http://youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo
A lot of courage for him to put his affliction out there. What a cruel disease
A lot of courage for him to put his affliction out there. What a cruel disease
Wow Michael J. Fox's parkinsons is getting worse
- Thread starter jlarlee
- Start date
D
Dick Tracy
Guest
[quote name='jlarlee']http://youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo
A lot of courage for him to put his affliction out there. What a cruel disease[/QUOTE]
I don't believe he took his medication when he did that spot (like he did when he spoke before Congress), but, even so, Parkinson's doesn't get any better...
I enjoy this comment, by the way:
Not too condescending. If he lives better, why hasn't his country found the cure..?
A lot of courage for him to put his affliction out there. What a cruel disease[/QUOTE]
I don't believe he took his medication when he did that spot (like he did when he spoke before Congress), but, even so, Parkinson's doesn't get any better...
I enjoy this comment, by the way:
Not too condescending. If he lives better, why hasn't his country found the cure..?
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
He kinda had a Stevie Wonder vibe going on there. :lol:
Drocket
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Brak']I don't believe he took his medication when he did that spot (like he did when he spoke before Congress), but, even so, Parkinson's doesn't get any better...[/QUOTE]
From what I've read from some doctors who have commented on the video, its pretty clear that he did take his medicine: at the point in the disease that he's at, he'd be unable to control his actions enough to even to be able to speak coherently without strong medications.
Actually, the massive shakes are really more a side-effect of the medication than the actual disease. Without the medication, the sufferer essentially becomes paralyzed (other than random uncontrolled shakes.)
From what I've read from some doctors who have commented on the video, its pretty clear that he did take his medicine: at the point in the disease that he's at, he'd be unable to control his actions enough to even to be able to speak coherently without strong medications.
Actually, the massive shakes are really more a side-effect of the medication than the actual disease. Without the medication, the sufferer essentially becomes paralyzed (other than random uncontrolled shakes.)
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/...on-or-he-was-acting-he-is-an-actor-after-all/
The link has audio. Evidently, the tics Fox has is a direct result of taking your meds, so Limbaugh couldn't be more wrong. I must, then, apologize, for even suggesting that Limbaugh knew his drugs. I was clearly wrong. It's just the opiates, I guess.
D
Dick Tracy
Guest
[quote name='Drocket']From what I've read from some doctors who have commented on the video, its pretty clear that he did take his medicine: at the point in the disease that he's at, he'd be unable to control his actions enough to even to be able to speak coherently without strong medications.
Actually, the massive shakes are really more a side-effect of the medication than the actual disease. Without the medication, the sufferer essentially becomes paralyzed (other than random uncontrolled shakes.)[/QUOTE]
Well, I wasn't for sure.
I do recall, when he was in front of Congress (when he for sure didn't take his medication), his tremors were actually not as bad as they are in this spot, or just as bad. If he didn't take his medication for this spot, it's gotten far worse, it seems.
Too bad stem cell research is a sin, for whatever ignorant-ass reason.
Actually, the massive shakes are really more a side-effect of the medication than the actual disease. Without the medication, the sufferer essentially becomes paralyzed (other than random uncontrolled shakes.)[/QUOTE]
Well, I wasn't for sure.
I do recall, when he was in front of Congress (when he for sure didn't take his medication), his tremors were actually not as bad as they are in this spot, or just as bad. If he didn't take his medication for this spot, it's gotten far worse, it seems.
Too bad stem cell research is a sin, for whatever ignorant-ass reason.
[quote name='Brak']I don't believe he took his medication when he did that spot (like he did when he spoke before Congress), but, even so, Parkinson's doesn't get any better...
I enjoy this comment, by the way:
Not too condescending. If he lives better, why hasn't his country found the cure..?[/QUOTE]
you do realize that you're going to get Parkinson's now....
right?
I enjoy this comment, by the way:
Not too condescending. If he lives better, why hasn't his country found the cure..?[/QUOTE]
you do realize that you're going to get Parkinson's now....
right?
Cheese
CAGiversary!
[quote name='schuerm26']You do realize that ad is a crock of s**t because amendment 2 in missouri is a cloning amendent and has nothing to do with curing diseases through stem cell research.[/QUOTE]
Wrong.
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp
Cloning is part of it, as is stem cell research.
Wrong.
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp
Cloning is part of it, as is stem cell research.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='schuerm26']You do realize that ad is a crock of s**t because amendment 2 in missouri is a cloning amendent and has nothing to do with curing diseases through stem cell research.[/QUOTE]
Well, cheese did all the legwork showing that your post was completely 100% WRONG.
With that in mind, what I'd like to know is this: who told you that the bill had nothing to do with stem calls?
Well, cheese did all the legwork showing that your post was completely 100% WRONG.
With that in mind, what I'd like to know is this: who told you that the bill had nothing to do with stem calls?
To clone or not to clone? That’s the question.
But it's not the question Missourians will be asked in November when they vote on Amendment 2. The question they will see in the voting booth is different from the actual language of the Constitutional Amendment.
When you see Amendment 2 at your polling place, you will be asked to decide whether to "ban human cloning or attempted cloning." Sounds good so far, right? Who's in favor of human cloning anyway?
But the 2,100-word Constitutional Amendment—which you won't see on election day—actually creates legal protection for human cloning. Hard to believe? It's true. Amendment 2 only outlaws reproductive cloning, which no one in Missouri (or anywhere else on earth) is doing.
Meanwhile, it protects anyone who wants to clone human beings for science experiments. Amendment 2 glosses over the issue of lab-created human life with complicated phrases like "Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer." But cloning is cloning, and
Amendment 2 would put this ethically questionable practice beyond the reach of state law.
Amendment 2 is "2 tricky." And the human-cloning "bait and switch" is just the beginning.
"If Amendment 2 were really about banning human cloning, it would be just a few sentences long.
If its backers only wanted to ensure that Missourians had equal access to stem-cell research, Amendment 2 wouldn't be necessary at all. Missourians already have the same access to medical breakthroughs as Americans in the other 49 states. And there's nothing stopping Missouri-based researchers from carrying out stem-cell research that's permitted under federal law."
