He heard from the other hill people. Same place he heard about the evil liberal plot to bait the christians. ;)

Rodeo,

Sorry, you are right here. The issue is the destruction of more embryos for the harvesting of stem cells. Thanks for correcting me.

nostatic,

You can read about some of the drawbacks of embryonic stem cell therapies for heart failure in the Journal for Experimental Medicine. You can also search for articles about the use of stem cells collected from the patients bone marrow and how clinical trials are underway for the treatment of paralysis, heart failure and other diseases.

I appreciate that, but you are still off the mark. The cells are destroyed one way or the other.

The promise in embyonic cells is that they have not specialized yet. Adult stem cells are limited in the type of tissue that can become due to specialization.

No, the issue here is a state one, whereas the commercial is for a federal candidate, who, if she wins, will have NOTHING to do with the state issue. Why is that so difficult?

And this is enough data to make your sweeping generalization:

"Embryonic stem cells don't show all that much promise compared to other less controvercial research."

You are right. Overwhelming results. :rolleyes:

So have you led any clinical trials? Or have any bench results either showing the lack of promise of embyonic line or the superiority of "less controvercial" [sic] methods?

This is the last thing this thread needs but it was put out there with a statement about "liberals baiting Christians..."

How are the two mutually exclusive? I lean towards liberal and I am a Christian.

Sorry, but since the topic of sweeping generalizations came up....that's one right there.

Todd,
I too, have not led any embryonic stem cell research, but frankly, I believe that no one here can speak in those terms. I don't believe that embryonic stem cell (ESC) is the last great hope of Parkinson treatment either as there are many options being explored in the treatment of PD. This highlighting of ESC is really a political game IMO.

Back to subject at hand. Did Rush cross the line? From what I have heard about the episode in question, if not across, he must have been right there on it.

OTOH, to amplify the "sympathy factor" by halting his medications, Fox is being disingenous as he is suggesting he lives that way every day (which we know is untrue). It exemplifies the ridiculous way some decisions are made in this country. Another example of which is the fact is the payment schedule for dialysis. A senator had his wife dialyzed in the middle of the senate and asked them how the treatment could be refused. Bam, the first completely covered medical procedure (many others were/are only partially paid for).

What should be happening in this debate is that a bunch of ethicists should address the issue of embryos, are they property (as the law would currently suggest), do they have some innate "life" that would lead to the acceptance of human experimentation, or the barter/trade of parts (eggs, sperm, and embryos) which might further lead to selling other parts eg/kidneys etc. I could give you a number of corollary scenarios that this might produce. This really is a slippery slope which I'm not sure that all the folks that support ESC research really "get". Then the scientists should discuss what if any benefits can be obtained from ESC (or any technology) that can't be obtained anywhere else. This won't happen of course.

Peter, my point is that in general you have largely uninformed and untrained people making sweeping generalizations about very complicated subjects. I am not up on the latest ESC research. But I know enough science to understand that it has the potential for significant benefits in a number of areas. Is it the "last great hope" for Parkinsons? I doubt it. There will always be another technology or therapy that comes along. But it is an avenue of research that in my highly trained opinion should be pursued. Unfortunately it has turned into a political football...like so many technologies do.

The other sad fact is that to get a response from people, you have to push the envelope. If MJF went off his meds for the shoot, is that being disingenuous? I suppose you can make that argument, but that in fact is the reality of his disease. When he's on the meds, it doesn't cure the disease. It merely masks the symptoms, making everyone more "comfortable." I think it is more honest in fact for him to be out in public off the meds. People should see what it is really like, and what it will be like in a few years even if he is on his meds. Such is the nature of the disease.

My reason for the original post was my dismay at the either abject cruelty (at worst) or lack of empathy (at best) displayed by Rush. One would think after his pain med debacle that he might have a bit of empathy towards others who suffer. But instead he goes out of his way to try and minimize MJF's symptoms/suffering. And one can tap dance all they want, but that is exactly what Rush did. MJF was not playing up his disease, but rather just showing what his life is like.

When push comes to shove, everything is/can be political. What's funny (or sad) is that many here who scream about ESC research are more than happy to drop nukes for tactical purposes. There is another technology that we pursued under some degree of controversy.

And if anyone has lived through the life and death of a loved one with a neurological disorder, I would be willing to bet that person is more interested in seeing how ESC research plays out, rather than be stymied by politcal foes with a "moral" agenda.

It's amazing that people can still question if Limbaugh crossed the line. Having heard it, there is no question at all to me. But then, he's an entertainer and certainly not a political analyst or expert. If his marketing research showed that he'd make a million more by reading the satanic verses for three hours on the air each day, tomorrow he would start with verse one (or whatever they are).

That anyone looks to him for actual information is frightening. He does nothing more than feed an audience who, in return, feeds him very, very well. Dittoheads, indeed. He's laughing all the way to the bank on them.

As for the statement about Fox not actually living that way - that's amazing, too.

1 - you don't know that he doesn't live that way.

