What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
197 Comments
- devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -16/+99Friends, please join me in the ritual pressing of the ban button on sdrawkca. Amen.
- Feanor, on 10/12/2007, -5/+64@sdrawkcaB - That was the single most offensive thing I have ever heard someone say about a person with a debilitating disease...welcome to the block list sir.
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -12/+68Because paliticians make policies. You have to support politicians that will make policies that you find desirable, simple as that.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -19/+76HappyClam:
>The Republicans want to find a cure for this affliction just as much as he does.
That's false. One of the most promising forms of research, embryonic stem cells, are actively opposed by Republicans as they believe that a single cell is a baby. That is just not arguable.
So they do NOT want to find a cure for this afflication just as much as he does, as they value the life of this cell/"baby" more than they value finding a cure for his disease. This is not an argument, it is a fact. Those are their values. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+40Hick:
>The funny thing is that now Fox is changing his story. First he said he wasn't on meds because he wanted to show the full effects of the disease.
That's false. You're very confused.
>You're a freaking moron. If you had a clue you'd know that YES HE DID.
Okay, show us. You're probably referring to years ago when he appeared in front of the senate without his medication to show them the severity of the disease. He's gotten a lot worse since then.
Please, before you attack a guy with a brain disease, perhaps you could make yourself curious enough to find out what the facts are. - atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+41 Michael J Fox didn't admit that. Stop lying.
- SonOfHam, on 10/12/2007, -5/+39Michael J Fox did not admit to not being on meds. He said that the had to take his meds in order to even make the ad. Without taking his medication, he wouldn't even be able to move. Parkinsons, is an awful, awful disease.
- jayesbee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28For the Millionth time, Fox was OVERMEDICATED when taping the ad. He says this in the full video of the interveiw with Couric. Please just get ONE FACT RIGHT before opening your mouth.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33HappyClam:
>The Republicans want to find a cure for this affliction just as much as he does.
I am intrigued with how I was modded down for stating the fact that the above statement CANNOT be true, since they oppose one of the most promising forms of research due to their "values."
If any Republican wishes to respond rather than mod me down, I'd be fascinated to hear how a Republican wants to find a cure for this affliction just as much as he does, but values the life of a "baby" cell over his needs. If you value a cell over his needs, how can you want a cure as much as he does? - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27"The ad also says that bush/republicans are anti-stem-call-research. This is yet ANOTHER lie. They're ALL for it. They're just against getting the stem cells from HUMAN EMBRYOS."
Republicans aren't anti-gay. This is yet ANOTHER LIE. They are ALL for gays. They're just against gay people having any of the equal rights granted under the constitution to everyone else.
In addition, Republicans aren't anti-poor. This is yet ANOTHER LIE. They are ALL for helping the poor people. They're just against doing it with their own rich money.
Finally, Republicans aren't anti-peace. This is yet ANOTHER LIE. They are ALL for peace. They just believe that the best way to get peace is to inflict war. - TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -7/+33@myhappyclam
*****, banning research on embryonic stem cells is not about cloning. Its about the use of embryos created in the thousands for those with fertility problems. Stem cells are a promising lead in the push to cure Parkinsons, or don't you care? - mattman59, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30I still find it funny that people opose the .gov funding research that could cure this man and millions like him because their invisible friend says its wrong.
- amanpour, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26You're only allowed to change your opinion if you switched to support Bush because "9/11 changed everything." Any other change of opinion is flip-flopping.
- cuervoman914, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26i feel terrible for him, ive had to see my uncle live with this, and ultimately pass. this is a tough thing to cope with, first physical, then emotional/psychological. its quite a depressing state. just leave the man alone. like he says, everyone has right, dont condemn him. quite depressing that people are resorting to finger pointing to a man that cant help himself, quite quite sad and frightening.
- rebotfc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Hickeroar and Grizwald, if he didnt take his meds he wouldnt be able to move you ignorant fvcks. The shaking is a side effect of taking the drugs.