Don't tell me who is wrong.
http://www.2tricky.org/index.htm
But it's not the question Missourians will be asked in November when they vote on Amendment 2. The question they will see in the voting booth is different from the actual language of the Constitutional Amendment.
When you see Amendment 2 at your polling place, you will be asked to decide whether to "ban human cloning or attempted cloning." Sounds good so far, right? Who's in favor of human cloning anyway?
But the 2,100-word Constitutional Amendment—which you won't see on election day—actually creates legal protection for human cloning. Hard to believe? It's true. Amendment 2 only outlaws reproductive cloning, which no one in Missouri (or anywhere else on earth) is doing.
Meanwhile, it protects anyone who wants to clone human beings for science experiments. Amendment 2 glosses over the issue of lab-created human life with complicated phrases like "Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer." But cloning is cloning, and
Amendment 2 would put this ethically questionable practice beyond the reach of state law.
Amendment 2 is "2 tricky." And the human-cloning "bait and switch" is just the beginning.
"If Amendment 2 were really about banning human cloning, it would be just a few sentences long.
If its backers only wanted to ensure that Missourians had equal access to stem-cell research, Amendment 2 wouldn't be necessary at all. Missourians already have the same access to medical breakthroughs as Americans in the other 49 states. And there's nothing stopping Missouri-based researchers from carrying out stem-cell research that's permitted under federal law."
Don't tell me who is wrong.
http://www.2tricky.org/index.htm
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='schuerm26']To clone or not to clone? That’s the question.
But it's not the question Missourians will be asked in November when they vote on Amendment 2. The question they will see in the voting booth is different from the actual language of the Constitutional Amendment.
When you see Amendment 2 at your polling place, you will be asked to decide whether to "ban human cloning or attempted cloning." Sounds good so far, right? Who's in favor of human cloning anyway?
But the 2,100-word Constitutional Amendment—which you won't see on election day—actually creates legal protection for human cloning. Hard to believe? It's true. Amendment 2 only outlaws reproductive cloning, which no one in Missouri (or anywhere else on earth) is doing.
Meanwhile, it protects anyone who wants to clone human beings for science experiments. Amendment 2 glosses over the issue of lab-created human life with complicated phrases like "Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer." But cloning is cloning, and
Amendment 2 would put this ethically questionable practice beyond the reach of state law.
Amendment 2 is "2 tricky." And the human-cloning "bait and switch" is just the beginning.
Don't tell me who is wrong.
http://www.2tricky.org/index.htm[/QUOTE]
I'll paypal you a whole dollar the day you can cite a source that isn't some hackneyed partisan bit of bullshit.
Nevertheless, if you aren't wrong, then you would have never said the following:
[quote name='schuerm26']You do realize that ad is a crock of s**t because amendment 2 in missouri is a cloning amendent and has nothing to do with curing diseases through stem cell research.[/QUOTE]
With that in mind, the wording of the issue, as it appears on the ballot, is always an abridged version of what's actually being voted on. So, you lil' nancy-boy organization can prance and piss all it wants about the full text of the legislation not being included on the ballot, and it won't make a lick of difference. It's ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE WITH DAMN NEAR EVERYTHING VOTED ON EVER. Cheese actually provided you with a link to the very language of the legislation being voted on, while you fell back on someone doing the work of interpreting it for you.
You know what I say? Tough shit if you think a ballot is unfair. It should serve as a lesson to you to find out what it is you're voting for.
But it's not the question Missourians will be asked in November when they vote on Amendment 2. The question they will see in the voting booth is different from the actual language of the Constitutional Amendment.
When you see Amendment 2 at your polling place, you will be asked to decide whether to "ban human cloning or attempted cloning." Sounds good so far, right? Who's in favor of human cloning anyway?
But the 2,100-word Constitutional Amendment—which you won't see on election day—actually creates legal protection for human cloning. Hard to believe? It's true. Amendment 2 only outlaws reproductive cloning, which no one in Missouri (or anywhere else on earth) is doing.
Meanwhile, it protects anyone who wants to clone human beings for science experiments. Amendment 2 glosses over the issue of lab-created human life with complicated phrases like "Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer." But cloning is cloning, and
Amendment 2 would put this ethically questionable practice beyond the reach of state law.
Amendment 2 is "2 tricky." And the human-cloning "bait and switch" is just the beginning.
Don't tell me who is wrong.
http://www.2tricky.org/index.htm[/QUOTE]
I'll paypal you a whole dollar the day you can cite a source that isn't some hackneyed partisan bit of bullshit.
Nevertheless, if you aren't wrong, then you would have never said the following:
[quote name='schuerm26']You do realize that ad is a crock of s**t because amendment 2 in missouri is a cloning amendent and has nothing to do with curing diseases through stem cell research.[/QUOTE]
With that in mind, the wording of the issue, as it appears on the ballot, is always an abridged version of what's actually being voted on. So, you lil' nancy-boy organization can prance and piss all it wants about the full text of the legislation not being included on the ballot, and it won't make a lick of difference. It's ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE WITH DAMN NEAR EVERYTHING VOTED ON EVER. Cheese actually provided you with a link to the very language of the legislation being voted on, while you fell back on someone doing the work of interpreting it for you.
You know what I say? Tough shit if you think a ballot is unfair. It should serve as a lesson to you to find out what it is you're voting for.
It is exactly as i stated. Amendment 2 is about cloning, not stem cell research. I didn't say the wording on the ballot is unfair. I merely wanted to point out to you that you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to Amendment 2 in Missouri.
Cheese
CAGiversary!
As partisan as the article may be, it's correct about one thing, the ban is only for reproductive cloning. Leaving out research or medical cloning which looking to the future would be foolish. For example: You drink a bottle of scotch every day for 20 years and your liver fails. One would hope in the future doctors could take a sample of your liver and clone you a new one while you're on a machine. A few months later you can get off dialysis, get your new liver and head back to the bar!
or
You're against using natural stem cells even though they end up in the garbage anyways (but, whatever, Jesus and all). But clones aren't technically human, so we could clone the cells (not even the whole blastocyst) and use them for research.
