Redstate

Nobody's outraged that Rush has a different opinion than Fox on stem cell research. Millions of people have a different opinion. They're mad because Rush claimed that Fox was faking his symptoms.

You are just repeating media spin here.

Who said we can't can't criticize Fox's stance on stem cell research because he has Parkinson's?

Have you no compassion? He's a sick man asking for help. If you don't want to help, well that's on your conscious. But to call him a liar like Rush? That's low. You probably haven't heard anything from him because HE HAS PARKINSON'S DISEASE, and it's not exactly easy to go out in public when you can't control your motor functions very well.

One day someone you love will have a disease that may be cured by stem cell research. I hope you'll join the rest of us at that point and not disown them for daring to get sick.

1. Rush never called him a liar.
2. Fox, himself, wrote that he did NOT TAKE HIS MEDICINE in 1999 when he testified before Congress in order to display the ravages of the disease.
3. He put himself in the POLITICAL arena, not the science and medical arena. He can be challenged by those he opposes, POLITICALLY.
4. We are only talking about EMBRYONIC stem cells. There is zero evidence, at this point, that prove they provide medical benefits.

Facts are such a stubborn thing. I'm sure you will not like them.

From the highly controversial site www.webmd.com.

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/129/117268.htm

Michael Smith, MD wrote(and this was peer reviewed by Louise Chang, MD on Oct 25, 2006) that, "The symptoms he displayed on the commercial are common Parkinson's disease symptoms."

and

"In the past we've witnessed his tremor that's so characteristic of Parkinson's. And his uncontrolled body movements that appeared during the commercial are also typical of Parkinson's -- and also possibly a side effect of one of his medications."

and

"Unfortunately, medications often may not work that well, especially as the disease progresses. That's why researchers are working furiously to find new and improved treatments for Parkinson's."

So the medication he is on might not be working very well and not have a great affect on him anyway.

1. The entire arguement that he is off his meds or acting is false.
2. The symptoms are typical for someone with Parkinson's disease.

My suggestion going forward.

1. Do some simple research and get the facts
2. Link to the claims you make. Don't just say, "Well Fox said this in 1999". If he said it, research it and link to it.
3. Take Rush with a HUGE grain of salt and do the actual research. I don't trust anyone not Rush, Al Franken, Sam Seder, etc.... unless I check the sources.

but I don't buy it. I was primary care giver to an alzheimers victim for 6 years and for his wife who had a host of physical problems which led to her death.

Did you actually hear what Rush said? I did. He speculated about whether Mr. Fox was acting or off of his medication. Mr. Fox has admitted in his own book and on TV that he has purposely not taken his medication when speaking before congress for effect. Was Rush wrong to speculate that Mr. Fox might do something that he has already admitted to doing in the past? Oh and Mr. Fox has been out the past couple of days doing interviews. I just heard one of the clips from yesterday where he said that the symtoms that he had in the commercial was do to the fact that he over-medicated himself.

I am sorry for Mr. Fox and his family because I know what they are going through. But that does not give Mr. Fox license to go out and mislead the public. Things he said in the add were absolutely false. For one, he said that Jim Talent is trying to criminalize the scientific research that gives him hope. Baloney. The stem cell research he refers to is legal now and Mr. Talent has put forth nothing to make it illegal. In addition, he conflates all stem cell research. Mr. Talent is all for expanding the research into adult stem cell research as well as others that do not destroy life. So am I. But that is not the impression given by Mr. Fox. This was a political hit piece that was full of lies about Mr. Talent and his position, and it is a shame that you don't see anything wrong with that.

You're right. How dare he show you some of the effects of his disease. I'm sure his life is awesome! He's only campaigning for stem cell research because he hates frozen cells so much (which will be destroyed anyway - thus banning stem cell research does not save life at all).

People need to understand that withholding stem cell research is allowing people to die who might not have to. Get over the fact that its a democratic agenda idea and think of how many people we can help together.

all of those prisoners on death row and doing life without parole have a lot of blood, corneas, skin, bone marrow, kidneys, livers, lungs, hearts, hair plugs, etc going to waste. I think we should just take what we need, they're going to die in prison anyway.

Get over the fact that they are people and think about how many people we can help.

"People need to understand that withholding stem cell research is allowing people to die who might not have to."

Please, please tell me that you really don't believe that the Republicans are for "withholding stem cell research". It's not that we don't have sympathy for Fox, it's just that what he is saying is not true.

This is about the goverment giving the OK to destroy embryos, then funding it by having billions of dollars poured into research which has not produced anything.

Do your research, think, THEN type.

