Monday, October 23, 2006
|
|
On That Michael J. Fox Ad
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
11:58 AM
|
|
There’s a new Michael J. Fox ad on stem cell research that supports Claire McCaskill’s campaign. Click over and watch it. It will take you only 30 seconds, and I promise I’ll still be here when you get back.
By way of response, let me first say that I think almost any kind of ad in support of a political campaign is fair game. If a candidate goes too far, the public will punish him or her. So while I find the Michael J. Fox ad crass, tasteless, exploitative and absurd, I fully support Claire McCaskill’s right to shoot herself in the foot.
The most distasteful aspect of the ad is the way it exploits Michael J. Fox’s physical difficulties. Fox is an actor, and clearly knew what he was doing when he signed up for the spot - no victim points for him for having been manipulated by the McCaskill campaign. The ad’s aim is to make us feel so bad about Fox’s condition that logical debate is therefore precluded. You either agree with Fox, or you sadistically endorse his further suffering as Fox accuses Jim Talent of doing.
This is demagoguery analogous to the pernicious and pathetic chickenhawk argument. The whole “chickenhawk” logic is that only people who have served in the military are entitled to have an opinion on military matters. Thus, the ideas of non-veterans don’t warrant a hearing and thus don’t need rebutting.
While Michael J. Fox (like me) has some skin in the stem cell game that most people don’t, that doesn’t give him any special appreciation of the moral issues involved with embryonic stem cell research. Sick people may want cures and treatments more than the healthy population, but that doesn’t make them/us experts on morality.
The ad’s disingenuousness also merits consideration. While Fox mentions “stem cell research,” the word “embryonic” is strangely lacking. Given that the entire debate centers on the ethics and morality of embryonic stem cell research, this omission is noteworthy.
AS FAR AS FOX IS CONCERNED, I feel bad for him. The ad is shot to carefully record the sounds of the spasticity brought on by his condition. It’s gut-wrenching to see the star in such a condition.
But it’s strange that Fox has so eagerly bought the promises of the stem cell research community. If Fox thinks that stem cell research offers him (or me) hope, he’s mistaken. Stem cell research, both embryonic and otherwise, right now represents nothing more than a promising theory. If it bears fruit, and that’s a huge “if”, it will likely do so too late to benefit Fox, me, and our contemporaries. In spite of the silky rhetoric of John Edwards-type politicians, dramatic medical innovations come slowly and take decades to pan out, not months.
Nonetheless, there’s no reason to doubt the sincerity of Fox’s position. He truly does seem to have convinced himself that embryonic stem-cell treatments hold an imminent medical cure for him. Unfortunately, medical science doesn’t work that way. Believe me.
One last note on Michael J. Fox. Unlike Fox, I’ve been a sick person all my life. Like most sick people who try to define their lives by something other than their illness, I’ve always recoiled at pity and even sympathy.
Personally, I find there to be something extremely disquieting about the way Fox has chosen to use his condition to bully voters into feeling bad for him and thus support his political positions. People know when they’re being manipulated. This ad with its heavy-handed emphasis on Fox’s suffering will succeed in making Fox an object of sympathy and pity, but because of its naked crassness, it will not be a political success.
As for Claire McCaskill, who has chosen to conclude her campaign in this manner, she will get no sympathy or pity from these quarters. Only contempt.
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com .
|
|
|
Personally I find Fox's behavior creepy. Doesn't he see that this kind of behavior will only alienate potential Parkinson's disease donors? Does his hate for republicans run so deep that he would sabotage his own cause? It's all very sad. |
|
As always, when you see a discussion of SCR, especially in re funding, and "embryonic" is missing or hard to find, someone is lying.
As an aside, ESCR has indeed produced a noteworthy result: cancer. Not something I want to introduce into myself.
But to the main point, "SCR" is used in place of or in stead of "ESCR" to hide the Fact that there is no "ban on SCR" by the Bush administration, a lie the Liberals would dearly love for all to accept as truth.
But the truth is that not only did Bush NOT ban Stem Cell Research, NOT ban Embryonic Stem Cell Research, and NOT ban any kind of Stem Cell Research, he in Fact INTRODUCED Federal Funding (which Clinton had vetoed) for ESCR for the first time, as in EVER.