So true, it doesn't ban those examples, because they are the next 100 years of medicine. But it is by no means a 'cloning amendent and has nothing to do with curing diseases through stem cell research.'
or
You're against using natural stem cells even though they end up in the garbage anyways (but, whatever, Jesus and all). But clones aren't technically human, so we could clone the cells (not even the whole blastocyst) and use them for research.
So true, it doesn't ban those examples, because they are the next 100 years of medicine. But it is by no means a 'cloning amendent and has nothing to do with curing diseases through stem cell research.'
Cheese
CAGiversary!
[quote name='schuerm26']It is exactly as i stated. Amendment 2 is about cloning, not stem cell research. I didn't say the wording on the ballot is unfair. I merely wanted to point out to you that you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to Amendment 2 in Missouri.[/QUOTE]
Please go read the amendment, it's only 2 pages long, it mentions the word 'Clone' four times in two sentences, and 'Stem Cells' nearly every sentence. Amendment 2 is clearly about stem cell research with a side of cloning. To say the opposite is disingenuous.
Please go read the amendment, it's only 2 pages long, it mentions the word 'Clone' four times in two sentences, and 'Stem Cells' nearly every sentence. Amendment 2 is clearly about stem cell research with a side of cloning. To say the opposite is disingenuous.
If its backers only wanted to ensure that Missourians had equal access to stem-cell research, Amendment 2 wouldn't be necessary at all. Missourians already have the same access to medical breakthroughs as Americans in the other 49 states. And there's nothing stopping Missouri-based researchers from carrying out stem-cell research that's permitted under federal law.
Saucy Jack
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
That's a pretty painful video to watch. It's not as painful as the video of him before Congress when he purposely skipped his medication, though. That was heartbreaking. 
If he is on medication in this video, I'm sad to see that he's gotten worse. The interviews he's done in the past few years, it seemed like he was doing OK... with just an occasioinal arm or leg twitch.
Such a shame to see that his condition is worsening.
If he is on medication in this video, I'm sad to see that he's gotten worse. The interviews he's done in the past few years, it seemed like he was doing OK... with just an occasioinal arm or leg twitch.
Such a shame to see that his condition is worsening.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Cheese']Or, y'know, don't. Whatever.[/QUOTE]
I try not to do that often in the vs forums, but you triggered that response. Good form.
I think the Caviezel and Suppan ad should involve them leading a chant in the middle of a crowd. Something catchy, like "this is what healthy people who don't have to worry about medical technology advancing until we've changed our minds due to being diagnosed with a terminal illness, but that'll be long after this commercial airs, looks like!"
Or, howzabout "WE'RE HERE! WE'RE NOT CONCERNED WITH YOUR PROBLEMS! GET USED TO IT!"
Something to put on a t-shirt, or a license plate frame, y'know.
I try not to do that often in the vs forums, but you triggered that response. Good form.I think the Caviezel and Suppan ad should involve them leading a chant in the middle of a crowd. Something catchy, like "this is what healthy people who don't have to worry about medical technology advancing until we've changed our minds due to being diagnosed with a terminal illness, but that'll be long after this commercial airs, looks like!"
Or, howzabout "WE'RE HERE! WE'RE NOT CONCERNED WITH YOUR PROBLEMS! GET USED TO IT!"
Something to put on a t-shirt, or a license plate frame, y'know.
VanillaGorilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 18 (100%)
I'm no expert like everyone else in this thread claims to be, but my grandfather has had Parkinsons for more than 10 years, and he NEVER shakes that badly. I am sure the disease has variants of severity, but I find it hard to believe he is like that all the time. With the type of medication out there today, my grandfather is actually pretty steady, so either his case is a lot less severe than Michael J Fox's, or MJF is showing his "worst case scenario" in order to get sympathy for his cause, although I highly doubt that is the case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nguJQ_dRPXw
Response ad to Michael J Fox ad (for Missouri). Kurt Warner and Jeff Suppan in the same ad? Nice job Repubs, nice job.
Vermin, I know it might come as a shock to you but you might not have any clue what is going on in Missouri, you know, considering you don't live there and here about this stuff constantly.
Speaking of, here is something that the Michael J Fox foundation actually threw money towards. Gene Therapy. http://newsbureau.upmc.com/Magee/FoxGrant.htm
Response ad to Michael J Fox ad (for Missouri). Kurt Warner and Jeff Suppan in the same ad? Nice job Repubs, nice job.
Vermin, I know it might come as a shock to you but you might not have any clue what is going on in Missouri, you know, considering you don't live there and here about this stuff constantly.
Speaking of, here is something that the Michael J Fox foundation actually threw money towards. Gene Therapy. http://newsbureau.upmc.com/Magee/FoxGrant.htm
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Pilfered from the YouTube comment page. Wish that I could claim it as my own.
You are so correct since Michael J Fox is a leading authority on political issues. True he might have Parkinson's, that doesn't mean he has any clue about what Missouri Amendment 2 is.
Anyways, the sports stars didn't come up with the message, they are just there to influence. You can't find better people in missouri than Kurt Warner and Jeff Suppan to influence. Use your brain Vermin.
Anyways, the sports stars didn't come up with the message, they are just there to influence. You can't find better people in missouri than Kurt Warner and Jeff Suppan to influence. Use your brain Vermin.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='schuerm26']You can't find better people in missouri than Kurt Warner and Jeff Suppan to influence. Use your brain Vermin.[/QUOTE]
Is that code for "when you can't compete on the issues, break out the celebrities who influence the direction of the idiot vote"?
EDIT: You STILL haven't read the bill, have you schuer? You can try to tell me I don't understand Missouri politics until you're blue in the face, but...(DANGER! READING AHEAD!)
So, first, they play sleight of hand in that response ad when they talk about "cloning." Does it permit cloning? Not explicitly; it does, however, SPECIFICALLY BAN HUMAN CLONING (SEE POINT #1 ABOVE). This is, without a doubt, the "cloning" that those in the ad were attempting to insinuate; theirs was an attempt to generate an emotional response based on widespread disapproval of human cloning. They simply can't make a case for the bill, so they have to WILLFULLY DECEIVE voters into voting against something that's not even up for a vote (banning human cloning).
