not France . we didnt go the route of Rousseau

We are a government for the people and by the people

I guess the second ammendment only gives the states the right to keep and bear arms right ?

The government is expected to step in during any natural disaster...or you dont aggree with that ? They consider that the general welfare of the people..

Epidemics and the CDC ? What about it ?

cancer is not an epidemic ? Stem cells are being used for cancer research as well as a bunch more.

Aids ...the government funding for aids...whats that for ? I'd be hard pressed not to say it is not for the general welfare of the people of the US .
Your ignorance and misuse of words abounds. I can't begin to correct them. You have won by overwhelmingly misunderstanding one of the documents that forms the foundation of this nation. Congratulations.

Read Dammit!

Look about three or four posts up and come back with better posts. And, by the way, Cleland wasn't smeared. He made his bed with the DNC, rather than represent the State of Georgia. That's why he was voted out.

And New Domici wins through Myrmidonisia proving his point.

Your ignorance and misuse of words abounds. I can't begin to correct them. You have won by overwhelmingly misunderstanding one of the documents that forms the foundation of this nation. Congratulations.

Actually I think you misunderstand it and you also seem to ignore questions you cant answer.

The US has a history of funding projects that provide for the welfare of its population .

I listed a few for you.

I think we have established the precident .

Why are we only partially funding a program for reasons of religion ?

It's a shame the British host Michael Parkinson doesn't have a show on Fox network.
:rolleyes: ... you can see it coming, can't you ... oh no :rolleyes:
"Fox on Parkinson's, on Parkinson, on Fox"
</bad taste>

My question is 'Why should any research be funded by the government?'. I don't see where there is any inherent function of government that includes research.
"Provide for the general welfare" perhaps? Sure, it's vague and can be a catch-all, but it's a constitutional responsibility of the government nonetheless.

And as to Cleland--are you saying that the ads depicting him morphing into Bin Laden don't constitute a smear? Come on, man.

Your ignorance and misuse of words abounds. I can't begin to correct them. You have won by overwhelmingly misunderstanding one of the documents that forms the foundation of this nation. Congratulations.


Wow your more fun than i thought ..

But lets take a look at how the claus ehas been used ..starting with ..

Alexander Hamilton officially set down the doctrine of implied powers during the controversy over his proposal to incorporate a National Bank of the United States. When George Washington asked Hamilton to defend the constitutionality of the measure against the protests of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, Hamilton produced what has now become the classic statement for implied powers. Hamilton argued that the sovereign duties of a government implied the right to use means adequate to its ends. Although the United States government was sovereign only as to certain objects, it was impossible to define all the means which it should use, because it was impossible for the founders to anticipate all future exigencies. Hamilton noted that the "general welfare clause" and the "necessary and proper" clause gave elasticity to the constitution. Hamilton won the argument, and Murphini signed his Bank Bill into law.

Even Hamilton's enemy Thomas Jefferson used the principle to justify his Louisiana Purchase in 1803, and Later, directly borrowing from Hamilton, Chief Justice John Marshall invoked the implied powers of government in the court decision of McCulloch v. Maryland. This was again used to justify the creation of a bank, the Second Bank of the United States using the idea to argue the constitutionality of Congress's creating it in 1816.

The States and Anti-Federalists referred to the Taxing and Spending Clause and/or(?) the Necessary and Proper clause as the "Elastic Clause" because they felt it allowed the Federal Government to "stretch" its power to encompass almost any situation.


You following where this is leading you...the implied powers thing ...:D

I'll be back....

While I am away go read up on what the clause means ...

Here I'll help you..

http://books.google.com/books?id=dt-AagWHq_4C&dq=general+welfare+clause+of+the+US+constitution+&pg=PA9&ots=c_gZwg5aIS&sig=jIkbBPBaaXw-sQygjlzvhNzvtpc&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DX%26oi%3Dspell%26resnum%3D0%26ct%3Dresult%26cd%3D1%26q%3Dgenera l%2Bwelfare%2Bclause%2Bof%2Bthe%2BUS%2Bconstitution%2B%26spell%3D1&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=1

Look, I've had family with ALS. I understand degenerative diseases. But, I don't think it would be appropriate for Stephen Hawking to get on the stump for stem cell research in the manner that Mr. Fox did. Did you watch the youtube presentation of the ad? It was nothing but a play for the sympathy of the electorate. I'd be embarrassed to see anyone (Cindy Sheehan comes to mind) take advantage of their misfortune to advance a political agenda in this fashion.