- w0rd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22I'll bite: Why can't someone change their opinion in two years?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21This has nothing to do with killing unborn children. Science every now and then hits a major breakthrough that will massively change some sector of our economy. They did it with alternative fuels in automobiles years ago, and it was squashed by the oil industry. Only now with rising fuel prices is it getting any attention. Stem cell research is so powerful it will fundamentally change where the bottom line profits of a lot of drug companies is coming from, thus they are lobbing very hard against it. Your politicians want to line their pockets but don't want to lose public support. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. How to resolve the issue? Ah the majority of the country is Christian, 78% (breaks down to: Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%). So they stuck the issue to the people who feel the most passionate about things they believe and told them "Hey there! They are killing babies!"
Do your own research people, he's not pulling it out of his ass when he says these unborn embryos are going to be thrown away anyway. - jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20"For the record, all of this started because Rush said it looked like he wasn't on his meds during the ad ... this was in fact true, Michael J Fox admitted it."
When yoiu say for the record, please don't lie. I heard the audio...it was a bit more then saying he was on meds....and the only admission of facts that I heard from Michael J Fox are not from quotes but from neocon shills like yourself...maybe I missed that, but either way it's only a stupid ass who would diss someone for trying to do what he could to find a cure for his disease. Just faith heal I guess is your advise? - tsaylor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Can someone link to where he admitted these things?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18spank:
>It's needs to be said that thinkprogress is a George Soros funded left wing media-blitz organization.
George Soros didn't give his first political donation until about 2004. But it was a very pretty ad hom. Refute the facts, if you can. - zeeeej, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15@killinger: Thanks for the good laugh!
Rush on his site: I Never "Made Fun" of Fox or Said He Was "Faking"
What Rush actually said (while jerking his arms and head around): "... he is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He is moving all around and shaking. And it's purely an act. ... Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting, one of the two."
I guess we all owe Rush a big apology for unfairly accusing him of being a fat, lying loser. - bairmik, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17The idea of anyone trying to protect a waste product, which is what the unused embryos in fertility clinics will end up being, when the embryos could be used with the consent of the donors to aid in the search for cures for multiple diseases is just sickening.
Why is it OK to dispose of (kill) an embryo when used in a fertility clinic, but not OK to use (kill) it in research for a cure? Either way, the embryo gets it.
The 'right to life' (ugh) party sickens me with their stance on social issues.
Does anyone remember the good old days when republicans actually wanted the government to stay out of our lives? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14creepy:
>Nothing at all wrong with that, but if you make yourself a spokeman, you have to accept all of it.
You have to accept libel? No. - drlha, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Specter is "a Republican in name only" to most Conservatives though.
- DocLee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13killinger777,
The fact that we have yet to find a "cure" with embryonic stem cells does not mean that a cure doesn't possibly exist. You are confusing the words treatment and possibility. What you seemingly refuse to understand is that science as a whole is relatively young. It was only in the mid 80s that we began to have scientific breakthroughs in understanding how our bodies function and more importantly, when we started to dive into the minutiae that are becoming increasingly relevant to understanding the immune system as a whole. Before our massive technological advances, we played a game of cat and mouse, fisherman and fish, where we tossed out the bait and reeled whatever was out there in. These days, science is more focused with a game plan involving strategy rather than just casting a generalized net. We are still discovering new cell types within the main immune effector cell populations and only now understanding what exactly their function is in the overall immune system response.
To simply say embryonic stem cells haven't provided any useful research that can be expanded upon would be false to say the very least. Off hand, I can point to at least 20 references in the modern day literature discussing the relevance of embryonic stem cells as potential therapeutic reagents. On the other hand, I can point to pitfalls in adult embryonic stem cell research such as the fact that the telomeric ends of the DNA are shortened leading to an increased risk of DNA abnormalities or that adult stem cells may not have the same totipotent potential that embryonic stem cells possess thereby making certain treatments not probable, especially treatments occurring in early development.
If you really want to sit there and analyze the literature, then you really need to understand what's being discussed, which quite frankly, you don't. To say that embryonic stem cell research shouldn't be funded on equivalent levels as other governmentally funded research simply because it has yet to generate any substantial treatment as of today, is simply not thinking scientifically. We live in a fast paced world where we demand instant satisfaction and gratification. That's all fine and great if you're talking about satisfying your appetite by stuffing your face at McDonald's with a Big Mac, but that's not how science works. Science is a slow paced process where every mistake, every missed analysis, and every speedy result not fully understood can not only result in tarnishing your reputation as a scientist, but more importantly result in the deaths of thousands of people.