Second, the Everybody Loves Raymond wife claimed that clinics will "seduce low income women" by paying them for eggs (and how goddamned condescending and obnoxious is that, to suggest that poor people are so stupid as to do anything for a check!). HOWEVER, section 38(d) point 4 (quoted above, but I'll quote it again because I'm afraid you're willfully trying to avoid reading the goddamned law; as a consequence, if I saturate my posts with what the bill really says, you may accidentally read the bill and find out what it prohibits and allows) says: "(4) No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures." The language there is plainly clear, and contradictory to the claim Mrs. Raymond made in that wonderful and laudatory response ad they made.
Then, again, they try to counter ethics with the cost of the bill. Can't say I know much about the cost here or there, but the bill itself (since I managed to read the
ing thing, unlike someone whose name rhymes with "schuerm26") doesn't mention anything about funding appropriation; as a conseuqence, cost may or may not be a moot point. However, if one considers that the people who made this as couldn't even get the facts of what the bill explicitly says right, they probably took full creative liberty with the financial end of it ("Let's say it costs eleventy-jillion dollars!").
Lastly, an ad hominem: anyone know what Jebus said at the beginning of the ad? I don't speak dipshit.
Is that code for "when you can't compete on the issues, break out the celebrities who influence the direction of the idiot vote"?
EDIT: You STILL haven't read the bill, have you schuer? You can try to tell me I don't understand Missouri politics until you're blue in the face, but...(DANGER! READING AHEAD!)
So, first, they play sleight of hand in that response ad when they talk about "cloning." Does it permit cloning? Not explicitly; it does, however, SPECIFICALLY BAN HUMAN CLONING (SEE POINT #1 ABOVE). This is, without a doubt, the "cloning" that those in the ad were attempting to insinuate; theirs was an attempt to generate an emotional response based on widespread disapproval of human cloning. They simply can't make a case for the bill, so they have to WILLFULLY DECEIVE voters into voting against something that's not even up for a vote (banning human cloning).
Second, the Everybody Loves Raymond wife claimed that clinics will "seduce low income women" by paying them for eggs (and how goddamned condescending and obnoxious is that, to suggest that poor people are so stupid as to do anything for a check!). HOWEVER, section 38(d) point 4 (quoted above, but I'll quote it again because I'm afraid you're willfully trying to avoid reading the goddamned law; as a consequence, if I saturate my posts with what the bill really says, you may accidentally read the bill and find out what it prohibits and allows) says: "(4) No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures." The language there is plainly clear, and contradictory to the claim Mrs. Raymond made in that wonderful and laudatory response ad they made.
Then, again, they try to counter ethics with the cost of the bill. Can't say I know much about the cost here or there, but the bill itself (since I managed to read the
ing thing, unlike someone whose name rhymes with "schuerm26") doesn't mention anything about funding appropriation; as a conseuqence, cost may or may not be a moot point. However, if one considers that the people who made this as couldn't even get the facts of what the bill explicitly says right, they probably took full creative liberty with the financial end of it ("Let's say it costs eleventy-jillion dollars!").Lastly, an ad hominem: anyone know what Jebus said at the beginning of the ad? I don't speak dipshit.
D
Dick Tracy
Guest
[quote name='PKRipp3r']you do realize that you're going to get Parkinson's now....
right?[/QUOTE]
No. Why?
right?[/QUOTE]
No. Why?
Issues? You didn't even mention the issue Vermin, all you posted was about the people delivering the message. I posted a site that explains what Missouri Amendment 2 is. Don't talk about issues with me because you are totally clueless to what Missouri Amendment 2 really is.
What do you think Michael J Fox was (also Christopher Reeve in 04)? The big bad republicans don't want to cure parkinson's disease or cancer or, (insert disease here). They would rather let them suffer. Give me a break Vermin. The dems are politicizing these diseases in the worst possible way. Making it sound that this stem cell stuff will have them cured in no time when that is completely untrue. They are praying on these peoples desperation.
What do you think Michael J Fox was (also Christopher Reeve in 04)? The big bad republicans don't want to cure parkinson's disease or cancer or, (insert disease here). They would rather let them suffer. Give me a break Vermin. The dems are politicizing these diseases in the worst possible way. Making it sound that this stem cell stuff will have them cured in no time when that is completely untrue. They are praying on these peoples desperation.
Cheese
CAGiversary!
I like Jim Caviezel speaking aramaic to remind everyone, HE'S JESUS!
Kurt Warner's thing about california is absurd. "we won't have results for a while, so let's not even do the research. it." Awesome.
And the "low income women" (code for blacks) will give up their morals and be seduced by da white mans money, because we all know blacks can't be trusted.
25 have died, 6,000 complaints about complications on a procedure that's performed 1,000 times a day for over a decade.
Kurt Warner's thing about california is absurd. "we won't have results for a while, so let's not even do the research.
it." Awesome.And the "low income women" (code for blacks) will give up their morals and be seduced by da white mans money, because we all know blacks can't be trusted.
25 have died, 6,000 complaints about complications on a procedure that's performed 1,000 times a day for over a decade.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='schuerm26']Issues? You didn't even mention the issue Vermin, all you posted was about the people delivering the message. I posted a site that explains what Missouri Amendment 2 is. Don't talk about issues with me because you are totally clueless to what Missouri Amendment 2 really is.
What do you think Michael J Fox was (also Christopher Reeve in 04)? The big bad republicans don't want to cure parkinson's disease or cancer or, (insert disease here). They would rather let them suffer. Give me a break Vermin. The dems are politicizing these diseases in the worst possible way. Making it sound that this stem cell stuff will have them cured in no time when that is completely untrue. They are praying on these peoples desperation.[/QUOTE]
What the hell do I have to do to get you to shut youring mouth until you've read the actual law? You keep making these silly claims, changing the conversation, and ignoring argumentative deathblows dealt to your perspective. How do you deal with knowing that you have gone out of your way to avoid learning something/reading something/finding out the fact of the matter so that you can, in your own mind, feel that you have the "right" point of view?