So - don't blame Michael T. Fox for making what should ostensibly be a medical issue into a political issue. The right wing already did that quite nicely on its' own.

I believe it was Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam while Bush and Cheney were making up excuses. They claimed him soft on defense.

Worse - there were people like than Coulter cow making snide comments that he deserved to lose his limbs cause he was an idiot.
There really is no depths they won't sink to, in order to villify the Left. Lacking a soul is probably the only reason they sleep at night. I know I couldn't if I said such things.

He was trying to put a face on an issue. He wasn't taking advantage of his illness, he was taking advantage of his celebrity to promote a cause he believes in. i.e. Finding a cure for his illness.
Exactement, mon brave.
Why is it wrong to appeal to the compassion and sentiment of the electorate like Fox did, but OK to play in their ignornace, fear, and intolerance the way that the GOP does (the sleaze campaign against Max Cleeland comes to mind)?
It's more macho that way - and the Republicans are even less in touch with the feminine principle than the Dems.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r106/ledhed215/generalwelfareclause.jpghttp://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r106/ledhed215/generalwelfareclause.jpg Social Security Act Cases .--Although holding that the spending power is not limited by the specific grants of power contained in Article I, Sec. 8, the Court found, nevertheless, that it was qualified by the Tenth Amendment, and on this ground ruled in the Butler case that Congress could not use moneys raised by taxation to ''purchase compliance'' with regulations ''of matters of State concern with respect to which Congress has no authority to interfere.'' 545 Within little more than a year this decision was reduced to narrow proportions by Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 546 which sustained the tax imposed on employers to provide unemployment benefits, and the credit allowed for similar taxes paid to a State. To the argument that the tax and credit in combination were ''weapons of coercion, destroying or impairing the autonomy of the States,'' the Court replied that relief of unemployment was a legitimate object of federal expenditure under the ''general welfare'' clause, that the Social Security Act represented a legitimate attempt to solve the problem by the cooperation of State and Federal Governments, that the credit allowed for state taxes bore a reasonable relation ''to the fiscal need subserved by the tax in its normal operation,'' 547 since state unemployment compensation payments would relieve the burden for direct relief borne by the national treasury. The Court reserved judgment as to the validity of a tax ''if it is laid upon the condition that a State may escape its operation through the adoption of a statute unrelated in subject matter to activities fairly within the scope of national policy and power.'' 548

Its gets better when we get to using the general welfare clause to provide GRANTS .:D

But hey if they could use the GENERAL WELFARE clause to justify SOCIAL SECURITY.

On what grounds should I continue this agrument ?


http://books.google.com/books?id=dt-...ct=result&cd=1


Absolutely not. The general welfare clause certainly doesn't mean any and everyone is entitled to a bed and three squares, anymore than it means the government should take care of all their ills. In fact, if you apply the context of the times, it was applied to States, rather than individuals. Look at this excerpt from an 1829 Webster's dictionary.
http://alanchapman.org/images/welfare.png
It's clear from the context of section 8 that the second definition applies.


Originally Posted by Myrmidonisia
Your ignorance and misuse of words abounds. I can't begin to correct them. You have won by overwhelmingly misunderstanding one of the documents that forms the foundation of this nation. Congratulations.

:D do you own a petard ?

I don't know why anybody listens to Limbaugh. And I don't understand why anyone thinks that he and/or Ann Coulter speak for all conservatives, they don't.

Being a moderate, I have certain views that could be called conservative and certain views that could be termed liberal. One of my particular views (I could turn this into a rant) is that ignorant jerks should shut up and not impose their ill-informed views on the rest of us, we are perfectly capable of making decisions without listening to idiocy.

"Provide for the general welfare" perhaps? Sure, it's vague and can be a catch-all, but it's a constitutional responsibility of the government nonetheless.

