Michael J Fox; No Cure Unless You Go Back to the Future

Michael J Fox was on a very interesting and misleading political commercial for Democrat Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Mike says that her opponent, Senator Jim Talent , opposes stem cell research. He seems to forget to make the distinction between Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Adult Stem Cell Research. There has been little success if any with embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells offer a much greater hope.

I know that Michael believes that if John Kerry were president Christopher Reeve would walk again, even if John had to raise him from among the dead first but the truth is, it would not have happened. Fox is under this false hope that there will be a cure in the next year or so. Even if embryonic cells offered hope, the cures would come when Fox was dead or near death (maybe Kerry could resurrect him).

It is sad that he, or anyone else for that matter, is sick but false hope is not a cure. We are doing a lot of research with the stem cells that have shown the most promise and maybe one day there will be a break through but that day is not today.

It is pathetic that they dragged Michael out before a camera so he could shake all over and garner a sympathy vote. Truly pathetic and quite sad and it interrupted the ball game.

Watch the video:
Shake, rattle and roll

Trackback:
Sister Toldjah



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

11 Responses to “Michael J Fox; No Cure Unless You Go Back to the Future”

  1. Mike says:

    He seems to forget to make the distinction between Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Adult Stem Cell Research. There has been little success if any with embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells offer a much greater hope.

    What evidence backs this? This claim seems to be thrown around a lot, but I never see it verified. Whenever I have checked the curent research it seems that it has shown that adult cells are more flexible than previously thought and that advancements there have been greater than anticipated. I’ve also seen that embryonic research advancements have been less than anticipated. However, there is nothing showing that adult cells show more promise than embryonic cells, the things that can be done with embryonic cells are still beyond what we can do with adult cells. It’s just that we underestimated the adult cells and overestimated the embryonic.

    It’s like in the 90’s when everyone would predict that Jordan would have a 40 point game and Pippen a 15 point game. Jordan only scoring 30 while Pippen scores 25 doesn’t mean Pippen was better than Jordan in that game- it just means that he performed above expectations and Jordan performed bellow expectations. Adult cells doing better than expected doesn’t suddenly make them better than embryonic cells, it just makes them better than we assumed they were.

  2. It is pathetic that they dragged Michael out before a camera so he could shake all over and garner a sympathy vote.

    That was quite possibly one of the most meanspirited things I’ve ever read. Did it ever occur to the writer ~ well, obviously not ~ that Michael J. Fox feels he has a dog in this fight and wanted to speak out? Are you suggesting that a person who’s condemned to helplessly watch his body deteriorate shouldn’t express an opinion because of his physical failings? Should he issue edicts from a castle tower ~ unseen and sparing anyone in the public the discomforting sight of him? I guess it was okay for Chris Reeve to say the exact same thing and push the exact same cause because he COULDN’T MOVE?

    Argue the science all you will. You do yourself and your viewpoint no honor by mocking what is a horrible thing to suffer.

  3. Oh. And feel free to argue (as my brother succinctly pointed out) that McCaskill used a Canadian to make her point. Now THAT, I will agree, is ‘pitiful’, ‘pathetic’ and ‘sad’.

    But she sounds all of the above from everything I’ve read anyway.

  4. Big Dog says:

    THS,
    Thanks for taking the time to comment. mean spirited, I think not. You have to understand that if you will put yourself in the public’s eye then you must be able to take the heat. I feel badly for MJF and perhaps he feels he has a dog in this fight but he appears to be a one issue person. I guess he would support Hitler if Hitler would fund embryonic stem cell research. He is up for this one issue and he is running the same ads all over the country where races are tight. Same thing with Reeve, drag him out because no one can criticize a person who is a victim.

    Well, I can and I will. I am not attacking MJF for his illness, just his views and I am entitled to that and it is not mean spirited. Yes, they dragged him out for the sympathy vote. It is what Coulter talked about when she said they drag out victims and then you are not supposed to criticize them.

    I will continue to “attack” the views of anyone with whom I disagree regardless of their “victim” status. MJF could have been more honest in the commercial. He did not differentiate between the two types of stem cells in an effort to keep people from thinking about the morality of killing one being to help another.

    It is all about politics, not his disease. Everyone is allowed to attack the argument regardless of the afflictions the person making it might suffer.

    And yes, he is allowed to express any view he wants, but not with impunity. Speech is free, that does not mean there are no consequences for it.

  5. I think you missed my point, BD. I never said don’t have at his VIEWS, did I? I said mean spirited about your cavalier “so he could shake all over“. (As opposed to “run his Canadian MOUTH”) I think someone on Townhall said something about a “Michael J. Fox bobblehead doll”.

    That’s not attacking his VIEWS ~ that’s attacking his ILLNESS. Can you present your same arguments WITHOUT the derision? I think you can. And did! Right up to the cheap shot at his symptoms. It might be all about politics, but that last crack made it about his disease.

  6. Big Dog says:

    I think you missed my point. The reason they brought him out was to shake all over so people would think it horrible and agree. It is terrible that he has the disease and even more terrible that he suffered it so young. Having said that, it is terrible the way they are exploiting his illness for political gain. I am sure he did not volunteer to do the commercials. more likely, they asked him much as they asked Reeve. This is designed to play on emotions. The statement is fair, they did bring him out so that his symptoms (the shaking) would garner voter sympathy.