What's happening here, speedzila, is what we in this biz call a fundamental disconnect. To wit: you are no longer talking to people who share certain core assumptions. Because I'm all warm and fuzzy from banning various trolls off the site this morning, I'll even tell you what they are:

1). The assumption that of course embyronic stem cells are a proven method for saving lives;

2). Of course the GOP/Right/Conservatives want to criminalize all stem cell research;

and

3). Of course people who are fighting for the right to use embryonic stem cells are operating under the most pure of motives and tactics.

So, you might want to try actually taking those assumptions - and the fact that people are disputing them - into consideration when you discuss this issue. Just a suggestion.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

You are creating straw men. I in no way said that he should not show the effects of the disease, and I never even got close to saying his life is awesome. I was talking about the content of the add and that it is not true. He ATTACKED Jim Talent and his position. It was a POLITICAL commercial. He may have the most miserable life in the world, but it does not give him license to mislead the public with impunity.

No one is withholding stem cell research. There is a limit on federal funding for ebryonic stem cell research, but there is private and state funding for such research and it is legal all over the country. Take a look. The following is from Mary L. Davenport, MD, an obstetrician and gynecologist, and a Fellow of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

"The plain fact is that embryonic stem cell research is proving to be a bust. There are currently 72 therapies showing human benefits using adult stem cells and zero using embryonic stem cells. Scientifically-minded readers can review this medical journal article on the status of adult stem cell research. Adult stem cell therapies are already being advertised and promoted while no such treatments are even remotely in prospect for embryonic stem cell research."

"The fact is that adult stem cells have already produced remarkable cures, whereas embryonic stem cells have failed. This should come as no great surprise to anyone with a background in high school biology. When an embryo is created by the union of the sperm and egg, the cells begin to divide, creating embryonic stem cells from which all future tissues and organs are derived. Within days, the embryonic cells differentiate into three cell layers - ectoderm, mesoderm and endoderm. Cells in these layers continue to differentiate into tissues and organs. As the embryo matures into a fetus, child, and adult, some undifferentiated cells of the three types remain in various tissues such as bone marrow, fat, skin and olfactory tissue.

These adult stem cells are multipotent: they have the ability to turn into a variety of types of tissues. Successful stem cell therapies cause the DNA in the adult stem cells to further differentiate into more specific types of cells. There is no point in getting the adult stem cell to turn into a less differentiated type of cell, or using the more primitive embryonic stem cells. This would be going backward, in the opposite direction of providing a clinically useful therapy. Difficulties abound with proposed embryonic stem cell therapies. The growth of the more primitive embryonic stem cells is more difficult to control and leads to tumor formation. Recent research suggests brain tumors may result. Additionally, the use of embryonic tissue foreign to the patient can potentially lead to problems with immune rejection of tissue, a problem not encountered in using a patient's own adult stem cells."

"America is the most formidable medical research center in the world, but it is far from alone in pursuing the potential of adult stem cells. The worldwide effort is impressive and growing. For non-adult stem cell research, a morally unquestionable alternative source exists: stem cells drawn from umbilical cord blood. Already a bank exists in Dubai collecting cord blood stem cells."

"In short, the claims made in the Michael J. Fox political ads are false and reprehensible, an insult to the voters of Maryland, Missouri and New Jersey, and to all Americans."

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Just in the interests of informed discussion, a few points from the piece you cite are wrong or misleading.

First, adult stem cell therapies have indeed produced cures for humans, and embryonic stem cells have not. But this is partly because adult stem cell therapies have been in use since the 60s, while embryonic stem cells were isolated for the first time in 1998. Since then, while research has on them has not been forbidden, it has been greatly constrained by the federal funding restrictions. It's not just that people can't get federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells that don't use the Presidentially approved lines; it's that someone who does want to do research on other lines has to meet a whole bunch of requirements designed to prevent anyone from in any way, even inadvertent, using anything bought with federal funds for such research. In practice, this comes close to requiring that people set up entirely separate labs for such research it they're getting federal funding for anything else.

Second, embryonic stem cells are not failing. Scientists would not start by testing out their hunches in humans; they'd begin first by studying the lines and their properties, then move to animal tests, and only then try things out in humans. Since it has only been 8 years since embryonic stem cells were isolated and cultured, and only 5 since any federal funding became available, it would be surprising if any therapies had been tested in humans yet. What you'd expect, if things were moving right along, would be therapies that were working in animals. And in fact that's exactly what you find. Paralysis in rats' hind legs has been reversed, for instance.