And as to Cleland--are you saying that the ads depicting him morphing into Bin Laden don't constitute a smear? Come on, man.

nazz its more than that its the basis for almost every cent of spending for " social welfare" in the US name a program that promotes social welfare...and you will find this clause used.

I hate to do this to him but he called me an idiot...so what the hell...
these guys agree with him ...a bit..

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/foundingdocs/constitution/studygenwelfare.html
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=2638
http://www.mises.org/story/1912

:D

The "General Welfare"
As you presumably know, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to impose taxes to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." But since the New Deal, this clause has been pretty much boiled down to one phrase: "general welfare." It is now generally assumed that Congress may pass any law it deems in the "general welfare of the United States. - Joseph Sobran, November 23, 1999 [Sobran's]
But the conservative columnist George Will, instead of applauding, took exception, accusing Ventura of ignorance of the Constitution. He cited the 'general welfare' clause, which, he said, authorizes the federal government to raise money for anything it deems the 'general welfare.' - Joseph Sobran, October 28, 1999 [Sobran's]





Its easier to just read this book and run with it...unless you want to go to find law and look up a million cases .

http://books.google.com/books?id=dt-AagWHq_4C&dq=general+welfare+clause+of+the+US+constitution+&pg=PA9&ots=c_gZwg5aIS&sig=jIkbBPBaaXw-sQygjlzvhNzvtpc&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DX%26oi%3Dspell%26resnum%3D0%26ct%3Dresult%26cd%3D1%26q%3Dgenera l%2Bwelfare%2Bclause%2Bof%2Bthe%2BUS%2Bconstitution%2B%26spell%3D1&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=1

Its really ...I would think a no brainer...congress has the right to tax us and spend our money...but on what ?

Well there you go the general welfare clause can explain everything from roads and banks to food stamps ...:D


Is Social Security Constitutional?
Given all that, the issue of Social Security’s constitutionality, far from being settled, remains wide open. Somehow I doubt that the Framers, who after all meant the Constitution as a fetter on expansive government and not a blank check for it, intended the Constitution to authorize a tax-devouring engine of dependence on the State like Social Security. - John Attarian, May 23, 2003 [LewRockwell.com]


The Confederate Constitution
One grave weakness in the U.S. Constitution is the "general welfare" clause, which the Confederate Constitution eliminated...The Southern drafters thought the general welfare clause was an open door for any type of government intervention. They were, of course, right. - Randall G. Holcombe, June 1992

Yep I think we can get back to why the government thinks it can limit funding on the basis of religion considering the seperation of church and state. And why we cant afford to fully fund stem cell research of all types to stay competitive in the world economy and drop the dark ages mindset that sets artificial limits on what we can and will research since as good capitalist it is in our own best interest to do so.

:rolleyes: What? You expected more from Rush?

It'd be even more amusing if he had a dehabilitating stroke right after he said it, live, on the air. Then everyone else accuse him of faking a stroke.

Look, I've had family with ALS. I understand degenerative diseases.


Ok. I will grant you that. One of my wifes great-uncles was diagnosed with it. He is wasting away fast.

But, I don't think it would be appropriate for Stephen Hawking to get on the stump for stem cell research in the manner that Mr. Fox did.


It's nothing more then a face to the problem. If left to the people, it's nothing more then out of site out of mind. If MJF makes a few people say "hey why don't we cure this damn disease,?" then it's done it's job.

Did you watch the youtube presentation of the ad? It was nothing but a play for the sympathy of the electorate.

Yes it is. He is affected by this disease and I am sure he does it because he doesn't want to see other people go though it. The ad was against a person who would like to criminalize stemcell research. So what should he do?

I'd be embarrassed to see anyone (Cindy Sheehan comes to mind) take advantage of their misfortune to advance a political agenda in this fashion.

You also don't have the disease so it's easy to sit back and say it's wrong.

Even in our cases of having family affected by diseases, it's not the same as living with it.

:rolleyes: What? You expected more from Rush?

It'd be even more amusing if he had a dehabilitating stroke right after he said it, live, on the air. Then everyone else accuse him of faking a stroke.

Well, he looks a bit (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/KO-LimbaughMJFox.wmv) like he's having a stroke. Olbermann and Sam Seder do a number on Limbaugh after the clip also.

