 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Azizi Date: 26 Oct 06 - 10:37 PM I've never seen a more powerful political ad than this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo {McCaskill for Missouri TV ad featuring actor Michael J. Fox} Also, for those who are interested, here's Michael J. Fox's interview with Katie Couric, CBS News http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/26/eveningnews/main2128188.shtml [click "watch entire interview" to see this video] An excerpt of the transcript of that interview follows: "Responding to criticism by conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh, actor Michael J. Fox defended his appearance in a political campaign ad, saying he wasn't acting or off his medication. The irony is that I was too medicated. I was dyskinesic," Fox told Couric. "Because the thing about … being symptomatic is that it's not comfortable. No one wants to be symptomatic; it's like being hit with a hammer." His body visibly wracked by tremors, Fox appears in a political ad touting Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill's stance in favor of embryonic stem cell research. That prompted Limbaugh to speculate that Fox was "either off his medication or acting." Fox told Couric, "At this point now, if I didn't take medication I wouldn't be able to speak." He said he appeared in the ad only to advance his cause, and that "disease is a non-partisan problem that requires a bipartisan solution." "I don't really care about politics," Fox added. "We want to appeal to voters to elect the people that are going to give us a margin, so we can't be vetoed again." -snip- If folks want to discuss this topic, please do so. My reason for starting this thread is to to call attention to these videos, and to say thank you to Michael J. Fox for the raising awareness about this very important issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: GUEST Date: 26 Oct 06 - 10:44 PM The guy deserves his disease.
Let him rest. Soon enough he will rest forever.
He is sick. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Ebbie Date: 26 Oct 06 - 10:48 PM If Guest is not gg, he turns my stomach. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: TIA Date: 26 Oct 06 - 10:51 PM Guest, you are a fucking asshole. I would love for you to say that to me in person, but you don't begin to have the balls. I am TIA, you can look up exactly who I am am and where I live. You are a coward who can only talk such shitrash anonymously. You want some, come get some dickhead. Did you know that Michael J. Fox did a nearly identical ad for Arlen Spector (a Republican and actual friend of mine) several years ago? I think I know who you are, and fits exactly my image of you. Jerk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Stilly River Sage Date: 26 Oct 06 - 10:56 PM TIA, I bet that even Arlen Spector hopes you hold down the nouns and adjectives when you're speaking in public on his behalf. . . :-/ Try to ignore the mentally ill guests. Attention always keeps them coming back for more. Michael J. Fox can hold his own in this political climate. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: TIA Date: 26 Oct 06 - 11:02 PM Sorry. A nerve was touched. I suspect that many people have a similar nerve quite dear to them. I use *different* nouns and adjectives where Arlen is concerned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: GUEST Date: 27 Oct 06 - 12:22 AM Potential of Stem Cells Relentlessly Oversold Michael Hiltzik. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 28, 2004. pg. C.1 Copyright (c) 2004 Los Angeles Times Now and then, we get reminded that even the hoariest cliches spring from a basic truth. Consider the following proverb: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." At this moment, the good intentions are represented by the sentiments at the core of Proposition 71, the stem cell initiative on Tuesday's California ballot. The hell they will lead us to is fiscal insanity. Proposition 71 would require that the state float a $3-billion bond ($6 billion with interest) to finance California-based research into embryonic stem cells, which has been hamstrung by ill- considered Bush administration funding restrictions. Promoters of the measure say that this money would be returned -- possibly in spades -- by economic growth, patent royalties and healthcare savings derived from new therapies for a host of devastating diseases. But they can support those claims only through assumptions about the imminence of such achievements that few responsible scientists would endorse. Since this column first addressed Proposition 71 in August, the campaign has become a juggernaut. Its war chest has nearly doubled to $21 million, fed by investors who stand to profit from the voters' largess. (The opposition's funding is paltry.) Its marketing, meanwhile, has become more cynical, sinking to the airing of a TV ad posthumously featuring Christopher Reeve, and trotting out the noted scientific and fiscal expert Brad Pitt to extol the measure for the "Today" show's slavish Katie Couric. When they aren't publishing celebrity endorsements, backers are busy citing the unanimous approval of stem cell experts, who hardly can be expected to accentuate the uncertainties of their field when a $3- billion slush fund is at hand. Let me state, by the way, that I favor lifting the Bush administration's sanctimonious restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, and that I sympathize with patients whose suffering may become alleviated through the science. This is important, because opponents of this profligate measure can be easily caricatured as religious Luddites or heartless swine. After my first critique of Proposition 71, I received numerous e- mails asking how I'd feel about it if my own child or parent suffered from a disease that might be cured through embryonic stem cell research. The easy answer is: I'd want to do anything to find that cure, no matter the cost. But the question is irrelevant; personal empathy is not the proper basis for public policy. For the same reason that we don't allow families of murder victims to dictate the sentences of their killers, we shouldn't decide how to spend public funds based on our personal circumstances, or those of friends or people we read about in the newspapers. To do so exposes the state treasury to any claim based on a tug of the heartstrings, including some on much shakier practical grounds than stem cell research. The winners in such a race will be the best-financed and the most publicity-savvy, not necessarily the most deserving. For it is only this initiative's access to a $21-million campaign fund that promises to let it trump the competing needs of millions of Californians: people who would benefit from better public schools and universities, improved roads, a cleaner environment and enhanced healthcare and job training. Also destined to come up short are those who might benefit from medical research that would go begging because it wouldn't qualify for a Proposition 71 grant. These goals -- all of them worthy -- will only become harder for the state to finance if $6 billion becomes tied down for the next 35 years. Consider, too, Proposition 71's effect on other research. The research budget of the University of California has suffered a staggering