The underlying point here? Again, the Lefties aren't really opposed to the increase in funding for ESCR, they are just mad that it was not a Democrat who took the initiative.
As to Michael Fox, he should be ashamed of himself. So should his party and the liar who he's backing.
I pray the cloning initiative fails. |
|
it makes them very upset
GAZE |
|
Black Prince of Peace writes:There's not enough space in on this entire site to debunk that myth.
-----------------------------------------------
5 posts later and still not one shred of evidence to debunk the claimed myth, you really suck at this. Even worse you one pathetic attempt to prove the value of ESCR was attributed to Adult stem Cell Research.
As for "word of mouth" spreading of information, those are called a RUMORS. |
|
Black Prince of Peace writes: Tuesday, October, 24, 2006 4:19 PM
You're getting warmer, Hockey Goon.
Right! Right. Right. Adult stem cells have been used to achieve all the things you cite.
-------------------------------------------
Well, at least you only made half an azz of yourself with that post.
Once again you still can't cite a single benefit acheived through ESCR. Even your immune system study that showed promise is the result of ADULT STEM CELL RESEARCH.
I tell you what, I'll keep the benefits to the autoimmune system, the treatment to avert corneal degeneration, the restored proper cardiac function and the improvement spinal cord injuries and you can have the cancer that ESCR developed.
|
|
Black Prince of Peace writes: Did you know that red blood cells and the different white blood cells in the immune system also start out as undifferentiated cells inside our bone marrow? Nope, didn't think so. The pathways by which they, with the aid of genetically incoded instructions, is pretty well understood. ---------------------------------------------------
Just wondering - were you aware that it is adult stem cells that achieve this process? Even in lower life forms such as yourself bone marrow generates red and white blood cells; this is not a process that only takes place with embryonic stem cells. That is unless of course you are communicating from a pail of aborted fetus parts.
|
|
Black Prince of Peace writes: Ha! This is getting more amusing as time transpires.
---------------------------------------------
Agreed, it is funny that you still can't name a single benefit derived from ESCR. How about to link to an actual study to back up you pathetic argument? Kind of hard to find aren't they.
Many of the benefits you claim we might someday achieve (after spending many millions or billions of dollars) through ESCR are already being achieved with ASCR.
1. With adult stem cells, physicians have successfully treated autoimmune diseases such as lupus, multiple sclerosis, Crohn's disease, and rheumatoid arthritis.
2. Adult stem cells have helped to avert corneal degeneration and to restore vision in cases of blindness.
3. Adult stem cells have also restored proper cardiac function to heart attack sufferers.
4. Adult stem cells have improved movement in spinal cord injury patients
1. Traynor AE et al., "Treatment of severe systemic lupus erythematosus with high-dose chemotherapy and haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation: a phase I study," Lancet 356 August 26, 2000) 701-707.
Wulffraat NM et al., "Prolonged remission without treatment after autologous stem cell transplantation for refractory childhood systemic lupus erythematosus," Arthritis and Rheumatism 44 (March 2001) 728-731.
Rabusin M et al., "Immunoablation followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell infusion for the treatment of severe autoimmune disease," Haematologica 85 (November 2000; 11 Suppl) 81-85.
Sherman, Debra, "Adult Stem Cells Hold Hope for Autoimmune Patients," Reuters, August 11, 2001.
Burt RK et al., "High-dose immune suppression and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in refractory Crohn disease," Blood 101 (March 2003) 2064-2066.
Fagan, Amy, "Adult stem cells produce treatment breakthroughs," Washington Times, December 29, 2003. Accessed at: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031228-114541-5034r.htm
Burt RK et al., "Induction of remission of severe and refractory rheumatoid arthritis by allogeneic mixed chimerism," Arthritis and Rheumatism 50 (August 2004) 2466-2470.
2. Schwab IR et al., "Successful transplantation of bioengineered tissue replacements in patients with ocular surface disease," Cornea 19 (July 2000) 421-426.