Well, he looks a bit (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/KO-LimbaughMJFox.wmv) like he's having a stroke. Olbermann and Sam Seder do a number on Limbaugh after the clip also.

Looks like we'll be seeing some brain drain northward bound due to current US policy:

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2006/10/25/keller-stem-cells.html

Earlier this year, New York magazine called the embryonic stem cell researcher one of the top six medical minds the city didn't want to lose.

Maybe this could be a boon for Canada - ?

Fair question. I need to watch the ad again.
*watches*
Okay. My objection to the whole ad is that I can find no evidence to support the claim that Talent has done anything to criminalize stem cell research. Show me that and I'll retract everything I've said about Mr. Fox.

He supported a bill that would have criminalized stem cell research. Now, granted, he withdrew that support last Feb., but not because he has changed his mind about stem cells. It's buried in here, (http://www.worldmag.com/articles/12342) but I'm sure a more thorough google search can come up with more detail. The relevant paragraphs follow:
Talent is pro-life and voted against the embryonic stem-cell research funding bill that Bush vetoed this past summer. He does not support the Missouri ballot initiative, which would amend the state constitution to prevent any future bans or restrictions on the research.

Last February, however, he withdrew his support from a bill that would have criminalized all forms of human cloning. His position makes sense scientifically, if not politically, Talent said. After reading journal articles and talking to experts on the subject, he came to believe that scientists could achieve the same great cures by taking stem cells from sources other than cloned embryos. Talent feared the cloning ban, sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) would have criminalized a process similar to cloning called altered nuclear transfer, which he considered an ethical alternative to embryonic stem-cell research.

"A number of the alternatives involve cloning something that is not an embryo but it could be close enough to it," Talent told WORLD. "The changing technology convinced me that we had the wrong basic structure for how a ban ought to be written. That what we needed was an administrative ban that we could update according to changing technology, rather than freezing a criminal law ban with those definitions in the statute."

Rush Limbaugh is a repulsive toad. A bloviating windbag who wouldn't know real conservatism if it walked up and slapped him the face.

My grandmother has Parkinson's Disease. To say he made me very angry would be polite.

The last thing I need is a "theory" from an Oxycontin abuser who got away with his crap because of his social station. He is an overprivileged, smug jerk.

I would take one Michael J. Fox over a hundred of Limbaugh's sick, trollish muppets (Hannity, Coulter...you know the drone pack of Limbaugh sound a-likes).

The fact they are allowed to spew their vile screed across the radio dial is sick testimony to just how ill this country really is.

My question is 'Why should any research be funded by the government?'. I don't see where there is any inherent function of government that includes research.
How about for the betterment of society and it's people?
Also for saving money in the long term.
Which do you think would cost the taxpayer more?
this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d6/Iron_Lung_ward-Rancho_Los_Amigos_Hospital.gif
or this:
http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/Assets/ContentImages/633/immunisation-hor.jpg

My question is 'Why should any research be funded by the government?'. I don't see where there is any inherent function of government that includes research.
Curse all that evil government research that gave us immunizations, atomics, space travel, and thousands of other examples.

Curse all that evil government research that gave us immunizations, atomics, space travel, and thousands of other examples.

You really want to drive him nuts mention the United States Constitution and the " general welfare " clause that allows congress to tax us and spend the money for all those things....and social security ...and welfare...and the CDC....and whatever congress determines promotes the general welfare of the U S....:D


I really love this one quote.

Quote:
The Confederate Constitution
One grave weakness in the U.S. Constitution is the "general welfare" clause, which the Confederate Constitution eliminated...The Southern drafters thought the general welfare clause was an open door for any type of government intervention. They were, of course, right. - Randall G. Holcombe, June 1992

Hmmm ...like in preventing needless deaths by providing funding for valuable research and keeping the US able to compete globaly by doing away with dark age attitudes towards science and technology. Like providing funding for FEMA...for aids research...like you said, " a thousand other things" .
That promote........ " the general welfare of the United States of America " .

