Michael J Fox - Commercial & Foundation

[HKphooey]

hmmm..just chance that this all came up so close to November? I think not.

It is a politcal commercial, so I think the timing is quite obvious. The best time to find out where your candidate stands.

 

[Ping898]

hmmm..just chance that this all came up so close to November? I think not.

funny thing about political ads, they tend to come out around election time... ...but I got to wonder if Rush would have created such a big uproar if the ad had been for a canidate he supports....

 

[arnisador]

More proof that Rush Limbaugh is an

...attention-seeking...

idiot.

Yeah, I find this pretty offensive.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

I find the idea that just because you have a disease, you can make a political statement and be insulated from criticism offensive. If your son was killed in Iraq you are now an unassailable expert on foriegn policy and warmaking. Iv drug user and high risk taker? If you get AIDS you are now some sort of "hero". For some reason the "victim" is always above question in our society. Its troubling.

 

[michaeledward]

I find the idea that just because you have a disease, you can make a political statement and be insulated from criticism offensive. If your son was killed in Iraq you are now an unassailable expert on foriegn policy and warmaking. Iv drug user and high risk taker? If you get AIDS you are now some sort of "hero". For some reason the "victim" is always above question in our society. Its troubling.

Criticize the political statement then.

I'm listening.

 

[Tez3]

This story made the news on all the main television channels over here too. It was a bit shocking to see Fox that way, we haven't seen him on our screens for a long time. Most of us here don't even pretend to understand how you run the political campaigns so that part of it went over our heads I'm afraid!

 

[HKphooey]

I find the idea that just because you have a disease, you can make a political statement and be insulated from criticism offensive. If your son was killed in Iraq you are now an unassailable expert on foriegn policy and warmaking. Iv drug user and high risk taker? If you get AIDS you are now some sort of "hero". For some reason the "victim" is always above question in our society. Its troubling.

Not sure if I see your point. The fact he has the disease gives his the right to plea to the public and politicians. The same way families of fallen soldiers can.

 

[CoryKS]

I'm in the Kansas City area, so yeah - I've seen the ads.

I don't have a problem with Fox appearing in the ads. He obviously has a stake in the outcome, assuming that stem-cell research ever actually leads to a cure. Nor do I have a problem with the possibility that he went off his meds or otherwise showed the worst-case symptoms of Parkinson's. It's effective, and anybody with a vested interest in finding a cure is going to use the most effective way to generate sympathy.

On the other hand, I hope he can understand that most people are going to have about the same level of concern about Parkinson's that he himself had pre-diagnosis. Yes, it's a terrible disease, but it was a terrible disease before you contracted it, so don't expect we non-sufferers to make it a higher priority just because you now have it.

And I don't have a problem with Limbaugh's comments, either. If Fox wants to enter the political forum, he needs to be able to accept that people will disagree with him. I disagree with Limbaugh (what else is new), but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be able to say it.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Not sure if I see your point. The fact he has the disease gives his the right to plea to the public and politicians. The same way families of fallen soldiers can.

My only point is we as a society seem to have a tendency to think somebody has authority or special knowledge because of their disease, plight, race etc. And anybody who disagrees with a platform they espouse is denounced as a homophobe, racist, "insensitive to the poor victim". Its a convienent way to avoid questioning.

Nice strategy, get a "victim" to espouse your political ideology and whoever has the stones to argue with them is "insensitive". If you are going to use your disease to garner votes you are putting yourself out there for a response and you shouldnt hide behind your victimhood as a defense. If Michael Fox goes out there politically and puts himself into the fray, he has to expect to be taken to account.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Unproven claims of Michael J Fox.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5977

This is all about politics and nothing about science.

 

[michaeledward]

Nice strategy, get a "victim" to espouse your political ideology and whoever has the stones to argue with them is "insensitive". .

Would that be Claire McCaskell's Political Ideology? Or Arlen Specter's Political Ideology?

And people are not arguing with the points he raises. They - and you - are making ad hominem attacks, rather than discussing the merits and possibilities of stem cell research, you are attacking him as a political ideolog.

Also, the transcript in the story you link to, is not the transcript of the advertisement in question. If you are just going to make quotes up, you can prove any point you want.

Go watch the ad ... http://claireonline.com/multimedia/ads/MichaelJFox.jsp ... and come back and make your arguments.

 

[TonyMac]

Rush needs his meds adjusted.

 

[shesulsa]

My only point is we as a society seem to have a tendency to think somebody has authority or special knowledge because of their disease, plight, race etc. And anybody who disagrees with a platform they espouse is denounced as a homophobe, racist, "insensitive to the poor victim". Its a convienent way to avoid questioning.