2 - Parkinson's is degenerative - even if he's not right now, he will.

It's obvious that he doesn't because you have seen him in public not having those movements. He further has written that he does stop his medicines before appearing before the senate.

Anyway your post demonstrates my assertion, that the debate is focused on the celebrity and the effectiveness of the sympathy card, and not the real issues.

You guys still aren't addressing the substance of the misleading nature of the ad. It's endorsing a candidate for an office that nothing to do with the state stem cell issue. Reminds me of when my mom, otherwise pretty conservative, voted for a Dem. cand. for the US House because she thought the GOP candidate would be able to pack the SCOTUS with justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. I had to remind her that only Senators have a vote in that.

Art

People with degenerative diseases have good days and bad days, whether they take their medicine or not. I was married to a lady who had a degenerative mental disease. She would have days she was as normal as blueberry pie and others that she was dangerous to be around. She died of a brain aneurism.

My experience with Parkinson's is non existent, but I have seen enough people with serious diseases to say that many times an outsider would not know they were sick or dying.

If MJF was having a good day, one might say "What's the big deal?" If he has a bad day, the same person could say: "He wasn't that bad the last time I saw him. He must be faking." False logic.

For anyone to criticize another person runs contrary to the Judeao/Christian basis the Republican party claims to follow. It is not what Jesus would do.

Todd,
I understand the desire to see some benefit for PD patients from this technology, but it seems to me that the potential benefits have been way overplayed by the technology's proponents.

Fact is, very little in medicine is "curative". For the most part we have treatments to control bad outcomes, but we rarely "get rid of" the disease. To imply that Fox is much worse off (in terms of his daily symptoms) by presenting himself off appropriate drug therapy is at best grandstanding and climbs to the level of disingenuity IMO.

I also believe that no matter where one stands on abortion, there is a serious slippery slope that must be considered in this type (and a large number of other genetic material-based) research.

When you add in the fact that there are many other diseases out there which aren't "sexy" enough to get them noticed or have some celebrity face to put on them. I think Fox's involvement (while understanable) exemplifies what is wrong with the way we approach medical research and funding. We should be aiming the most dollars at what kills the most people and kids not at the disease with the latest celebrity spokesperson (politically correct). From my standpoint it is impossible to stage a heart attack and death on the House committee's floor, they have no idea how messy that can get, but if it ever did, they might reconsider the importance they ascribe to other more "popular" diseases.

EDIT: I didn't see the whole diatribe that Rush put forth (and am a little surprised that you saw/heard). He is obnoxious, no doubt, and no debate there. But I expect no less of Limbaugh (or Al Franken for that matter).

I am not debating that individuals can have fluctuating courses. I am simply regurgitating what Fox himself has written (that he stops his medicine before testifying in front of congress). It is therefore, not a huge leap to postulate, that he well may have withheld his medications to dramatize the ad campaign (although not proven).

Again, the debate needs to be about the utility of the technology (vs others) and the potential ethical (not just abortion/alive) dilemmas associated with the technology.

I think my post addressed this. Why do people have such difficulty understanding the concept that a good day may appear as "normal" and people could say "What's the problem?" And just how do we measure the utility of a fledgling technology? If MJF went without his meds to prove a point, it does precisely that: Shows what his life would be like without the meds and what it will untimately become over time.

A lot of smart people in the 19th century proved on paper that heavier than air flight was impossible.

None of the meds are from ESC. Hence, his state off meds should not be used as a justification for the research.

Fox is not guaranteed to have a course (on meds) that will result in him experiencing that level of symptoms. Although it is not multiple sclerosis (which can remain stable or even improve), he is not definitely going to fail med therapy and "need" the only "savior" of something from ESC.

Art..

Respectfully, we seem to be at an impasse in understanding. I am certain it will not be the last one. Be that as it may, I feel you are unwilling to see the necessity of emphasis when pointing out a problem. Of course, other parties than the Dems would NEVER resort to a degree of hyperbole to get across their "point". If such hyperbole serves to clarify and does not result in libel or slander or based on lies, it should be OK. Like another poster is wont to remind me and others, "You have no PROOF that (fill in the blank) happened." If some of us are asked to provide proof, then you should be able to show without doubt that MJF went without his meds for that taping.

it's only fair!!!!

Bob
The emphasis issue is indeed where we are at impasse. The fact is that there are many deserving technologies for many other more prevalent and populationally (inventing new words) important diseases. Having a celeb drum up financial and political support for his/her cause does not do the entire population the good it deserves from the limited monies available.

Furthermore, other than the fact that he has the disease, he is entirely unqualified to discuss the scientific value of the technology or it's ethical complications. To add insult to injury, Fox's stand probably will suck money away from other less controversial treatment options which may have more immediate benefits for PD itself.

Finally, I wrote that the '"postulate" that Fox did not take his meds for the ad was not farfetched given that he freely admits that he took what I guess you would term "dramatic license" with his congressional testimony by not taking his meds. I further noted that the postulate was unproven.

It was unproven - and unfounded.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15435271/