    I will agree that it might appear cavalier and if the intent were to attack a man who has an affliction it would certainly be. I mean if he was doing an iterview or presenting an award and I made fun of him that would be mean spirited. The fact that he was put out there for those very symptoms and how they play on emotions is the actual travesty. It is not cavalier to criticize some one or some group that is exploiting a disease and its symptoms.

    Years ago Al Gore gave a speech where he cried about his sister who died of cancer from smoking and he said her dying words were (paraphrase) Al take the tobacco away, don’t let them have it. I said it was phony and was chastized as being cavalier. Al Gore’s family made its millions growing tobacco and selling it to millions of people. To use a family tragedy for political gain when you contributed to the tragedy is wrong. Using MJF to blast a controversial program for political gain is just as wrong. Especially when the reason for the selection of MJF was to have a person with symptoms that can not be hidden.

  7. I’ll come down on your side COMPLETELY on the phoniness of it. COM-PLETE-LY. Especially since he apparently goes off his meds to be able to film with the full ravages apparent. (And I guess he’s been working quickly to get in as many as he can. Busy, busy guy.) I don’t think I agree with your reason for his selection either. I think he probably volunteered AND the Dems would have a hard time finding someone with his name recognition/empathy factor anywhere else. I mean they got a Canadian, right?

    Be that as it may ~ the thing that BUGS me about the general GOP et al response is to include some sort of personal dig AT the symptoms. Jeez, it gives the message that much more credence when people pick on the cripple afterward, right? How stoopid do the Kossites sound when they call Michelle Malkin a “Flip c-word”? Get my drift here? What does THAT have to do with whether you agree with her message or not?

    You’re not a teeny blogger crying in the wilderness, with one reader who’s also his mom. Plus, people come through what you put up at RCP (like…ahem…present company) and get that impression ~ GOPers PICK ON CRIPPLES. We skewer people all the time at the Swilling but, with the exception of Heather Mills McCartney, pretty much try to ding personalities/viewpoints/track record.

    You’re a sport, on the otherhand. And this has been a good ‘across the net’.

  8. Mike says:

    I’m not arguing against your criticism of the tragedy angle as an absolute argument trump- I think Gore was totally wrong, I think MJF has a right to voice his opinion but it does seem a bit unfair to cry foul when anyone is critical of that opinion.

    However- your criticism wasn’t really of his opinion so much as it was of him expressing it in the first place. You weren’t critical of a response given saying something along the lines of “how dare you criticize a guy with parkinsons” you were critical of MJF being on camera in the first place. Are you still of the opinion that this tactic is “patheitc”?
    How about the spouse of a murder victim giving testimony at a murder trial? Or even sitting amongst the spectators at the trial quietly crying? You claim that even if embryonic cells offer a cure they will come when MJF is long dead. Even if a family of a murder victim influences a jury it won’t bring their family member back. And the experience of being in court is certainly hard. But they are there becuase they believe it is important. Of course MJF hopes for a cure in his life- but he also believes in the issue because he has experienced living with parkinsons and thinks it important to find a cure, even if it doesn’t cure him. And if he wants to speak about it, why is that pathetic?
    Yes, heaven forbid we use tragedy to play off of people’s emotions to influence policy in a way we feel is important. I’m sure those on the right would never do that.

    Your only substantive argument about the issue was that adult cells are better. I’m still waiting to see the evidence for that.

  9. I’ll come down on your side COMPLETELY on the phoniness of it. COM-PLETE-LY. Especially since he apparently goes off his meds to be able to film with the full ravages apparent. (And I guess he’s been working quickly to get in as many as he can. See sistertoldjah’s blog ~ Busy, busy guy.) I don’t think I agree with your reason for his selection either. I think he probably volunteered AND the Dems would have a hard time finding someone with his name recognition/empathy factor anywhere else. I mean they got a Canadian, right?

    Be that as it may ~ the thing that BUGS me about the general GOP et al response is to include some sort of personal dig AT the symptoms. Jeez, it gives the message that much more credence when people pick on the cripple afterward, right? How stoopid do the Kossites sound when they call Michelle Malkin a “Phlip c-word”? Get my drift here? What does THAT have to do with whether you agree with her message or not?

    You’re not a teeny blogger with one reader who’s also his mom. Plus, people come through what you put up at RCP (like…ahem…present company) and get that impression ~ GOPer/conservatives PICK ON CRIPPLES. I don’t think that does the argument any favors. Now, we skewer people all the time at the Swilling but ~ with the exception of Heather Mills McCartney (no holds barred there) ~ pretty much try to ding personalities/viewpoints/track record.

  10. Big Dog says:

    THS,
    I agree the post might have given the impression of attacking MJF. Not my intent. I think the guy is a great actor and I liked about everything he has done. Though it would appear I attacked him my real issue is with the people who used him this way. I know he had to say yes and that is the part I think is pathetic. Fox has a lot of money and there are many ways to achieve what he wants. Private research that has no government restrictions.

    There are many avenues and I think this one was the wrong one. As for attacking people, some get attacked and some don’t. I am however, equally hard on people from either party. I also will compliment anyone who does a good thing, regardless of party.

    Thanks for the comments. I can certainly see how this could be viewed as an attack on MJF and in part it was because he was not completely open and because, as you say, the meds/dramatic effect thing.

    BTW, I visited your site and you have a real good operation going on there.

    Consider listening to my program at Wide Awakes Radio on Friday from 9-11pm Eastern (links to the players in sidebar here and at WAR). I think you will enjoy it.