Do I have to get an online petition signed by 500 people so that I can get you to going inform yourself about what this law says?
What do you think Michael J Fox was (also Christopher Reeve in 04)? The big bad republicans don't want to cure parkinson's disease or cancer or, (insert disease here). They would rather let them suffer. Give me a break Vermin. The dems are politicizing these diseases in the worst possible way. Making it sound that this stem cell stuff will have them cured in no time when that is completely untrue. They are praying on these peoples desperation.[/QUOTE]
What the hell do I have to do to get you to shut your
ing mouth until you've read the actual law? You keep making these silly claims, changing the conversation, and ignoring argumentative deathblows dealt to your perspective. How do you deal with knowing that you have gone out of your way to avoid learning something/reading something/finding out the fact of the matter so that you can, in your own mind, feel that you have the "right" point of view?Do I have to get an online petition signed by 500 people so that I can get you to go
ing inform yourself about what this law says?
I just wanted to clarify a few misconceptions that people seem to have in this thread about Parkinson's disease (this happens to be my chosen area of specialty so it's a topic I'm very interested in). Parkinson's disease is a progressive disorder that leads to slowness of movement (called "bradykinesia") due to lack of a neurotransmitter called "dopamine" in the brain. The medication that virtually all people are on replaces the dopamine and typically patients for the first 5-10 years of their illness can do very well. However a common complication of the medication is that patients get the uncontrollable movements that MJF has (called "dyskinesia"); think of it as if the medication was working "too well" and leading to excessive movement rather than too little movement. Also young onset Parkinson's like MJF (the average of most Parkinson patients are 60 years old or more) is more suspectible to this complication. If MJF was off this medication, he would be slow and stiff as a statue and wouldn't be able to communicate meaningfully. Incidentally, the chairman of the neurology department I trained at is MJF's neurologist.
Also that's why my name is "dopa"
Also that's why my name is "dopa"
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Thanks for the info, dopa; one of the liberal blogs discussed the matter with a neurologist (concluding that Limbaugh's snide remarks showed a staggering lack of understanding of Parkinson's), but I took that with a grain of salt. Glad you could clarify and confirm some things.
Ikohn4ever
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
god I cant wait till the election is over, I am sick of all these slimeball ads, its gettin nuts here in PA Santorum vs Casey
Stem cell research is the next major breakthrough of medicine with virtually limitness potential so I've never understood why this is a controversial issue. You can get stem cells from umbilical cord blood; if we established a program (like an organ donation type deal) where women could donate the placenta on delivery or the umbilical cord blood, there would be no problem. There is no relation at all with cloning or using embryos.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='dopa345']Stem cell research is the next major breakthrough of medicine with virtually limitness potential so I've never understood why this is a controversial issue. You can get stem cells from umbilical cord blood; if we established a program (like an organ donation type deal) where women could donate the placenta on delivery or the umbilical cord blood, there would be no problem. There is no relation at all with cloning or using embryos.[/QUOTE]
The public dialogue has people (like myself) believing that only a certain number of stem cell "lines" (whatever that means) are available via cord blood; the remainder can be taken from blastocysts, but the process destroys them (thus the controversy). The short version is that cord blood is insufficient with regard to research.
Of course, from my understanding, frozen blastocysts are destroyed after a period of time regardless (which makes taking stem cells from them a moot point as it should concern those pro-life types). But, what the hell do I know? My mother is a physician, and claimed that it should be a moot point since all "lines" are available for research without the need for using blastocysts at all; I don't believe her, however, because (1) that would mean the whole discourse over stem cell research is based on widespread idiocy and misinformation - well, perhaps that isn't too hard to swallow - that has led to a greivous misunderstanding of the issue, and that a quick and fast answer is available, and (2) she's beholden to her GOP - she makes schuem look moderate (though, I contend, she actually reads and thinks).
offtopic, but do you know anything about a pharmaceutical called BiDil?
The public dialogue has people (like myself) believing that only a certain number of stem cell "lines" (whatever that means) are available via cord blood; the remainder can be taken from blastocysts, but the process destroys them (thus the controversy). The short version is that cord blood is insufficient with regard to research.
Of course, from my understanding, frozen blastocysts are destroyed after a period of time regardless (which makes taking stem cells from them a moot point as it should concern those pro-life types). But, what the hell do I know? My mother is a physician, and claimed that it should be a moot point since all "lines" are available for research without the need for using blastocysts at all; I don't believe her, however, because (1) that would mean the whole discourse over stem cell research is based on widespread idiocy and misinformation - well, perhaps that isn't too hard to swallow - that has led to a greivous misunderstanding of the issue, and that a quick and fast answer is available, and (2) she's beholden to her GOP - she makes schuem look moderate (though, I contend, she actually reads and thinks).
offtopic, but do you know anything about a pharmaceutical called BiDil?
I feel really sorry for Michael J Fox. I didn't know his parkinsons was that bad. I was hoping that he would make another guest spot on Scurbs this year but I guess that's not going to happen.
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']god I cant wait till the election is over, I am sick of all these slimeball ads, its gettin nuts here in PA Santorum vs Casey[/quote]
Same here I'm getting so sick of Braley vs Whalen and Culver vs Nussle here in Iowa. I don't think I'm going to vote for any of them.
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']god I cant wait till the election is over, I am sick of all these slimeball ads, its gettin nuts here in PA Santorum vs Casey[/quote]
Same here I'm getting so sick of Braley vs Whalen and Culver vs Nussle here in Iowa. I don't think I'm going to vote for any of them.
[quote name='mykevermin']The public dialogue has people (like myself) believing that only a certain number of stem cell "lines" (whatever that means) are available via cord blood; the remainder can be taken from blastocysts, but the process destroys them (thus the controversy). The short version is that cord blood is insufficient with regard to research.