reduction of $78 million, or 25%, since 2002, on top of 20% in cuts in the early 1990s. Proposition 71's projected annual grants of about $300 million (for about 10 years) would exceed the state's current annual contribution to UC research. But it would be narrowly restricted to one scientific category and spread among many other recipients. Just imagine, alternatively, what a broad-based $3-billion research endowment would mean to a state university system whose once- dominant position in American research is fast becoming a distant memory. Of course, many big contributors to Proposition 71 must be thinking less about the future of California research than about their own opportunities. Half of the campaign chest comes from venture capitalists and others who stand to earn a handsome return in the new field; how convenient if the riskiest investment round -- an unprecedented $3 billion in seed money -- is staked by the taxpayers. Other supporters of Proposition 71 may honestly believe they are backing scientific breakthroughs that lack only money to come true. Yet the campaign has relentlessly oversold this potential. The backers' latest economic projections, released last month, forecast that the bonds will generate at least $14 billion from royalties and reduced health costs for California. This estimate is supposedly conservative, but it's obvious that in considering a speculative science you can't safely project any return. It's one thing to prophesy a world of medical breakthroughs, but another to bank the royalties 15 years in advance. For all that the Proposition 71 campaign claims scientific truth and the moral high ground, it has largely played on the electorate's ignorance: ignorance of medicine, ignorance of public finance, ignorance of the gulf between what is known about embryonic stem cell behavior and what needs to be learned before it yields useful therapies. There are few things more morally dubious than over-promising a cure to the public, much less to suffering families. The promoters of this initiative should be ashamed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Big Al Whittle Date: 27 Oct 06 - 04:01 AM And there are few things more obnoxious than justifying your dumb religious hang ups in this way. Throughout history, half-witted religious leaders have attacked every advance from birth control to the internal combustion engine. The recent attacks on Michael J Fox are just typical of the neocon/Bushite indifference to human suffering, which marks all their thinking. It beggars belief that there should be a place in your society for this talk show host, who has accused Fox of 'acting his disease', let alone a well paid job in the media. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: John O'L Date: 27 Oct 06 - 04:04 AM Limbaugh acts his own disease |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: gnu Date: 27 Oct 06 - 06:31 AM I saw that clip of Limbaugh... he is one sick puppy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: GUEST Date: 27 Oct 06 - 06:54 AM Don't worry folks, we Europeans will carry out the research and eventually find the cure, then we can charge others for the patents.It will be interesting to see who of the opponents of this research refuse to use the cures when they too are unfortunate enought to fall ill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: John Hardly Date: 27 Oct 06 - 07:04 AM Hey gnu, Where'd you see the limbaugh video? I've looked around the 'net for it and can't find it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: skipy Date: 27 Oct 06 - 07:12 AM JH, just click the top link in Azizi 1st post, then type limbaugh in the search box top right of screen & away you go. Regards Skipy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: kendall Date: 27 Oct 06 - 07:46 AM The reality of it is, we can not afford stem cell research AND all those tanks, missles, planes and soldiers too. I'm not a violent man, but I would love to have 5 minutes behind the woodshed with that toad, Limbaugh.He would really need his "pain killers". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Azizi Date: 27 Oct 06 - 07:53 AM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhtYk5crxVY Rush Limbaugh "acting" like Michael J. Fox |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: John Hardly Date: 27 Oct 06 - 08:07 AM I was fully expecting to find the video supporting the notion that Limbaugh was, in fact, mocking Michael J Fox, rather than demonstrating on the video camera what he meant by Fox's erratic movements. It was a huge gaff -- mostly because a public figure just doesn't take chances like that -- especially with a sympathetic character like Fox and the probability way to great at coming across wrong. But I'm really not sure the video shows Limbaugh mocking Fox. I have no doubt that anyone already predisposed to dislikeng Limbaugh would interpret it that way. It does demonstrate the value of sympathetic spokesmen for a political cause (like Sheehan and now Fox). You criticize them at your peril. It's wiser to just let them have their say and hope nobody notices rather than drawing more people in with controversy and causing their sympathetic circumstances to have an even broader market. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: jacqui.c Date: 27 Oct 06 - 08:15 AM I would think that it takes a lot of courage to put yourself in front of the media the way that Fox has done. I can't say that I'm a fan of his films - very much take it or leave it from my point of view, but I do applaud what he is doing now. I support stem cell research if it can give hope to those with conditions like this but, even if I was on the fence here I think that this ad, and Limbaugh's sleazy attitude to it, would plant me firmly in the Democrat camp. I know I shouldn't say this but wouldn't it be payback if Mr Limbaugh contracted something similar? I wonder if he would be prepared to leave himself open to ridicule in the same way? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Bobert Date: 27 Oct 06 - 09:00 AM Yeah, Jacqui... Is this the same Rush Limbaugh who used to bad mouth drug addicts??? Hmmmmmm??? Maybe ol' Rush has set himself up for another run of bad karma??? Not that I'm wishin' it on him but... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: GUEST,ibo Date: 27 Oct 06 - 09:13 AM michael deserves our pity,hes a brave man for putting himself forward in this way.He was a great actor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: SINSULL Date: 27 Oct 06 - 09:34 AM And we have all played into Limbaugh's age old game. His ratings will go up because everyone is tuning in to see his apology, reaction or hopefully more insensitive drivel. Ignore the flamer! Move on. There is nothing to see here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: GUEST Date: 27 Oct 06 - 10:31 AM First of all, as a GUESt, let me disassociate myself from the cakehole who posted the horrid comment on Michael J, Fox. Last night on CBC News there was abrief bit about election ads in the US, I find it hard to believe that some of them are actually allowed. Most of the time I admire and respect America..but there are other time when I wonder what the hell went wrong there? Unbelievable advertising and an awful perversion of the democratic process. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Scoville Date: 27 Oct 06 - 10:38 AM My grandfather had Parkinson's and my grandmother had Alzheimer's; we're just a little pro-stem cell research in my family. Obviously it's not going to cure everything but progress is better than no progress. Flush Rush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: John Hardly Date: 27 Oct 06 - 10:47 AM Just to be clear, Scoville, everyone is pro stem cell research. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Amos Date: 27 Oct 06 - 10:54 AM "Plain talk: Limbaugh should be ashamed, but isn't By Dave Zweifel Rush Limbaugh may not be this country's most disgusting human being, but he surely ranks among the top 10. You're undoubtedly familiar with his latest outrageousness - claiming that Michael J. Fox was really faking those Parkinson's disease palsied shakes when he cut campaign ads for candidates who, like Wisconsin's Jim Doyle, favor embryonic stem cell research. Fox, who came down with Parkinson's about 15 years ago and was forced to essentially retire from his acting career, thus became the latest victim of the well-honed Republican attack machine made famous by the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the 2004 presidential election. Limbaugh, with his audience of like-minded flame-throwers, is a key player in the well-organized cabal that uses innuendo and, more times than not, outright lies to savage anyone who dares to disagree with the right-wingers who long ago took the Republican Party hostage." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: jacqui.c Date: 27 Oct 06 - 11:02 AM I cetainly wouldn't tune in to Limbaugh - if he apologises it would only be because he was directed to and, having seen what he has already been capable of was enough to turn my stomach. Why would I want to see more? The only reason I might tune in would be to take a note of the advertisers during the breaks and to write them letters stating that I, for one, would not use their products if they were associating themselves with this piece of filth. Wouldn't make much impact unless a lot of people did it, but could be fun! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Oct 06 - 12:26 PM I'm really not sure the video shows Limbaugh mocking Fox." I think John Hardly is being very very charitable towards Limbaugh there. If wobbling about like that and saying "It's truly an act" isn't mocking... Well, maybe a precise description of what he was doing is to say he was "sneering at" Fox. I'm not that keen on this particular version of stem cell research, myself. But where people stand on that issue should hardly be relevant when it comes to this type of conduct by a broadcaster. Not unless you think it's right to subordinate your principles to your politics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: John Hardly Date: 27 Oct 06 - 04:05 PM No, McGrath, I'm really not sure he was mocking Fox. And I think if you were to look at the video again with these things in mind... 1. Most of America was not able to see the Fox ad -- it was local. Rush's audience is national. So when he was describing Fox's spasms, he was demonstrating what he meant for the webcam to people who had not seen Fox's ad, and assumed, as Rush did, that the level of his Parkinson's was the level that most of us see every week on "Boston Legal". 2. Rush never said "faking". He purposely said "acting" and added "or off his meds". This is because most of America has been watching MJFox making regular appearances on TV's "Boston Legal". On that program, Fox shows little of the symptoms he's demonstrating in the ad. Even though I have seen MJFox having spasms, I've never seen his spasms as profound as they were during the ad. 3. There probably isn't 1 person in ten thousand familiar enough with how Parkinson's meds work. It is not at all unreasonable to assume that the case would be as it usually is with medication, that is .... On medication=symptoms subside; Off medication=symptoms increase. Rush may be a pecker-head. But don't you just hate it when, the ONE time you yell at your kid for getting into the cookie jar is the ONE time the your kid was NOT in the cookie jar? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Big Al Whittle Date: 27 Oct 06 - 04:25 PM If he didn't take the medication - that was his business. Thanks to your health system (which I am told leaves leaves about a third of the population without health cover) - I imagine not everybody can afford medication. So you're seeing what the disease is like in its pure form. That is what happens to poor people. Stealing cookies my arse! this is not a misdemeanor we're talking about. This is someone acting like piece of shit, and he should have his bum kicked from New York to San Francisco for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Don Firth Date: 27 Oct 06 - 04:25 PM I know—I knew—a man with Parkinson's Disease. He was a church organist. I first met him years ago, before his condition made itself evident and before he even knew he had the disease. I watched over the next several years as he developed tremors in his hands and had to give up his profession—and his love for performing music. The disease continued to progress, the incontrollable movements increased, became very much like the uncontrolled and uncontrollable movements of Michael J. Fox. And finally the man died. Fox's symptoms show that the disease is pretty far advanced, and it made me wonder how much time he has left. The thing so many "Pro-Life" people (imagine the words "Pro-Life" said with extreme sarcasm) don't get, or don't want to get is that the embryos from which the stem cells are derived are left-overs from fertility clinics, and are destined to be discarded anyway. They will never become living persons. Isn't it better to use that tiny spark of potential life that will never be otherwise realized to attempt to alleviate the suffering of people like Michael J. Fox, my organist friend, people with spinal cord injuries, diabetes, and a host of other diseases and conditions? Even if stem cell research fails, isn't it better to at least try than to follow some medieval notion of the "sanctity of life" when that life will never come into existence anyway. The alternated fate for these embryos, that have the potential for doing so much good, is to be scraped off the Petri dish into the biological waste can and burned. "Pro-Life?" I don't think so! And as to our GUEST friend above and his message of hate, and Rush Limbaugh with his contemptuous mocking, I am a peaceable, non-violent person, but after reading and watching their disgusting antics, I could happily watch the both of them be publicly flogged! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Amos Date: 27 Oct 06 - 04:43 PM That is the most important point of all, Don -- they are not ACTUALLY talking about "potential human beings". THis places the Limbaugh school of thought firmly opposed to life. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: skipy Date: 27 Oct 06 - 04:55 PM Don, So well put. Skipy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: pdq Date: 27 Oct 06 - 04:59 PM Michael J. Fox Makes Stem Cell Vote Push Actor Michael J. Fox backs Democrats in 2006 elections over embryonic stem cell research NEW YORK, Oct. 25, 2006 By JAKE COYLE AP Entertainment Writer (AP) The symptoms of Parkinson's disease that all but ended Michael J. Fox's acting career are making him a powerfully vulnerable campaign pitchman for five Democrats who support stem cell research. In 30-second TV ads for Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin, who is running for the Senate in Maryland, Senate candidate Claire McCaskill in Missouri and Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, Fox shakes and rocks as he directly addresses the camera, making no effort to hide the effects of his disease. In the McCaskill ad, which has been viewed by more than 1 million people on YouTube.com, Fox tells voters, "What you do in Missouri matters to millions of Americans. Americans like me." He also was planning to appear at events for Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Tammy Duckworth, a candidate for Congress from Illinois. Celebrities have a long history of supporting political candidates. But there's no question that Fox, who campaigned for John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race, is uniquely suited as a spokesman for embryonic stem cell research, which some scientists believe could aid in discovering treatments or cures to Parkinson's and other diseases. "The reason that he's powerful is that he's comparatively young," says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director for the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center. "As a result, a lot of people in that age range can look at him and say, `If that can happen to him, it can happen to me.'" Jamieson notes that the issue of stem cell research has the potential to be an advantage to Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections since polls have shown the majority of Americans favor some form of stem cell research. The risk, she adds, is that the ads could appear as using Fox's hopes for a cure for political gain, as some claimed was the case when the paralyzed actor Christopher Reeve lobbied for stem cell research before his death in 2004. Parkinson's disease is a chronic, progressive disorder of the central nervous system that leaves patients increasingly unable to control their movements. In his ads, Fox shows a remarkable nakedness that recalls Dick Clark's appearance last Dec. 31 on ABC's "New Year's Rockin' Eve," displaying the effects of his debilitating stroke a year prior. Fox was diagnosed with Parkinson's in 1991 and revealed his condition publicly in 1998. In 2000, the "Spin City" and "Back to the Future" star quit full-time acting because of his symptoms and founded the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, which has raised millions of dollars. He has since acted sporadically in smaller roles, such as in a several-episode guest appearance earlier this year on ABC's "Boston Legal," playing a business tycoon with cancer. For that role and others, Fox generally has sought to control his movements, though his illness was evident. He told The Associated Press in January that one long scene was physically taxing and that because of Parkinson's disease, he "can't show up with a game plan." In the same interview, Fox said he felt sympathy for Clark, who received a mixed reaction for his New Year's appearance. Similarly, some have criticized Fox's ads as exploitive. Conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh claimed Fox was "either off his medication or acting" during the ad. Others defend Fox's aggressive campaigning for a Parkinson's cure. Dr. John Boockvar, a neurosurgeon and assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medical Center at New York's Presbyterian Hospital, called Limbaugh's claim that Fox was acting "ludicrous." Boockvar said those with Parkinson's have "on" and "off" spells. "If there is one single disease that has the highest potential for benefit from stem cell research," Boockvar said Tuesday, "it's Parkinson's." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: John Hardly Date: 27 Oct 06 - 05:30 PM [quote]If he didn't take the medication - that was his business. Thanks to your health system (which I am told leaves leaves about a third of the population without health cover) - I imagine not everybody can afford medication. So you're seeing what the disease is like in its pure form. That is what happens to poor people.[/quote] weelittledrummer, What Don said seems to me to be perfectly reasonable (except for hi reference to Limbaugh's "mocking" which, again, I don't think Limbaugh was doing). But not taking the medication IS Fox's business. The speculation was whether or not he had. Fox, I am almost sure, a multi-millionaire who has health coverage. And that wasn't what he was stumping for anyway. And you are wrong by Fox's own admission. You were not witnessing the disease (as you say) "in its pure form. Fox says that he was, at the point of the ad filming, "over medicated". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Don Firth Date: 27 Oct 06 - 07:19 PM One can speculate for the next 300 posts about whether or not Michael J. Fox was overmedicated, undermedicated, playing it for effect, or simply allowing people to actually see the visible symptoms of his condition. And Limbaugh? Since when did his insane ranting and raving matter to people who actually possess brain cells? What matters is stem-cell research. If it goes forward, there is a chance—not a guarantee, but a good chance—that we could alleviate a great deal of the suffering of living individuals and restore them to leading happy, productive lives. And there is a good chance that we can prevent its occurrence in the future. How many millions yet to come may never get the disease or condition at all because of what we do now? We have a chance to remove the root cause of these diseases and disabilities—and how many others that we don't know about, I wonder? I repeat: the embryos the "Pro-Lifers" are trying to save will never develop any further than they already have, and are only fated for disposal anyway. What is truly pro life? Trying to preserve the existence of a non-person in a Petri dish, only to eventually dispose of it when it ceases to be viable? Or allowing this non-(and never will be)-person's existence to actually have some meaning by allowing it to contribute to alleviating some of the suffering in the world? The future will judge us by the decisions we make now. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: John Hardly Date: 27 Oct 06 - 07:22 PM No, Don, if you would but listen to MJFox himself you would know that we don't have to "speculate for the next 300 posts about whether or not Michael J. Fox was overmedicated, undermedicated, playing it for effect, or simply allowing people to actually see the visible symptoms of his condition." MJFox answered the question himself on CBS news last night. He was overmedicated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Oct 06 - 07:28 PM I think you are being dishonest to yourself, John. That's not intended as an insult, that's a temptation we all have sometimes when we get caught up in a partisan argument, and plenty of good people fall into it. If they wanted to show what Fox looked like, all they had to do was show a clip from the ad. The suggestion that Limbaugh's wobbly act was a way of giving information to people is at best naive. Defending people "on your side" when they make your side look dirty just doesn't make sense. Why do it? There are some people you just don't want alongside you in a dispute. From the little I've seen of this Limbaugh, and the rather more I've read about him, he's someone like that. I suspect that if the predictions are right and the Republicans get stomped in your elections in a few days, some of the blame for that will be down to him and his antics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: John Hardly Date: 27 Oct 06 - 07:51 PM Your post is full of assumptions that just aren't so. 1. I am not a fan of Limbaugh. I just happen to think that he was not "mocking". You assume I am defending him because he is on my side. That is not the case. I think that everyone here who is characterizing him as "Mocking" are doing themselves, and their "side" a disservice. It is not to one's side's advantage to impugn someone for "mocking" who can demonstrate that he was not "mocking". 