Tsai RJ et al., "Reconstruction of damaged corneas by transplantation of autologous limbal epithelial cells," New England Journal of Medicine 343 (2000) 86-93.
3. "Cell infusions boost heart function, revive damaged heart muscle," American Heart Association Journal Report, October 14, 2003. Accessed at: http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3015985
Britten, MB et al., "Infarct Remodeling After Intracoronary Progenitor Cell Treatment in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction," Circulation 108 (2003) 2212-2218.
4. Zwillich, Todd, "Paralysis Patients Tout Adult Stem Cells: Portuguese Surgery Soon to Seek FDA Approval in U.S.," WebMD Medical News, June 24, 2004. Accessed at: http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/89/100250.htm
Testimony of Ms. Laura Dominguez, delivered at a hearing held by the United States Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space on July 14, 2004. Accessed at: http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1268andwit_id=3673
Testimony of Ms. Susan Fajt delivered at a hearing held by the United States Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space on July 14, 2004. Accessed at: http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1268andwit_id=3674
Testimony of Dr. Jean Peduzzi-Nelson delivered at a hearing held by the United States Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space on July 14, 2004. Accessed at: http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1268andwit_id=3671
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04J01
|
|
Black Prince of Peace writes: There's not enough space in on this entire site to debunk that myth.
-------------------------------------------
And yet with the mass of information that you calim is available not link, just another lefty whine with no substance. If you bothered to look up ESCR you find under developments – nothing. About the only thing that embryonic stem cells have produced in the lab are more virulent forms of cancer.
Meanwhile the people that are actually doing the research have this to say:
“Many scientists who do not support human embryo research are afraid to speak out because of possible reprisals from powerful scientists who can affect grant success, publication acceptances, tenure promotion, and employment,” said Dr. James Sherley, an associate professor of biological engineering at MIT, in an exclusive interview with the web magazine, MercatorNet.
“The most profound drawback, which has not been adequately disclosed . . . that [embryonic cells] cannot be used directly to treat mature tissues and organs.”
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05121209.html
|
|
It's especially disgusting to read someone chiding a person who is trying to take a rotten situation and salvage something positive.
Shame on you. |
|
ultralib writes: I find it facinating that all you true "scientists" out there know more about the promise of stem cells (adult, embryonic or otherwise) than the majority of the actual "scientific" community. What I've been reading and hearing from them is in concert with what Fox says - that it gives hope - and no more promises than that.
---------------------------------------------
If you did some research or even read the posts and links you would find that most of these opinions are based on the findings of the "scientific" community. If having the federal government spend lots of money without any reasonable expectation of return gave people hope, Americans would be "full of it". |
|
MikeR writes: r2_d2
This is the very thing I’ve chided others about. If you have a point to make, then make it. The bile and name calling just ruins your endeavors
-------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with r2d2. Without the bile and name calling the silence would be deafening. |
|
I find it facinating that all you true "scientists" out there know more about the promise of stem cells (adult, embryonic or otherwise) than the majority of the actual "scientific" community. What I've been reading and hearing from them is in concert with what Fox says - that it gives hope - and no more promises than that. A very powerful thing for (most of) those who are suffering from disease and their loved ones.
I'm surprised the flap isn't over something far more legitimate - the line where Fox says "... americans. like me." Isn't he from Burnaby, Vancouver? Was he naturalized at some point? If so, my bad.
-ul |
|
|
This is the very thing I’ve chided others about. If you have a point to make, then make it. The bile and name calling just ruins your endeavors. |
|
Some of the posters don't seem to know much about Parkinson's, not surprising given the substitution of vitriol for intelligent discourse.
So, to the poster above questioning whether Fox went off his medication (and to Rush, who also shows a certain lack of understanding regarding all medications legally obtained): Parkinsons medication is what causes the "spasticity." Without it he would be virtually immobile.
But there I go, bothering about facts again. Silly me. |
|
Isn't it funny how the Righties
use the infirm and children, and anyone else that may tug the heart strings to promote their scary anti-science ideas.
BUT just let someone they can’t use become REALLY infirm and they are couldn’t care less for their demise.