Of course, from my understanding, frozen blastocysts are destroyed after a period of time regardless (which makes taking stem cells from them a moot point as it should concern those pro-life types). But, what the hell do I know? My mother is a physician, and claimed that it should be a moot point since all "lines" are available for research without the need for using blastocysts at all; I don't believe her, however, because (1) that would mean the whole discourse over stem cell research is based on widespread idiocy and misinformation - well, perhaps that isn't too hard to swallow - that has led to a greivous misunderstanding of the issue, and that a quick and fast answer is available, and (2) she's beholden to her GOP - she makes schuem look moderate (though, I contend, she actually reads and thinks).
offtopic, but do you know anything about a pharmaceutical called BiDil?[/QUOTE]
There are different types of stem cells. Perhaps part of the problem is that people may not have a full understanding of what exactly they are referring to when they throw around the term stem cells. I think the controversy surrounds use of stem cells derived directly from the first few cells of a developing embryo. Obviously, as these cells have the most potential since they can literally become any cell in the human body since all subsequent cells are derived from these very few cells. In theory, you could simply grab one of those cells and use it to create any type of body tissue you would want (identical twins after all are simply an early division of single fertilized embryo leading to an exact genetic match). Of course this smacks of "cloning" and "abortion" and "harming the fetus" etc... so it's a hot topic. However, there are subsequent types of stem cells which could be derived from umbilical cord blood which could be just as useful for our purposes which wouldn't require taking zygote cells such as pluripotent stem cells harvested from umbilical cord blood or the placenta which shouldn't be as controversial.
All I know about Bidil is that it's a combination drug combining two blood pressure medicines (isosrbide nitrate and hydralazine) which supposedly may be a better alternative for blacks (typically blacks with hypertension are more difficult to treat).
Of course, from my understanding, frozen blastocysts are destroyed after a period of time regardless (which makes taking stem cells from them a moot point as it should concern those pro-life types). But, what the hell do I know? My mother is a physician, and claimed that it should be a moot point since all "lines" are available for research without the need for using blastocysts at all; I don't believe her, however, because (1) that would mean the whole discourse over stem cell research is based on widespread idiocy and misinformation - well, perhaps that isn't too hard to swallow - that has led to a greivous misunderstanding of the issue, and that a quick and fast answer is available, and (2) she's beholden to her GOP - she makes schuem look moderate (though, I contend, she actually reads and thinks).
offtopic, but do you know anything about a pharmaceutical called BiDil?[/QUOTE]
There are different types of stem cells. Perhaps part of the problem is that people may not have a full understanding of what exactly they are referring to when they throw around the term stem cells. I think the controversy surrounds use of stem cells derived directly from the first few cells of a developing embryo. Obviously, as these cells have the most potential since they can literally become any cell in the human body since all subsequent cells are derived from these very few cells. In theory, you could simply grab one of those cells and use it to create any type of body tissue you would want (identical twins after all are simply an early division of single fertilized embryo leading to an exact genetic match). Of course this smacks of "cloning" and "abortion" and "harming the fetus" etc... so it's a hot topic. However, there are subsequent types of stem cells which could be derived from umbilical cord blood which could be just as useful for our purposes which wouldn't require taking zygote cells such as pluripotent stem cells harvested from umbilical cord blood or the placenta which shouldn't be as controversial.
All I know about Bidil is that it's a combination drug combining two blood pressure medicines (isosrbide nitrate and hydralazine) which supposedly may be a better alternative for blacks (typically blacks with hypertension are more difficult to treat).
CocheseUGA
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
Shuerm, you are obviously way over your head on the issue. I want you to explain why stem cells are so evil. And why are Kurt Warner (the man who probably threw interceptions while bagging groceries), Jeff Suppan (who could or could not be a decent pitcher) and Mike Sweeney reasons for me to vote for the Republican canidate? Myke is absolutely correct, it's a hallmark of canidates (on both sides) who are desperate: throw out some famous people who happen to think the same way you do on one issue and have them appear in a (very poorly produced) ad.
Dopa is absolutely correct on the issue, you'd be a fool to even respond to him. I stopped listening to Limbaugh awhile back, but that's absolutely ridiculous. He can rot in hell as far as I'm concerned now. I urge everyone to support stem cell research. We all know or love someone who could benefit from it, and this bullshit about 'destroying babies' is just that.
If we could have afforded our twins' cord blood be stored, we would have done it. Also, isn't there companies banking the front four teeth to try and get certain lines of stem cells?
Dopa is absolutely correct on the issue, you'd be a fool to even respond to him. I stopped listening to Limbaugh awhile back, but that's absolutely ridiculous. He can rot in hell as far as I'm concerned now. I urge everyone to support stem cell research. We all know or love someone who could benefit from it, and this bullshit about 'destroying babies' is just that.
If we could have afforded our twins' cord blood be stored, we would have done it. Also, isn't there companies banking the front four teeth to try and get certain lines of stem cells?
Friend of Sonic
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 185 (100%)
That video was heartbreaking.
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Shuerm, you are obviously way over your head on the issue. I want you to explain why stem cells are so evil. And why are Kurt Warner (the man who probably threw interceptions while bagging groceries), Jeff Suppan (who could or could not be a decent pitcher) and Mike Sweeney reasons for me to vote for the Republican canidate? Myke is absolutely correct, it's a hallmark of canidates (on both sides) who are desperate: throw out some famous people who happen to think the same way you do on one issue and have them appear in a (very poorly produced) ad.
Dopa is absolutely correct on the issue, you'd be a fool to even respond to him. I stopped listening to Limbaugh awhile back, but that's absolutely ridiculous. He can rot in hell as far as I'm concerned now. I urge everyone to support stem cell research. We all know or love someone who could benefit from it, and this bullshit about 'destroying babies' is just that.
If we could have afforded our twins' cord blood be stored, we would have done it. Also, isn't there companies banking the front four teeth to try and get certain lines of stem cells?[/quote]
Im over my head? I am the one who lives in St. Louis and actually knows what this amendment is about.
"This confrontation on what is in the ballot proposition is enough to confuse voters. Amendment 2 bans only cloning that involves planting an embryo within the womb. It specifically prohibits government from interfering with somatic cell nuclear transfer, which involves replacing the nucleus of a human egg outside the womb -- the cloning procedure used to produce Dolly the sheep.