You really want to drive him nuts mention the United States Constitution and the " general welfare " clause that allows congress to tax us and spend the money for all those things....and social security ...and welfare...and the CDC....and whatever congress determines promotes the general welfare of the U S....:D
You're doing well enough at that without my help. ;)

You're doing well enough at that without my help. ;)

Hey I cant read and I well need all the help I can get you see...

Quote:
Absolutely not. The general welfare clause certainly doesn't mean any and everyone is entitled to a bed and three squares, anymore than it means the government should take care of all their ills. In fact, if you apply the context of the times, it was applied to States, rather than individuals. Look at this excerpt from an 1829 Webster's dictionary.
http://alanchapman.org/images/welfare.png
It's clear from the context of section 8 that the second definition applies.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrmidonisia
Your ignorance and misuse of words abounds. I can't begin to correct them. You have won by overwhelmingly misunderstanding one of the documents that forms the foundation of this nation. Congratulations.



I am obviously overwhelmed by Superior reasoning in this case. because I don't have a clue when it comes to the constitution.

He supported a bill that would have criminalized stem cell research. Now, granted, he withdrew that support last Feb., but not because he has changed his mind about stem cells. It's buried in here, (http://www.worldmag.com/articles/12342) but I'm sure a more thorough google search can come up with more detail. The relevant paragraphs follow:

It's vague enough that he might have supported the criminalization of embryonic stem cell research, or he may have just supported an administrative ban. For Fox to claim that Talent supported criminalizing "the science", itself, is a flagrant misrepresentation of Talent's position on the issue. It appears to me that Talent is in favor of alternate research, and certainly opposes criminal penalties for any of the research. So my gripe with Fox remains, but only in the sense that he falsely presents Talent's position with the subliminal message "Look, I'm sick and this could cure me and others like me, but this bum wants to send all the scientists to jail". The ad should be pulled.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_10262006_520.gif

Slow down here. The debate appears to revolve around what Michael J Fox looks like on his meds, vs off his meds, right?


Have we ever seen Rush off his meds?

http://www.larryflynt.com/ad_parodies_gallery/image/rush-limbaugh-parody.jpg

(do image tags not work around here?)

Slow down here. The debate appears to revolve around what Michael J Fox looks like on his meds, vs off his meds, right?


Have we ever seen Rush off his meds?

image snip

(do image tags not work around here?)
They do--you might need to change your settings to view them.

As for the debate, I think it revolves more around whether Limbaugh is the biggest asshole on Earth, or the biggest asshole in the universe.

As for the debate, I think it revolves more around whether Limbaugh is the biggest asshole on Earth, or the biggest asshole in the universe.We can't solve that one until we make contact with alien races, though... :(

It's vague enough that he might have supported the criminalization of embryonic stem cell research, or he may have just supported an administrative ban. For Fox to claim that Talent supported criminalizing "the science", itself, is a flagrant misrepresentation of Talent's position on the issue. It appears to me that Talent is in favor of alternate research, and certainly opposes criminal penalties for any of the research. So my gripe with Fox remains, but only in the sense that he falsely presents Talent's position with the subliminal message "Look, I'm sick and this could cure me and others like me, but this bum wants to send all the scientists to jail". The ad should be pulled.

So predictable. :rolleyes:

Or it could be that Talent has "changed" his views when he saw 58% of Missouri favored stem cell research. Talent like the shrub will favor the research but he will have all sorts of restrictions that will make the research incredibly hard to do. Hey but he supports it right? :rolleyes:

Fox is effective in his message. Just annoys you it's for a dem doesn't it. :D

So predictable. :rolleyes:

Or it could be that Talent has "changed" his views when he saw 58% of Missouri favored stem cell research. Talent like the shrub will favor the research but he will have all sorts of restrictions that will make the research incredibly hard to do. Hey but he supports it right? :rolleyes:

Fox is effective in his message. Just annoys you it's for a dem doesn't it. :D

Who the hell is being predictable? I'm willing to retract everything for some conclusive proof that Fox isn't just lying to promote a political end. You respond with complete crap. Partisan crap at that.