Take Terry Schaivo, for example. The fact that Christians capitalized on her life has been mischaracterized by the nasty righties in the press, and by the "Turnbacktimers" who want to be able to do something about the looming "Faith Problem" when we all become less superstitious and dependant on religion.
The fact that we were demonstrating COMPASSION was lost on the Right who are determined to view us as meanies.
I am wondering why I shouldn’t feel sorry for Michael J. Fox when I do for Terry Schiavo? Who had the more difficult circumstance?
I really like Fox and wish him well, so why shouldn’t we advocate cannibalizing disposed tissues for another benefit?
|
|
I just read today that when some rats were injected with embryonic stem cells from days old embryos the rats(being treated for Parkinson's) seemed to experience some new brain cell growth which seemed promising in terms of curing the Parkinson's. However, the stem cells continued growing and mutating leading the researchers to worry that the new cells were likely tumor producing.
Of course, we won't know for sure since said researchers killed the rats before the outcome-- tumor or no-- could be known. |
|
toady writes: How many "extra" embryos have been discarded in the US? Are they fully human?
---------------------------------------------------
Think of it, how many "extra" old people are allowed to die in their beds after living through prolonged illnesses that destroyed their organs that otherwise could have gone to people that really needed them? I mean really, just how productive was grandma going to be the last two years she was alive?
|
|
The Interface writes: ....including Parkinson's disease, have shown promising progress in animal models or clinical trials with adult stem cell treatment reported in peer-reviewed journals. Zero, none, nada, have been successfully addressed in any way, shape, or form, by embryonic (note correct spelling) stem cells.
-------------------------------------------------
My son suffers from intractable epilepsy, there are days that his seizures are nonstop and prevent him from walking and talking or even eating, then there days that he appears to be a normal 5 year old. Last summer we spoke at length with a neurosurgeon during a stay at the neurology center at the Cleveland Clinic. We were discussing what we could do now (in terms of surgery) or what we could wait for in hopes that technology would catch up with his condition. The doctor spoke at length about new procedures that MIGHT become available with the perfection of stem cell technologies. He advised us to wait before taking any drastic steps that had been previously suggested at other hospitals. When I asked about the possibility ESCR might have to offer he simply laughed. His personal opinion was that it would only result in more virile forms of cancer and that the researchers involved were desperate for grants because they were not good enough to be on the "A" teams that were working on ASCR. |
|
Douglas mocks me by saying:
kinda like 'killing jews in gas chambers is far more immoral than Dr. Mengele researching on them'
"kinda like" ??
Is it??
How many "extra" embryos have been discarded in the US? Are they fully human? How many Jews were killed in Germany?
There is no moral equivalence here. Nazi Germany was an evil regime. There is no moral equivalence between the United States in the 21st century and Nazi Germany in the 20th.
I think you know that Douglas. |
|
that there is no ban on Stem Cell research. Just a ban on federal funding.
Libs seem to ignore this. And why don't we hear more from private researchers? It is my understanding most researchers don't believe it's financialy viable (the research would go nowhere). This tells me that "government funding" is simply a feel-good ploy - a sweet placibo thrown to the non-thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
I appreciate you highlighting this important issue. I have done a lot of research and adult stem cell research offers a lot more hope than embryonic. I am very opposed to this amendment to my constitution and am working hard to counter the misleading things that are being said about it. Although I am a fan of Michael J. Fox I was extremely disappointed in him for doing this ad and attempting to mislead people on this issue. As for McCaskill as you point out she is free to do this but I think it will backfire. |
|
Aren't you repugs constantly saying history will judge our fearless leader?
The fruits of an illegal war can wait for future generations to decide, but stem cell research is for today only?
Pathetic.. |
|
If you feel so stronly (sic) about a particular issue, start a charity!
Q: The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research is dedicated to ensuring the development of a cure for Parkinson's disease within this decade through an aggressively funded research agenda.