Nice strategy, get a "victim" to espouse your political ideology and whoever has the stones to argue with them is "insensitive". If you are going to use your disease to garner votes you are putting yourself out there for a response and you shouldnt hide behind your victimhood as a defense. If Michael Fox goes out there politically and puts himself into the fray, he has to expect to be taken to account.

Let me say this about that:

When some people are diagnosed with a disease or disorder that is poorly understood, even by specialists, which cause is unknown and treatment extremely limited, and these people being motivated to continue living with the best quality and trying to be that family that makes the difference for other families dealing with the disease/disorder, some lay persons find things in intensive research and study that many doctors and "experts" ever knew.

Cases in point:

> The Odones and ALD (Lorenzo's Oil was pinpointed and found to be the answer in this degenerative and fatal disease - poo-pooed by the medical establishment, now prescribed as the "cure" for ALD)

> Barnard Rimland, Temple Grandin and Autism Spectrum Disorder (while a cure for this disorder has not been found nor its cause pinpointed, because of these two, mainly, more is understood about Autism within the last decade and more and more children are getting early intervention and are learning how to live with this disorder)

> Juvenile BiPolar Disorder (the Gold Standard was that no one under the age of 12 (around there) could be diagnosed effectively with this brain disorder/mental illness because it was believed basic behavioral problems with children interfered with the diagnosis ... now, because Demitri and Janice Papolos interviewed hundreds of families all over North America and in other parts of the world, hallmark symptoms of this illness as it manifests in childhood are well-documented and agreed upon as the new standard for diagnosis of BPD in juveniles)

There are doubtless many, many, more instances. We find out about illnesses and how they affect lives, families, how effective treaments are, etcetera, by listening to those who have the illness and their families. When research is denied, it is incumbent upon these families to make the future brighter for others to come with the illness/disorder.

Let us all remember ... there but for the grace of the Almighty go we.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Thats all well and good, but nobody should get any more political clout because they have a disease. Or should be unquestionable in their actions or words because of it. I think the conservatives need to start trotting out sick people with conservative opinions and see what transpires.

 

[shesulsa]

Thats all well and good, but nobody should get any more political clout because they have a disease. Or should be unquestionable in their actions or words because of it.

I'm curious why it is you feel that a person with a disease which may or may not be helped through stem cell research pleading the case of him and others like him carries political clout? Will I have this clout if I go in front of congress asking for this research to help find a cure for Alzheimers and cancer (both run in my family)? Wow! I'll have clout!

I think the conservatives need to start trotting out sick people with conservative opinions and see what transpires.

So do I.

 

[elder999]

Thats all well and good, but nobody should get any more political clout because they have a disease. Or should be unquestionable in their actions or words because of it. I think the conservatives need to start trotting out sick people with conservative opinions and see what transpires.

Michael J. Fox doesn't have "more" clout, he has the same as anyone else:
one vote.

Of course, his money and his foundation have clout, an agenda, and the wherewithal to pursue that agenda. In this, they are no different than any other foundation, or corporation for that matter-like, I dunno, Haliburton?

Lastly, of course, the conservatives are completely free to "start trotting out sick people with conservative opinions." Dissent is the essence of the democratic portion of our republic, after all.

 

[michaeledward]

Thats all well and good, but nobody should get any more political clout because they have a disease. Or should be unquestionable in their actions or words because of it. I think the conservatives need to start trotting out sick people with conservative opinions and see what transpires.

You have not questioned Michael J Fox's words or actions. You keep saying that "you can't question him' ... but you haven't question him. You've attacked him, with language like "Its troubling." ... apparently that Mr. Fox used his 1st Amendment rights.

And how about this quote .... "more about Fox trying to get people to vote against Republicans than it is about the disease." ... of course, there is no evidence that these two items are mutually exclusive. And no response about the advertisement for Republican Arlen Spector in the 2004 campaign - which seems to prove your assertion false.

Here is a transcript of the ad.

As you might know, I care deeply about stem cell research.

In Missouri, you can elect for Claire McCaskell, who shares my hope for cures.

Unfortunately, Senator Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research. Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope.

They say all politics is local, but that's not always the case. What you do in Missouri, matters to millions of Americans. Americans like me.

 

[Grenadier]

Let's back the bus up a bit, and clear up some misconceptions.

The administration is not opposed to stem cell research. If anything, there are people getting decent sized grants from the bigger agencies, for adult stem cell research.

The politician in question, Senator Jim Talent, is very supportive for this type of research. He has also endorsed CBE stem cell research. For some reason, certain individuals choose to completely ignore these facts. Michael J. Fox is especially ignorant.