If the words of Michael J Fox have been included on the raging debate about whether or not he intentionally refrains from taking meds in order to show the true effects of Parkinson's disease I missed them. Here they are in regard to testifying in front of the Senate to get funding to try finding a cure for PD

Snippets of my testimony were featured on several of the nightly news broadcasts. One line in particular from my prepared statement got a lot of play: "In my forties, I can expect challenges most people wouldn't face until their seventies and eighties, if ever. But with your help, if we all do everything we can to eradicate this disease, when I'm in my fifties I'll be dancing at my children's weddings." I had made a deliberate choice to appear before the subcommittee without medication. It seemed to me that this occasion demanded that my testimony about the effects of the disease, and the urgency we as a community were feeling, be seen as well as heard. For people who had never observed me in this kind of shape, the transformation must have been startling.


http://www.michaeljfox.org/news/article.php?id=5


This is actually a good read for people like me who have very little real knowlege of Parkinson's disease

Guess you can stop blaming his meds now...unless you want to say he is lying.


BTW watch the video .

see anything different ?

Working very well doesn't mean he isn't going to be rocking since that is part of the side effect of how they work.

They do--you might need to change your settings to view them.

As for the debate, I think it revolves more around whether Limbaugh is the biggest asshole on Earth, or the biggest asshole in the universe.


:D :D Thumb ...

Could be he is the asshole of the Universe ? Even the Universe must have a portal to dispose waste produce from .

Working very well doesn't mean he isn't going to be rocking since that is part of the side effect of how they work.


Dude your way late...he himself admits he doesn't take his meds to make a point.

Its really no longer relevant.

He was faking it because he was shaking and normal people dont shake. /moron]

If the words of Michael J Fox have been included on the raging debate about whether or not he intentionally refrains from taking meds in order to show the true effects of Parkinson's disease I missed them. Here they are in regard to testifying in front of the Senate to get funding to try finding a cure for PD




http://www.michaeljfox.org/news/article.php?id=5


This is actually a good read for people like me who have very little real knowlege of Parkinson's disease


http://www.michaeljfox.org/parkinsons/

Links and all the info you can ever want. There are other sites listed in this thread that go into Parkinsons and the meds if you need them ....you have to go back a few pages .

We can't solve that one until we make contact with alien races, though... :(

It's worth a guess in any event.

Dude your way late...he himself admits he doesn't take his meds to make a point.

Its really no longer relevant.

except that it proves Rush right. Rush did accuse him of either acting or not taking his meds.


however, Right or Wrong... It sure sparked off many a celeberity filled response to Stem-cell research.

:D :D Thumb ...

Could be he is the asshole of the Universe ? Even the Universe must have a portal to dispose waste produce from .

of course, if he is, then we can't shut him up... else the Universe gets Disentary....

Dude your way late...he himself admits he doesn't take his meds to make a point.

Its really no longer relevant.

No he said he did it once, that still has no bearing on those type of motions you saw in the ad (dyskinesias) being a side effect of his medication.

of course, if he is, then we can't shut him up... else the Universe gets Disentary....


call steven hawkings we found his black hole !

except that it proves Rush right. Rush did accuse him of either acting or not taking his meds.


however, Right or Wrong... It sure sparked off many a celeberity filled response to Stem-cell research.

No Rush accused him of acting ..of faking...in his own words..I'll try to get you the U tube link...but how can say him not taking his meds is acting ?

he has Parkinsons and must show what it does if he feels that showing the ravages of the disease...and its very accurate , because it illustrates what he is in for when his meds lose the effectivness and it will be even worse than what he shows ..then he will die .

The guy has done the whole world a favor by shedding light on the subject and bringing it outin the open the roach limbug guy who has a show that reaches millions , that can actually make up there own minds and do not all aggree with EVERTHING he says.

I think this is doing more for stem cell research than all the promised funding in the last year did.

( ask how much was actually dispersed );)

No Rush accused him of acting ..of faking...in his own words..I'll try to get you the U tube link...but how can say him not taking his meds is acting ?

he has Parkinsons and must show what it does if he feels that showing the ravages of the disease...and its very accurate , because it illustrates what he is in for when his meds lose the effectivness and it will be even worse than what he shows ..then he will die .