More than $80 million funded since November 2000 directly or through partnerships.
http://www.michaeljfox.org/
|
|
"Discarding or freezing embryos is far more immoral than medical research to preserve the lives of the living." - Toady
Kinda like 'killing jews in gas chambers is far more immoral than Dr. Mengele researching on them'
(and yes, despite the horror of it all, he may have found out scientifically important information, but we rightly cannot touch the fruits of that research because it is so immoral in it's collection.) |
|
|
I have a solution. We take the wife of everyone who voted agaomst the research and implant them with one of the 400,000 frozen embryos. That way, they won't be discarded and thereby "aborted" and there won't be any embryos left to do research on. Problem solved. |
|
|
|
"Hi, I'm John McCain and I know what terrorism is like first hand. Terrorists don't care about Geneva Conventions and neither should we! (*background -- terrorist screaming allah*) This is what they're about! (*sound/shot of sword slicing off head inserted here*) This November 7th vote to keep your head on straight; Vote Republican!"
I mean, since we don't seem to care who/what we exploit, why not take advantage of the opportunity. |
|
Why don't we just show an abortion on television in a commercial and remind people how abhorent that is, I mean, as long as we're trying to manipulate the vote through emotional hijacking propaganda?
|
|
There is no ban on Stem Cell research. Just a ban on federal funding.
There are enough billionaires out there to fund programs without government funding. |
|
Dean,
You find the ommission of "embryonic" from "stem cell research" noteworthy?
That's ALWAYS been the Dems strategy. They NEVER use the word "embryonic." The intention -- as you know -- is to paint Republicans in general and social conservatives in particular as barbarians. Actually, they don't single out social conservatives at all, even though these are the primary opponents of embryonic research. Many Republicans and conservatives do not oppose embryonic stem cell research.
The Democrat dishonesty on this is appalling. |
|
Why should the government fund this research or any other research? (And using the General Welfare clause is not an acceptable response unless you come from the Al Gore classroom of Constitution teachings!) If there is so much promise in this type of medicine, then private investors will surely put up the money to forward this research.
Regardless of the research - medical, energy, whatever - it is not the federal governments responsibility to fund these projects.
If you feel so stronly about a particular issue, start a charity! |
|
72 disease states, including Parkinson's disease, have shown promising progress in animal models or clinical trials with adult stem cell treatment reported in peer-reviewed journals. Zero, none, nada, have been successfully addressed in any way, shape, or form, by embryonic (note correct spelling) stem cells. I delineate some of the technical hurdles faced by embryonic stem cells over at:
http://theinterface.townhall.com/g/2443b83f-ea75-41ca-b7f3-4522edc5e4b8
That's not even getting into the ethical issues. If results are what you want, embryonic stem cells are NOT the way to go. |
|
This whole arguement about government financing of empbyonic stem cell research is nothing but a political hustle.
There is no prohibition of DOING embryonic stem cell research, only against the federal government paying for it. If the research was that promising there would be plenty of private money thrown at it. This is just another attempt by the medical industry to get federal money (Yes, your money.) for an unpromising line of research.
Adult stem cell research has actually produced working cures for a number of diseases and conditions. Embryonic stem cell research shows no such immediate promise.
A question for you Michael J. Fox. How much have you contributed for this research that you say is so important to you? Put your money where your mouth is. Or do you really understand that it's money down the drain and would rather see taxpayer money going there rather than your own. |
|
In general I'm against goverment funding of future research - it sounds heartless, but I just don't have faith in the goverment's ability to deliver results. And it also seems to be swayed by the most effective lobyists, so some diseases will be over funded and others underfunded, whereas left on its own, the market is more likeley to figure out a balance between:
1. number of people impacted
2. signifigance of impact
3. therapies versus cures versus prevention
4. cost to next major improvement
|
|
It's not me being inconsistent. However, it is toady being irrational. I do not presume responsibility for what Dean Barnett has to say about them.
No uses of embryonic stem cells have led to any improvements/cures/changes in any situations. Zip. Nada.
Adult stem cell therapies, however, have shown promise, and have brought about improvements.
Indeed, in order for me to be consistent, I have to state that abortion, in vitro fertilization, and the harvesting of embryonic stem cells--even if they were the exact thing needed to effect a cure for Michael J. Fox, Dean Barnett, and my Alzheimer-inflicted father or my Parkinsonian self--all of the above are most base denials of the most basic human right.