2. Limbaugh, in the circumstances under which he did what was referred to a "mocking" could not, as you suggest, show a clip. His is a radio show with but a webcam. It is not television. As to whether Limbaugh will be blamed when the Democrats win in November -- that is probably so -- but it will be because he was successfully characterized as mocking Fox -- not because he was mocking Fox. And, for the record, again, Limbaugh did not use the word "faking". If you wanna be wrong about the event, you've got LOTS of company here. *BG* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Don Firth Date: 27 Oct 06 - 08:02 PM John, it doesn't matter. What does matter is stem-cell research. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: John Hardly Date: 27 Oct 06 - 08:11 PM Oy. Always with the underlining thing. You become very dismissive when you are wrong. *BG* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Oct 06 - 08:50 PM I wasn't actually assuming you were a fan of Limbaugh, John. In fact I'd be astonished if you were. I did feel you were being swayed by a misplaced partisan loyalty. We see what we see. To me it looked like sneering - and as I indicated, as well as being an outsider, I am not convinced by the case for this particular form of stem cell research, unlike some people who have angered by this. As a retired Social Worker who used to work in a disability team I've probably had rather more to do with people with Parkinson's than Mr Limbaugh apparently has. I suppose that may predispose me to interpret what I saw in that clip as "sneering". Whatever - I cannot see how it can be suggested to "demonstrate" that it was not intended that way. As for the web-cam stuff - if the web-cam could show Limbaugh doing his wobbling act, I'm sure it could have been used to show a clip of Fox's ad. The technical quality of Limbaugh's clip on YouTube looks comparable, for practical purposes, to that of the Fox ad. And my comment about the elections wasn't particularly about this incident. I just tend to assume that a time comes when ordinary people get fed up with this kind of media leech. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: John O'L Date: 27 Oct 06 - 09:10 PM The point of the avert was to demonstrate what Parkinsons is and what it does. Fox is the ideal spokesman because he has the disease. Whether he was off his meds or acting is entirely irrelevent. Limbaugh has successfully taken the focus from where it should be and redirected it to a sideshow of his own choosing. Everyone is being hoodwinked. Again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Big Mick Date: 27 Oct 06 - 09:17 PM I think it is ridiculous to parse this out, and debate whether he sneered or not. The statement was ridiculous and showed this manfor the demagogue he is. Anyone who attempts to apologize for this is an idiot, IMO. Forget the sneer/not sneer. Just read the transcript. The question is whether fetal stem cell research should be pursued. I am of mixed minds on this one, and read these threads and all the literature I can. I can surely see the tremendous potential this research and technology could bring. But there is still a fundamental ethical issue that I am having a very hard time getting by. In order to harvest these cells we must create an embryo. Is this embryo a living being? Before supporters jump out with their pat answers, I have asked researchers at what moment that embryo becomes a human, when does it possess a soul? None can answer. If it is indeed a life, then is it right to create a life, then destroy it, to save a life? I ask these things, unsure of how I feel about it, or where I will eventually fall out on it. I can see the amazing potential, but I think we must debate long and hard the ethical implications. This is more than academic to me. My father has Parkinsons. My Grandmother had it, and there is an even chance I will too. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Don Firth Date: 28 Oct 06 - 12:56 AM There are those who would have you believe that stem-cell research would start an industry of women getting pregnant, then having an abortion in order to sell the embryo to a research laboratory. The folks who came up with that canard 1) are lying and they know it, and 2) very sick puppies! As I had it explained to me by someone who knows, the embryos that would be used for stem-cell research are the by-products of work in fertility clinics in their efforts to help childless couples who want children Some of the woman's eggs are removed and they are fertilized in a Petri dish with the husband's sperm (I may not be totally accurate on some of the details here, but this is essentially what happens). They generally fertilize several of the eggs, because not all of them "take" (otherwise, only one would be necessary). They then implant one of the fertilized eggs in the woman's uterus. If this fails, they take another of the eggs and try again until either it works or it turns out to be futile. If it simply doesn't work, the couple may try other options; adoption, perhaps. But there are often fertilized eggs left over. Since they are genetically the same as a natural child of the couple from whom they were derived, the couple may not want the eggs to be used for another couple. Nor, for that matter, would the other couple want a child that is not genetically their own (unless, of course, they ultimately opt for adoption, but that's another story). What to do with the left-over fertilized eggs? Until the possibility of stem-cell research emerged, they were simply disposed of. Nothing else could be done with them. And they couldn't be kept forever. So—stem-cell research offers these otherwise literally dead-end embryos the possibility of contributing to the pool of life in a very beneficial way, rather than simply being, as I said above, scraped off the Petri dish and disposed of as "biological waste." Ethically, morally, it seems clear to me. ### Not wrong at all, John. And sorry you don't like the underlining, but that indicates how I would say it if we were talking about it face to face. It isn't important. But then, let's take another look at Limbaugh. Maybe, as far as he's concerned, it is (sorry about that) important. The clip linked to shows Limbaugh's little pantomime for only a few seconds as he accuses Fox of "acting." I recall the uncontrollable movements of Bill, the organist I spoke of above, and Fox's movements were the same thing—a symptom of fairly advanced Parkinson's Disease. In Bill's case, and I'm quite sure in Fox's, some days are better than others. Fox looked pretty genuine to me. I've seen that before. But what Limbaugh was doing was definitely mocking Fox. It was like imitating someone's limp or their speech impediment, which is bad enough, and then claiming that they're only doing it to get sympathy, which is unconsionable. Not only is Rush Limbaugh a stupid, lying blowhard, but now we all know that he has a cruel streak as well. Let's just dismiss him as the gobbet of pond scum that he is and concentrate on the possibilities that stem-cell research can offer. Now THAT is what's important. (And I'm not sorry at all about the underlining) Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: kendall Date: 28 Oct 06 - 08:50 AM I just hope that Limbaugh has helped the democrat with his idiotic display of his impression of Fox. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: jacqui.c Date: 28 Oct 06 - 11:20 AM Don - ypu're right about the way embryos are dealt with. I have friends who went this route 17 years ago and three embryos being implanted led to triplets! The remaining embryos were kept, I think for 5 years, and then my friends were asked what they wanted done with them. They had decided that their family was complete and, since each of the children had had some health problems, the clinic decided that, even if permission were given to donate the embryos, that it would not be the best solution. As far as I am aware those embryos were destroyed. IMHO they would have been better used for this research and I'm pretty certain that my friends would have agreed, particularly since they lost one daughter to leukeamia seven years ago. Now, that might not have been a disease that would benefit from this sort of research but it still brings home how little we really know about some of the things that cripple and kill us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: bobad Date: 28 Oct 06 - 11:28 AM "at what moment that embryo becomes a human, when does it possess a soul?" Taking religion out of the equation would simplify the issue IMO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Big Mick Date: 28 Oct 06 - 12:04 PM Fine, but that isn't possible for all or even most folks. But let's do that and approach from just the ethical direction. At what point is that embryo a human life? Can you, or any one answer that with a certainty? Taking those with faith based objections out of it doesn't lessen the ethical debate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Jeri Date: 28 Oct 06 - 12:23 PM Mick, what do YOU believe? If I were looking at this from a religious perspective, it would be a hard thing to think about miscarried and spontaneously aborted fetuses all having souls. It would be hard to believe something that couldn't think, couldn't make decisions about right and wrong, had a soul. It's even more difficult for me to imagine a group of cells with no brain might have a soul, which, even if it were implanted might not grow into a fetus. Has there been a soul for every single fertilized human egg there ever was, for all time? If you believe there has been, then what about sperm and eggs, because, even with an un-implanted, days-old embryo, you'd need a lot of un-met conditions to be met. This is all about possible babies, and a single cell just needs one more teeny criterium be met - only one, in a whole load of criteria. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Jeri Date: 28 Oct 06 - 12:29 PM Oh, and when I think 'ridicule' and 'mocking', Limbaugh is one of the first names to come to mind. I used to try to listen to the radio show, and inevitably turned it off because he hardly ever presented a view, only ridiculed whoever was opposed to him. Most of the time, I couldn't stand to keep the radio on long enough to discover what the issue even was. And yes, I would have turned it off if anyone of any bent used those tactics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Big Mick Date: 28 Oct 06 - 12:42 PM As I said several posts up, I am torn on this issue. I am presenting the questions, exactly so I can see responses such as yours, Jeri. My problem is that I don't know the answer. I am struggling with whether this fertilized embryo, with all the ingredients in place and in the natural cycle of birth to death, constitutes a human being. If so, this raises the ethical question of whether it is proper to create the life for the purpose of harvesting cells which will destroy it, in order to save other lives. And I can't help but then extend that thinking and ask if that doesn't raise the spectre, or lead to, farming of bodies for medical purposes. I don't want to give the wrong impression here. I think that the technology holds great promise. I think I support developing this technology. But I have this nagging doubt in the back of my mind. There is a part of me that wants the ethicists to work overtime on this one, because I believe the long term implications, especially as the technology advances, could have huge impact. It isn't a religious issue for me, except as that is where my moral and ethical base is. But I believe the same concerns should exist for anyone leading an ethics based life, whether it is rooted in religious belief or just a desire to lead an ethical life. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Jeri Date: 28 Oct 06 - 01:01 PM Mick, I mentioned religion because it IS where a lot of people's ethics and morals come from, and the whole idea of a soul comes from. I think the soul is the major reason for people objecting to a bunch of cells being used for experiments. These questions are rhetorical, as in 'things to think about' rhetorical, not 'making a point' rhetorical. So if it's wrong to use the embryonic cells for experiments, is it wrong to destroy the un-used embryos? Is it wrong for fertility clinics to create so many when they know they probably only need a small number? If some cells are taken from an embryo that was later still viable, and it was then destroyed because it wasn't needed, is it wrong? What I'm getting at is that, if there's no objection to fertility clinics destroying un-used embryos now, what difference does taking a few cells from them first make? Me, I don't know for sure either. I have to judge this issue based on what would do the greater good, or the least harm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Don Firth Date: 28 Oct 06 - 01:02 PM "Embryo" might be a loaded word. At the stage at which stem-cells can be harvested, the fertilized egg is a "blastocyst," a tiny clump—a spheroid—of cells. If it isn't implanted in a woman's uterus, it will not develop any further, which is why it has to be frozen if it is to be preserved at all. These left-over blastocysts consist of undifferentiated cells—stem-cells. So at this point in its development it has no identity as much of anything, and definitely not as a unique individual. If it is not placed in an environment where it can develop further (a woman's uterus), it will simply die. It can be preserved for a period of time by freezing, but that time is limited. It will never be a human being. So—ETHICALLY and MORALLY, which is better? To dispose of it as biological waste? Or to use it to cure or prevent diseases and save lives? To me, the alternatives are clear-cut and obvious. I think it would be unethical and immoral to simply throw it away—kill it—when it's existence could be given some meaning by using it to cure diseases and save lives; not just one life, but many. I find it mind-boggling that some people can stare right at the obvious and still not see it. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: bobad Date: 28 Oct 06 - 01:20 PM The problem I have with the ethical issue is who decides? In other words why should one person or group of people impose their ethics on society. I recognize that a society must have certain rules in order to maintain it's cohesion but many questions of ethics come down to the individual. The ethics of stem cell research, IMO, fall into the category of personal choice because neither by using them for research nor discarding surplus embryos has a deletrious effect on society, in the biological sense. As Don has pointed out some knowledge of embryology is required to make an informed choice on the issue and overcome the emotionality connected with using loaded words. If a researcher believes in the morality of his research then he should be permitted to pursue it and conversely if one feels it wrong then he should also have the right not to pursue it but not to impose his position on others. The same goes for anyone who may benefit from this science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Big Mick Date: 28 Oct 06 - 01:44 PM And this is where the arrogance of certainty rears its ugly head. I am speaking specifically to Don and bobad with that one. The idea that only yours is the informed position, and speaking in what appears to be condescending terms (as an example:As Don has pointed out some knowledge of embryology is required to make an informed choice on the issue and overcome the emotionality connected with using loaded words.) Let me assure you both, I have a knowledge of what you quote, and had it before asking the question. I have a personal bias in wanting this technology to continue and advance, as I suspect you both do. But the ethics need scrutiny. And the questions are of such importance that they should be respected by all who take part in this debate. The question which troubles me goes to a point before the point that the two of you are referring to. Undifferentiated cells or not, once fertilization has occurred, everything is in place. All that is required is the implantation. The fact that one chooses not to implant does not take away from the fact that a fertilized embryo is there. It is only by a deliberate act that the cycle doesn't go on. As to Jeri's question of the use of the excess embryos, I believe they absolutely should be used, but I have the same concerns about the procedure which creates these excess embryos in the first place. Yet her point of "greatest good, least arm" certainly applies. bobad, your contention that a researcher should be allowed to just pursue on the basis of his or her own sense of ethics just doesn't hold water, IMO. Society has always had ethical conventions. These should be arrived at by debate among ethicists and ethical researchers, and would be considered norms. The standard you suggest would lead to anarchical (is that a word? LOL) research, where all bets were off. I am sure you can look historically at regimes who already did that and they are viewed as monsters. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Oct 06 - 01:52 PM "If a researcher believes in the morality of his research then he should be permitted to pursue it" That's rather an extreme possition. Would the same rules apply to anyone engaged in any other type of activity? "I don't think what I want to do is immoral, so no one has any right to try to stop me..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Don Firth Date: 28 Oct 06 - 02:01 PM Okay, here's a poser. What about all the eggs—potential human beings—that a woman produces in her childbearing years (about ~500 maybe) that are just eliminated every 28 days? If one were to carry some ideas to the extreme, doesn't a woman have a moral obligation to get pregnant as often as possible in order to bring all those potential human beings into existence? [There are some male chauinist piggies, often of a religious bent, who think so!] Here's a possibility, and there is a precedent for this: If a minor dies in an accident, his or her parents can give permission for the minor's organs to be used for transplants. Why not let the couple involved decide what is to be done with the unused eggs? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: John Hardly Date: 28 Oct 06 - 02:05 PM Yeah, Don, that's flawless logic. There's no difference between a fertilized and a non-fertilized egg. I thought you didn't believe in the immaculate conception. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Big Mick Date: 28 Oct 06 - 02:07 PM Don, you are getting way the hell beyond the scope that I present. Take a breath. I am not coming at this from some great religious divide. I never said the "eggs" were involved until there is fertilization. Eggs without being fertilized cannot grow into a human. They are just eggs. One cannot harvest stem cells from an egg, can they? You are obviously passionate on the issue. I understand. As I said, my own family, and potentially me, would benefit from this research. Can you not see the wisdom in pursuing these questions? Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: bobad Date: 28 Oct 06 - 02:34 PM "That's rather an extreme possition" Most, if not all, medical research today is scrutinized by an ethics committee before it is undertaken so the fear or "anarchical research" is a canard. My statement assumed that the researcher would be working within the framework of an accredited research institution and not in some basement laboratory. Mick, no need to get defensive as I wasn't directing my remark to you, rather I was suggesting that a personal ethic should be formed by examining the issues that are pertinent to it. As you can imagine there is much debate taking place on this issue in university ethics departments. This obsevation is from Dr. Margaret Somerville, a medical ethicist with whom I was privileged to work with on a research project: "A minimum amount of time is also needed for the public to become familiar with the benefits, potential benefits, risks, and harms of a new scientific development, not only at the physical level, but also at the level of its potential impact on values, norms, traditions, customs, culture, beliefs, and attitudes." What seems clear is that we, both as individuals and as a society, have not had adequate ethics time to determine what role embryonic research should play in a human society. It is taken from this paper which looks at the religious, ethical and legal arguments surrounding this issue: http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/mjm/issues/v07n01/crossroads/crossroads.