The guy has done the whole world a favor by shedding light on the subject and bringing it outin the open the roach limbug guy who has a show that reaches millions , that can actually make up there own minds and do not all aggree with EVERTHING he says.

I think this is doing more for stem cell research than all the promised funding in the last year did.

( ask how much was actually dispersed );)
actually...
Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."

and other news reports actually have footage of him saying the same thing. Now, granted Fox did admit to once not being on meds to show his condition... and docs did say the exaggerated swaying is a side affect of being on meds...

the real issue is that Stem Cell research is getting the spotlight (again) and now both sides are firing their Celebrity filled guns to garner votes.

I saw one ad that says the proposal makes Cloning Legal. now I didn't read the proposal, nor do I have time right now to find it. so I really cannot comment on whether or not it's true.

call steven hawkings we found his black hole !

... since Rush is SPEWING thing out... and considering his skin color... wouldn't he be a WHITE HOLE?

except that it proves Rush right. Rush did accuse him of either acting or not taking his meds.


I refuse to support or believe any hypothesis which declares Michael J Fox to be an actor!;)

... since Rush is SPEWING thing out... and considering his skin color... wouldn't he be a WHITE HOLE?

Spewing black remarks ...:D from the dark ages ...:D from the time of the in the past of witch burnings .... I tell you he is a portal !

actually...


and other news reports actually have footage of him saying the same thing. Now, granted Fox did admit to once not being on meds to show his condition... and docs did say the exaggerated swaying is a side affect of being on meds...

the real issue is that Stem Cell research is getting the spotlight (again) and now both sides are firing their Celebrity filled guns to garner votes.

I saw one ad that says the proposal makes Cloning Legal. now I didn't read the proposal, nor do I have time right now to find it. so I really cannot comment on whether or not it's true.


Unfortunately the word cloning (and especially human cloning) describes such a broad range of activities and goals that it is greatly misunderstood and has become politically charged. While human "cloning" is certainly one of the most promising areas in which stem cell research is being used, as far as I know most genuine study and research and indeed funding is going towards therapeutic cloning of tissue and not towards the cloning of entire human organisms. Therapeutic cloning is replicating some tissue of a person with the end goal of transplanting the tissue onto (into?) that person with no rejection issues. They hope to do things like grow new skin for badly burnt people or new livers for college students who like liquor too much. The possible benefits are enormous and widespread if not universal.

It's vague enough that he might have supported the criminalization of embryonic stem cell research, or he may have just supported an administrative ban. For Fox to claim that Talent supported criminalizing "the science", itself, is a flagrant misrepresentation of Talent's position on the issue. It appears to me that Talent is in favor of alternate research, and certainly opposes criminal penalties for any of the research. So my gripe with Fox remains, but only in the sense that he falsely presents Talent's position with the subliminal message "Look, I'm sick and this could cure me and others like me, but this bum wants to send all the scientists to jail". The ad should be pulled.

You're going to dodge about over 'ban' and 'criminalize'? It's not vague-he wants to ban the research on stem cells, which would make anyone who does...

You're going to dodge about over 'ban' and 'criminalize'? It's not vague-he wants to ban the research on stem cells, which would make anyone who does...

To be fair and accurate its a ban on new stem cell lines that the GOVERNMENT would fund that is what he is opposed to on the basis that it would require the " sacrifice " of fetus they feel is unethical on the grounds of relgion and moralality...they are for using existing stem cell lines and research involving other methods like umbilical cords...but its only a ban on GOVERNMENT FUNDING.

The private sector if it feels it can make money is free to do all the stem cell stuff it wants.

To be fair and accurate its a ban on new stem cell lines that the GOVERNMENT would fund that is what he is opposed to on the basis that it would require the " sacrifice " of fetus they feel is unethical on the grounds of relgion and moralality...they are for using existing stem cell lines and research involving other methods like umbilical cords...but its only a ban on GOVERNMENT FUNDING.

The private sector if it feels it can make money is free to do all the stem cell stuff it wants.

And what the hell would the private sector get out of funding embryonic stem cell research?

And why the hell would Limbaugh and friends support experimentation with lines currently in existence if they oppose the practice? If they consider destroying embryos to be murder, why would they support the murder of all of the embryos currently available for experimentation?