It is not an advancement of anything, to propose the use of one stage of human life for the benefit of another. Life includes suffering, and life includes death. To sanction the death of one for the life of another is more than a slippery slope; it's going over the edge.
|
|
|
I seem to remember Mr. Fox testifying before Congress about embryonic stem cell research a few years ago. He intentionally stayed off his medication so as to display the "spasticity brought on by his condition". |
|
will lead to another imbalance in the "market" for scarce research funds, regardless of the moral issues. In California, the voters authorized a $3 billion bond issue (yes, billion with a "B") for stem cell research, that will ultimately cost $6 billion to repay. Why? No greater reason than the bumper-sticker mentality of "Impeach Bush" and "Mean People Suck".
Witness the massive spending on AIDS research over the past 25 years. Yes, its a terrible disease, but so is cancer, cystic fibrosis, Parkinson's and many others that have been comparatively neglected as a result. |
|
organshoes writes:
Embryonic stem cells, in spite of the clamor after them, have demonstrated absolutely no promise.
organshoes writes:
Dean Barnett, you have spoken eloquent truth once again.
But Dean Barnett writes:
Stem cell research, both embryonic and otherwise, right now represents nothing more than a promising theory.
Barnett says the theory is promising, but organshoes (and others) say it has absolutely no promise....
sharkman says:
Embryonic stem cell research is just an attempt to sanctify abortion.
I remind sharkman that there are 400,000 or more embryos currently in storage. They came from in vitro fertilization procedures. Many more have simply been discarded.
There is no relationship between stem cell research and abortion, there is no need for one. Discarding or freezing embryos is far more immoral than medical research to preserve the lives of the living.
|
|
Adult stems cells--and adult cells only (not to be confused with adults-only cells)--show promise or have been/are used to effect. Embryonic stem cells, in spite of the clamor after them, have demonstrated absolutely no promise. And that is *not* due to any lack of funding or to lack of legal options.
The Fox/McCaskill ad also conveniently omits the most inconvenient word: cloning. It's another part of the Missouri initiative; a major lie within the amendment.
The whole campaign for embryonic stem cell research, as demonstrated in Missouri, is based on absolute lies; not just 'misrepresentations'.
Dean Barnett, you have spoken eloquent truth once again. |
|
|
Or, why don't we spend the available research money on lines of research that are showing promise, like adult stem cell, umbilical cord blood cells, etc. and keep our respect for the sanctity of life, rather than worshiping at the alter of fetus killing that is embryonic stem cell research, which hasn't shown any promise whatsoever? Embryonic stem cell research is just an attempt to sanctify abortion. There are other ways to find cures than sacrificing the innocent. |
|
|
For me, this is a two part issue. The moral issue of using embrionic stem cells for research and the funding aspect -- government or private. Take out the government funding aspect and let those who are so passionate about it pay their own way. If it was so promising the marketplace would be investing in embrionic stem cell research rather then adult stem cells. |
|
Outside of questioning Michael and Claire’s character and knowledge, Barnett’s only argument is that stem cell research won’t provide cures soon enough to help Michael. That is true.
The fruits of the research will not be available soon enough to help Michael and may not be available soon enough to help me twenty or thirty years from now. But just maybe 40 or 50 years for now, medical science may progress far enough to help my daughter when she gets old.
I don’t know about you guys, but that would be good enough for me. The sooner we start, the sooner we succeed.
|
|
|
|
I've always been curious as to how a relatively young person as Mr. Fox came down with Parkinson's Disease at such an early age. Has he ever said that it might have been due to recreational drug use since one of the known side effects of MDA/Ecstacy is Parkinson's Disease?
http://www.ecstasy.ws/e-side-effects.htm
Since Mr. Fox has put his disease up as a campaign issue, is there a reporter who is covering the McCaskill/Talent race who will ask him about the cause of his disease? |
|
|
I guess it's O.k. for Talent to run a commercial now of a beat-up and brusied senior citizen who was abused by lack of Misouri state over-sight under McCaskill? He won't because he has to much class unlike McCaskill. Our current and future Senator from Missouri, Jim Talent (R). |
|
|
|