Furthermore, it was the Clinton Administration (and not the Bush Administration) that signed into law, the Dickey Amendment, which essentially made the Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research illegal.

Embryonic stem cell research has several drawbacks. First, and most importantly, is that human embryonic stem cells are very, very fragile, and nobody has been able to grow them reliably, without having them attached to mouse cells. In this state, they're pretty much unusable.

Second, the so-called messiah of the stem cell research world, has been proven to be nothing but a bald-faced liar and a fraud, even leading the South Korean government to press criminal charges against him for falsifying his garbage research data. It's no surprise that everyone who has been listed as a co-author on the various publications (especially "the big three") have been scrambling to get their names withdrawn. He has basically become the laughingstock of the research world.

Does stem cell research have promise? Of course. However, it is NOT the magic bullet that many of the populace believe it to be. We need to view this matter with *informed* minds, and not blindly support such things (as certain endorsers do). Let's not "fall for the hype" of what such cells can, and cannot, do.

This is the same kind of hype that came with the cold fusion fiasco from the previous decades. Imagine how crushed many people felt once those folks in Utah were proven to be incorrect...

 

[michaeledward]

Let's back the bus up a bit, and clear up some misconceptions.

The administration is not opposed to stem cell research. If anything, there are people getting decent sized grants from the bigger agencies, for adult stem cell research.

The politician in question, Senator Jim Talent, is very supportive for this type of research. He has also endorsed CBE stem cell research. For some reason, certain individuals choose to completely ignore these facts. Michael J. Fox is especially ignorant.

Furthermore, it was the Clinton Administration (and not the Bush Administration) that signed into law, the Dickey Amendment, which essentially made the Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research illegal.

Embryonic stem cell research has several drawbacks. First, and most importantly, is that human embryonic stem cells are very, very fragile, and nobody has been able to grow them reliably, without having them attached to mouse cells. In this state, they're pretty much unusable.

Second, the so-called messiah of the stem cell research world, has been proven to be nothing but a bald-faced liar and a fraud, even leading the South Korean government to press criminal charges against him for falsifying his garbage research data. It's no surprise that everyone who has been listed as a co-author on the various publications (especially "the big three") have been scrambling to get their names withdrawn. He has basically become the laughingstock of the research world.

Does stem cell research have promise? Of course. However, it is NOT the magic bullet that many of the populace believe it to be. We need to view this matter with *informed* minds, and not blindly support such things (as certain endorsers do). Let's not "fall for the hype" of what such cells can, and cannot, do.

This is the same kind of hype that came with the cold fusion fiasco from the previous decades. Imagine how crushed many people felt once those folks in Utah were proven to be incorrect...

You misunderstand the scope of the Dickey Amendment.

You misunderstand the way science is performed in the United States.

You muddy the waters by attempting to link stem cell research with cold fusion.

And you make an ad hominem about Michael J Fox.

I hope you have adopted your share of 'snowflake' babies.

 

[Grenadier]

You misunderstand the scope of the Dickey Amendment.

My friend, I strongly suggest you read up on the matter, especially regarding page 7 of this document:

http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/crs/RL31015.pdf

You misunderstand the way science is performed in the United States.

And what are your qualifications, my friend? If you can please point out how things work differently, I would be most appreciative, especially given the difficulties in receiving RO1 grants these days.

You muddy the waters by attempting to link stem cell research with cold fusion.

On the contrary, my friend, it is perfectly valid. You apparently ignored the section where I warn people not to fall for the hype of what such research can, and cannot do, lest they get crushed by what when the full story comes out. Instead, we should walk forward with open eyes, instead of taking blind leaps of faith. I would hope that someone with your personality would appreciate this.

And you make an ad hominem about Michael J Fox.

I hope you have adopted your share of 'snowflake' babies.

You were the one who brought in Michael J. Fox's quote, and opened up this can of worms. Shall I repost your quote of his statement?

Originally Posted by Michael J Fox
As you might know, I care deeply about stem cell research.

In Missouri, you can elect for Claire McCaskell, who shares my hope for cures.

Unfortunately, Senator Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research. Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope.

They say all politics is local, but that's not always the case. What you do in Missouri, matters to millions of Americans. Americans like me.

Nowhere in that quote does it give credit to Senator Talent for his strong support for stem cell research... Instead, his record is distorted for partisan reasons.



I am finished with this thread, as I have fulfilled my purpose of simply pointing out some very important matters that people have overlooked.

Anyways, if you're ever in my neck of the woods, Michael, and wish to have a tour of the research facilities, I'd be more than happy to arrange one. While you're here, I'd also be more than happy to treat you to several rounds of microbrewery beer, if you have the time.