Unequivocally, the proposal tries to keep politicians from interfering with its approved cloning process: "[N]o state or local government body or official shall eliminate, reduce, deny or withhold any public funds provided or eligible to be provided to a person that lawfully conducts stem cell research or provides stem cell therapies and cures."
This language, contends the YouTube video, "provides biotech firms a blank check for taxpayer dollars to support unethical and unproven research that Missourians oppose." If government-approved cloning can be sold to the barometer pro-life state of Missouri, it will show up next in other states with major research facilities."
That is what this is about. You guys clearly have no clue what you are talking about. It's about cloning, pure and simple.
http://www.bdfund.org/trickylawyers.asp
1. Deceptive. Section 2 says it bans cloning. The trick is in Section 6 which gives biotech firms the constitutional right to conduct “somatic cell nuclear transfer,” the scientific definition for cloning; the same method used to clone Dolly the sheep:
2. Daughters. Section 2 says human eggs may not be bought or sold. The trick is in Section 6(17) which gives biotech firms the right to pay our cash-strapped daughters thousands of dollars to harvest their eggs, which will be needed in the millions for the kind of unethical experimentation this amendment would allow:
3. Dollars. Amendment 2 gives biotech special interests a blank check to do human cloning at taxpayer expense, but this isn’t mentioned in the 100-word ballot summary:
As stated, this amdendment ISN'T about stem cell research. The people voting no AREN'T against stem cell research. It is about cloning. Clearly YOU guys are the ones who don't know what you are talking about when it comes to Amendment 2 in Missouri.
Dopa is absolutely correct on the issue, you'd be a fool to even respond to him. I stopped listening to Limbaugh awhile back, but that's absolutely ridiculous. He can rot in hell as far as I'm concerned now. I urge everyone to support stem cell research. We all know or love someone who could benefit from it, and this bullshit about 'destroying babies' is just that.
If we could have afforded our twins' cord blood be stored, we would have done it. Also, isn't there companies banking the front four teeth to try and get certain lines of stem cells?[/quote]
Im over my head? I am the one who lives in St. Louis and actually knows what this amendment is about.
"This confrontation on what is in the ballot proposition is enough to confuse voters. Amendment 2 bans only cloning that involves planting an embryo within the womb. It specifically prohibits government from interfering with somatic cell nuclear transfer, which involves replacing the nucleus of a human egg outside the womb -- the cloning procedure used to produce Dolly the sheep.
Unequivocally, the proposal tries to keep politicians from interfering with its approved cloning process: "[N]o state or local government body or official shall eliminate, reduce, deny or withhold any public funds provided or eligible to be provided to a person that lawfully conducts stem cell research or provides stem cell therapies and cures."
This language, contends the YouTube video, "provides biotech firms a blank check for taxpayer dollars to support unethical and unproven research that Missourians oppose." If government-approved cloning can be sold to the barometer pro-life state of Missouri, it will show up next in other states with major research facilities."
That is what this is about. You guys clearly have no clue what you are talking about. It's about cloning, pure and simple.
http://www.bdfund.org/trickylawyers.asp
1. Deceptive. Section 2 says it bans cloning. The trick is in Section 6 which gives biotech firms the constitutional right to conduct “somatic cell nuclear transfer,” the scientific definition for cloning; the same method used to clone Dolly the sheep:
2. Daughters. Section 2 says human eggs may not be bought or sold. The trick is in Section 6(17) which gives biotech firms the right to pay our cash-strapped daughters thousands of dollars to harvest their eggs, which will be needed in the millions for the kind of unethical experimentation this amendment would allow:
3. Dollars. Amendment 2 gives biotech special interests a blank check to do human cloning at taxpayer expense, but this isn’t mentioned in the 100-word ballot summary:
As stated, this amdendment ISN'T about stem cell research. The people voting no AREN'T against stem cell research. It is about cloning. Clearly YOU guys are the ones who don't know what you are talking about when it comes to Amendment 2 in Missouri.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
*sigh*
You still haven't read the text of the amendment, have you?
You still haven't read the text of the amendment, have you?
[quote name='schuerm26']Im over my head? I am the one who lives in St. Louis and actually knows what this amendment is about.
"This confrontation on what is in the ballot proposition is enough to confuse voters. Amendment 2 bans only cloning that involves planting an embryo within the womb. It specifically prohibits government from interfering with somatic cell nuclear transfer, which involves replacing the nucleus of a human egg outside the womb -- the cloning procedure used to produce Dolly the sheep.
Unequivocally, the proposal tries to keep politicians from interfering with its approved cloning process: "[N]o state or local government body or official shall eliminate, reduce, deny or withhold any public funds provided or eligible to be provided to a person that lawfully conducts stem cell research or provides stem cell therapies and cures."
This language, contends the YouTube video, "provides biotech firms a blank check for taxpayer dollars to support unethical and unproven research that Missourians oppose." If government-approved cloning can be sold to the barometer pro-life state of Missouri, it will show up next in other states with major research facilities."
That is what this is about. You guys clearly have no clue what you are talking about. It's about cloning, pure and simple.
http://www.bdfund.org/trickylawyers.asp
1. Deceptive. Section 2 says it bans cloning. The trick is in Section 6 which gives biotech firms the constitutional right to conduct “somatic cell nuclear transfer,” the scientific definition for cloning; the same method used to clone Dolly the sheep:
2. Daughters. Section 2 says human eggs may not be bought or sold. The trick is in Section 6(17) which gives biotech firms the right to pay our cash-strapped daughters thousands of dollars to harvest their eggs, which will be needed in the millions for the kind of unethical experimentation this amendment would allow:
3. Dollars. Amendment 2 gives biotech special interests a blank check to do human cloning at taxpayer expense, but this isn’t mentioned in the 100-word ballot summary:
As stated, this amdendment ISN'T about stem cell research. The people voting no AREN'T against stem cell research. It is about cloning. Clearly YOU guys are the ones who don't know what you are talking about when it comes to Amendment 2 in Missouri.[/quote]
Seriously, read theing amendment. Yes you have to do somatic cell nuclear transfer to clone a person, but guess what else you have to do? Implant it in a mothering uterus, which is specifically banned.