Third, this is wrong: "There is no point in getting the adult stem cell to turn into a less differentiated type of cell, or using the more primitive embryonic stem cells. This would be going backward, in the opposite direction of providing a clinically useful therapy." It might be true on the assumption that there is an adult stem cell for every type of cell in the body (and probably also: that every such type is recoverable from a living human being, by ethical means. There are neural stem cells, for instance, but to get them you'd haave to go rooting around in people's brains.)

In fact, however, there are a lot of types of cells in a developed human body for which adult stem cells do not (as far as we know) exist. In such a case, it's of course nuts to say: why not use the adult stem cells, rather than taking an embryonic stem cell and trying to get it to differentiate to the point an adult stem cell starts out at? Since there are no such adult stem cells.

There are also a bunch of other differences between adult and embryonic stem cells that make adult stem cells better for some purposes and embryonic stem cells better for others, but I won't bore you with that. Suffice it to say that I don't think this analysis is that impressive.

I don't think that any of this should matter to an opponent of embryonic stem cell research. If it's wrong, it's wrong, and you don't have to also attack the idea that it might be useful. Lots of useful things are wrong, and we just don't do them. If this is one, so be it; but it seems to me best to make this argument directly, rather than relying on dubious claims about the state of the science.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/10/the_unconscionable_cla...

Fox did an interview in which he was asked about this. I don't think you want me to link to Crooks and Liars here, but you can find his reply there; I also linked to it on ObWi.

Fox was very magnanimous, I thought.

I doubt a link to C&L could be worse...

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Make sure to give a warning at the very least...
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

...who wants to effectively forbid rich people to pass along their inheritances to their heirs.

Riiiiiiiiight, Moby.

Blam.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

[Coming back from the dead like this. Bad zombie! Bad! No braaaaaaainnnnns! - Moe Lane]

Too bad complexity scares ya.

I think you're missing the point. Fox's comercial is meant simply to say "hey, there are a lot of us sick people out here who could be helped by stem cell research. Maybe you don't know any of us, but chances are someday you will."

That's all he's saying. A lot of people talk about fetuses, but it's time we looked at both sides of the issue. Are a couple of cells that will be thrown out anyway worth protecting more than saving people's lives?

That is not all he is saying. This was not a PSA, it was a POLITICAL commercial paid for by a candidate. He wasn't just pointing out his disease and bringing attention to it; he was ATTACKING Jim Talent and misleading people about Jim Talent's position. He accused Jim Talent of wanting to criminalize the scientific research needed to cure his disease. What he is talking about is ebryonic stem cell research and no Mr. Talent is not seeking in any way to criminalize it. There are other forms of stem cell research that Mr. Talent has no problem expanding and funding, which has shown much more promise. Embryonic stem cell research has shown NO proof that has a medical benefit yet whereas adult stem cell research has. Mr. Fox shows no distinction and that is misleading. It is also mean to make people think that this will provide a cure when there is nothing showing that to be the case.

Embryonic stem cell has proven to have enormous potential, but there's only limited funding and cell lines to work with - thus the search for cures is rather slow.

We can save people's lives, maybe even people you know, if we'd allow real research to go on. California's already gotten a start with billions in state aid. It's going to happen one way or another - the question is, why delay while people die? Open up new stem cell lines, increase funding - lets save lives rather than argue about rhetoric.

1. Where has embryonic stem cell been *proven* to have enormous potential?

2. If it has been *proven* wouldn't private funding be skyrocketing to capitalize on all of this potential? The free market is proactive. It doesn't wait for government funding. Unlike government funding, the free market also frowns on throwing dollars down a black hole.

3. If you truly believe that embryonic stem cells are a slam-dunk success, you should invest every dollar you have in one of the many private companies that are doing research right now. The market rewards a sure thing, just as it punishes blue sky fantasy.

--
"I will guarantee you that John Kerry will be president of the United States." - Nancy Pelosi

Provide links or go troll somewhere else...

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

He’s an adult in his forties, of sound mind, and presumably he knew what he was saying and doing. If the ad was deceptive or misleading as opposed to just being blatantly manipulative it’s as much on him for doing it as it is on whoever commissioned him to do the ad.

...I'm surprised MJF wasn't wearing an Oriole cap and eating a crab cake when he taped the Cardin spot.

"I will guarantee you that John Kerry will be president of the United States." - Nancy Pelosi

I watched the ad a couple of times last night and IIRC the first time he pronounced it “Missour-ee” and the second time he pronounced it “Missour-ah.”

People in St. Louis and Kansas City tend to use the "eee" and elsewhere the "ah." That goes to show how contrived the whole commercial was.

Love the term.