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Don Firth Date: 28 Oct 06 - 02:35 PM Yes, I'm fully aware of the silliness of the argument about unfertilized eggs. This is an example (and an often instructive one) of what is called reductio ad absurdum: this involves pushing an argument beyond reason to illustrate a point. The point being the word "potential." In essence, both the fertilized and unfertilized egg represent a potential human being. Where do we cease to be concerned about the fate of potential unrealized? That is, where are you going to draw the line? And indeed I can see the wisdom of pursuing the moral and ethical questions. But how long are we going to do nothing but debate abstract issues? If we continue to debate the matter for the next twenty years, then how many people are going to die needlessly or suffered unnecessarily while we are doing our sums? What's the moral/ethical answer to that question? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Ebbie Date: 28 Oct 06 - 02:59 PM Where does one start the argument? There are people - and churches - who teach that contraception itself is wrong, that all eggs/sperm must be given the opportunity for impregnation. Does that subject have to be addressed and resolved before a discussion about fertilized eggs is valid? I believe in 'soul', in 'spirit', and I too have believed for a long time that the issue must lie in the determination or at least a consensus as to when a fetus acquires a soul. I would prefer to think that a soul is acquired with the first breath, i.e., in the creation story when the Creator blew breath into Adam's lungs. But that presupposes an acceptance of a literal event, whereas the storys may be allegorical in nature. There are accounts -whether credible or not, I don't know - by people who say they remember their birth, and much anecdotal evidence of people remembering events that went on around them while they were still in womb. So I dunno. For the record, I see no conflict in using the first clump of cells for humane purposes. As far as soul is concerned, there are so many spontaneous abortions and so many pregnancies begun that are not sustainable that, if one believes that that is already human life, there must be myriads of 'souls' that have basically had to say 'Oops' and return to their origins in preparation for another call. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Big Mick Date: 28 Oct 06 - 03:24 PM And when one applies the principle of reductio ad absurdum, Don, to the concept of taking human embryos and harvesting them for the stem cells, we could almost see breeding a subhuman species for the purpost of harvesting organs. See how silly this is? Or is it? I reject your premise with regard to unfertilized eggs having the same weight in the discussion as fertilized embryos. The ova are a naturally produced component used by nature to create life. Those not fertilized, naturally are expelled or die. There has been no proactive manipulation. The taking of ova, fertilizing them, then destroying them is a wholly proactive process which raises the questions I raise. This is a distinction I would think you could grasp. bobad, I was not trying to be defensive, but I admit that it looked that way. What I was trying to establish was that taking the "I'm right, and I can't believe you can't see it" line that Don was taking, and it looked like you were seconding, runs counter to a decent discussion. Some respect for the participants in the discussion is necessary, or it just becomes an "Oh yeah" type of arguement. I am grateful for the link and I will give it a good read before continuing on in this discussion. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 28 Oct 06 - 10:17 PM VERY sick man and VERY sick politics. Will they do a live "web-cam" of Mr. Fox's death throes? (is the twitch real or acted...is the vomit real....or gag-store-surplus? What would you pay for Marie A's last seconds....Sir Walter (five strikes) to sever his spine...
in to today's world....five mil minimum for the kidnap of Lindsberg chil-un....and live video of the execution>?
Sincerely,
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Don Firth Date: 28 Oct 06 - 10:34 PM I do grasp the distinction, Mick, but I don't see that the distinction has great significance. Potential, as I said, is the operational word. But be that as it may. I think science fiction writer Larry Niven has a series of books out about an agent whose job it is to track down "organ-leggers;" criminals who traffic in human organs. I'm not sure how far Niven takes it, but he raises a lot of interesting questions that we're only now having to start to face. But let me ask you this: what should be done with the unused fertilized eggs that no one wants? They can only be stored so long. Just let them deteriorate until they're no longer viable? Or toss them? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: GUEST Date: 28 Oct 06 - 11:09 PM The "excess" egg....is a living viable soul....Many Stand PROUD in on the the Western U.S. shore to help breath life into the spawn of others that would become petri-dish, discarded refuse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Big Mick Date: 28 Oct 06 - 11:24 PM Don I answered that in my post of 1:44. To restate, I absolutely do believe these should be used. They are there and should not be allowed to deteriorate and be thrown out. It is the question of how they got there, and how we should proceed in the future that I would like answered. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: GUEST Date: 28 Oct 06 - 11:54 PM Probably set back the California "edvancement" in the field another decade.....and the conservative had moved seven years forward.>p> Sad scene, poor sad man, poor medium and time for his sad message.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: Don Firth Date: 29 Oct 06 - 12:52 AM There are currently over 400,000 frozen embryos, unused, stored by in vitro fertilization clinics in the United States, waiting for a decision to be made. Interesting and informative article HERE. Lots of material on the internet. Just google "stem cell research." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: bobad Date: 15 Nov 06 - 04:10 PM New stem cell research centre opens Wednesday Suzanne Ma, Ottawa Citizen Published: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 The Ottawa Health Research Institute will officially open the Sprott Centre for Stem Cell Research on Wednesday. The $18.6-million centre has recruited Canada's leading minds in stem cell research. Dr. Michael Rudnicki, Director of the Sprott Centre, says the opening of the state of the art facility is the start of a new era in "regenerative" medicine. Scientists' work spans from developing artificial corneas that promote regeneration, to studying how newts can regrow their limbs, to investigating the developing and regeneration of brain, eyes, pancreas, and skin. © Ottawa Citizen 2006 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Michael J Fox stem cell research video From: bobad Date: 17 Nov 06 - 07:08 PM "NEW YORK - Stem cell injections worked remarkably well at easing symptoms of muscular dystrophy in a group of golden retrievers, a result that experts call a significant step toward treating people. "It's a great breakthrough for all of us working on stem cells for muscular dystrophy," said researcher Johnny Huard of the University of Pittsburgh. Sharon Hesterlee, vice president of translational research at the Muscular Dystrophy Association, called the result one of the most exciting she's seen in her eight years with the organization. Her organization helped pay for the work." http://dailynews.com/news/ci_4667771 |