You may think this is a sci-fi movie but jesus christing learn something about science. You can't grow a human in a ing tube.
"This confrontation on what is in the ballot proposition is enough to confuse voters. Amendment 2 bans only cloning that involves planting an embryo within the womb. It specifically prohibits government from interfering with somatic cell nuclear transfer, which involves replacing the nucleus of a human egg outside the womb -- the cloning procedure used to produce Dolly the sheep.
Unequivocally, the proposal tries to keep politicians from interfering with its approved cloning process: "[N]o state or local government body or official shall eliminate, reduce, deny or withhold any public funds provided or eligible to be provided to a person that lawfully conducts stem cell research or provides stem cell therapies and cures."
This language, contends the YouTube video, "provides biotech firms a blank check for taxpayer dollars to support unethical and unproven research that Missourians oppose." If government-approved cloning can be sold to the barometer pro-life state of Missouri, it will show up next in other states with major research facilities."
That is what this is about. You guys clearly have no clue what you are talking about. It's about cloning, pure and simple.
http://www.bdfund.org/trickylawyers.asp
1. Deceptive. Section 2 says it bans cloning. The trick is in Section 6 which gives biotech firms the constitutional right to conduct “somatic cell nuclear transfer,” the scientific definition for cloning; the same method used to clone Dolly the sheep:
2. Daughters. Section 2 says human eggs may not be bought or sold. The trick is in Section 6(17) which gives biotech firms the right to pay our cash-strapped daughters thousands of dollars to harvest their eggs, which will be needed in the millions for the kind of unethical experimentation this amendment would allow:
3. Dollars. Amendment 2 gives biotech special interests a blank check to do human cloning at taxpayer expense, but this isn’t mentioned in the 100-word ballot summary:
As stated, this amdendment ISN'T about stem cell research. The people voting no AREN'T against stem cell research. It is about cloning. Clearly YOU guys are the ones who don't know what you are talking about when it comes to Amendment 2 in Missouri.[/quote]
Seriously, read the
ing amendment. Yes you have to do somatic cell nuclear transfer to clone a person, but guess what else you have to do? Implant it in a mothering uterus, which is specifically banned.You may think this is a sci-fi movie but jesus christ
ing learn something about science. You can't grow a human in a ing tube.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
As far as the bulletpoints Spaz bolded,
1) Human cloning is banned explicitly in section 2; the technique used to clone humans can be used for other means (for instance, organ development). If you don't want Ted Kennedy to have a new liver grown for him when he drinks out his current one, fine. But say *that*. Don't claim that it permits human cloning, because it explicitly prohibits that. Any argument about it permitting "human cloning" is dead wrong, and a poor argument as a result. You're simply arguing that the legislation permits something it, clear as day, prohibits. Sorry, sweetheart.
2) Section 6(17) says the following:
The only thing resembling paying our "cash-strapped daughters thousands of dollars" is that part of the cost incurred can be for "lost wages." This would imply, then, that a donor is only paid for the time lost, and at the wage they earn. It also suggests that only working folks can be reimbursed monetarily, so to suggest that this is going to function like a poor neighborhood plasma center is fallacious at best, and lying at worst. Since you still haven't read the bill, I'll consider it disingenuous.
3) Again, human cloning is banned. Those who have read the text of the bill know this; those who refuse to read the bill make these kinds of arguments.
I don't, and won't, say anything else until you've read the bill. Somehow, I'm the hopeless one, yet I've a clearer grasp of politics in your state than you do, schuer. I can't stop you from voting against it, but I can continue to point out that you're going out of your way to avoid reading the bill because it contradicts every goddamned point you try to make.
1) Human cloning is banned explicitly in section 2; the technique used to clone humans can be used for other means (for instance, organ development). If you don't want Ted Kennedy to have a new liver grown for him when he drinks out his current one, fine. But say *that*. Don't claim that it permits human cloning, because it explicitly prohibits that. Any argument about it permitting "human cloning" is dead wrong, and a poor argument as a result. You're simply arguing that the legislation permits something it, clear as day, prohibits. Sorry, sweetheart.
2) Section 6(17) says the following:
The only thing resembling paying our "cash-strapped daughters thousands of dollars" is that part of the cost incurred can be for "lost wages." This would imply, then, that a donor is only paid for the time lost, and at the wage they earn. It also suggests that only working folks can be reimbursed monetarily, so to suggest that this is going to function like a poor neighborhood plasma center is fallacious at best, and lying at worst. Since you still haven't read the bill, I'll consider it disingenuous.
3) Again, human cloning is banned. Those who have read the text of the bill know this; those who refuse to read the bill make these kinds of arguments.
I don't, and won't, say anything else until you've read the bill. Somehow, I'm the hopeless one, yet I've a clearer grasp of politics in your state than you do, schuer. I can't stop you from voting against it, but I can continue to point out that you're going out of your way to avoid reading the bill because it contradicts every goddamned point you try to make.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/26/michael-j-fox-makes-a-fool-out-of-limbaugh/
Fox can, unlike any politician or pundit of our era, make a damned fine point without having to resort to deriding anybody else.
A damned good interview, even if I'd argue that Limbaugh's points of contention were so devoid of knowledge and evidence that Couric should not have brought them up. Doing so just legitimizes them making shit up, since the "MSM" treats it as a topic worthy of discourse.
Fox can, unlike any politician or pundit of our era, make a damned fine point without having to resort to deriding anybody else.
A damned good interview, even if I'd argue that Limbaugh's points of contention were so devoid of knowledge and evidence that Couric should not have brought them up. Doing so just legitimizes them making shit up, since the "MSM" treats it as a topic worthy of discourse.
It's just tragic to me that health care policy and policy on funding scientific research are being decided by people who know almost nothing about it. It's funny that in this debate, neither side has brought out actual doctors or scientists to the forefront to comment on the matter.
bread's done