To put it another way, gene therapy has been a hypothetical since the structure of DNA was first discovered. If you look back through the literature, you'll see early papers and symposiums discussing the potential for gene therapy as a therapeutic reagent in combating disease going way back to the mid 60s. It would be approximately 25 years later before the first gene therapy clinical trials began (1990). It would be 10 years later before a "cure" was reported (although leukemia was an outcome for some patients). Approximately 35 years lapsed without a single reported unrefined "cure." Yet here we are today with gene therapy treatments being produced and on the docket for approval for sale in the US. Should we scientists not have "wasted" 35 years of our lives because we didn't get immediate satisfaction and results? I think not.
In terms of the funding issue, it has very little to do with funding big pharmacy and big biotech. The majority of the research done by big pharmacy focuses on treatment rather than cure. It is more profitable for biotech firms to develop a treatment rather than a cure. There are large corporations out there such as Amgen and Genentech which are able to devote funds to cures given their size and sustainability, however the smaller firms out there focus almost wholly on scanning peptide, protein, and chemical libraries to find effector molecules given that the process can be automated, it requires less funding and man power than classical bench work research, and the time from research to product tends to be less. However, these are the same techniques that gave us products such as thalidomide. More over, it is far more likely that big pharmacy and biotech gain significant advantages from academic research than vice versus. It is the academic, publicly funded domain that really comes up with the central hypotheses that drive scientific advancement, especially when focusing on minute details that can determine whether a treatment could work or if a possibility for treatment exists.
Most of us in the scientific field realize the potential use of embryonic stem cells as a treatment or a cure for certain diseases. However, that does not mean we currently have the hard science down as to how exactly these treatments will come to fruition. That does not mean we should be inhibited or limited in our research or that we should necessarily place all of our eggs into the basket of the private sector which is almost wholly profit oriented, especially if our results could benefit mankind. You need to give us scientists the benefit of the doubt and realize that most of us share a common goal. Not to get famous and believe me when I say certainly not to get wealthy. You'd be surprised to hear exactly how much the majority of scientists in the United States actually make compared to other jobs on the market. Our job is to explore, learn, and develop. How can we even begin to explore embryonic stem cells in the world of modern scientific theory and technique if we have neither the funding nor the support to do so?
So before you sit there behind your keyboard, with little understanding of what science is, how science is conducted, and with no understanding of the term "potential," look back over the past 20-30 years of scientific research as a whole and tell me how many things that were once before nothing more than a possibility, have now become a reality.
Dr. Lee
Clinical Immunologist
National Institutes of Health - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12repins:
>Fox admitted to not taking his Meds when he testified in front of Congress a few years ago, it is in Fox's own book. So, I do not think it is that far of a stretch to say he had done it again.
Yes it is when a simple phone call to his spokesman would have answered the question. Rush has assistants and an entire staff. Perhaps he should consider using them before libelling someone with a brain disease on the air.
But he "stands by what he said" even though now he knows it isn't true. What a jerk. - djcgmcse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Funny, and all together sad.
The problem not being that people have issues with stem cell research; that is fine. But to so strongly impose your belief upon others that you'd rather them die, just because YOU beleive something.
Its amazing how many people change their minds when it personally affects them or their own family. But they're the same ones that are so quick to judge and make fun of Mr. Fox. - zeeeej, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15@joeyjojo and others: Apparently I need to turn down the sarcasm - I'm not making it work! Quote marks would have helped: "liberal media."
Fox has been consistent in his support of candidates who work for stem cell research and other potential treatments for Parkinsons. This has included Republican candidates.
Couric could have easily discovered the answer to this question beforehand. By not doing that, she gave credence to Limbaugh's implication that Fox is a Democratic operative posing as a neutral party, which he isn't. He's an activist, supporting candidates who agree with him on this issue. Most of those DO happen to be Democrats, for obvious reasons. But that's not really relevant.
Fortunately, Fox was able to slam that argument out of the park. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Killinger:
>Yup, very promising...
Great site! Can you give us more citationless fiction sites?
Plus can you show us even more rapidly that you don't understand the difference and benefits of undifferentiated stem cells versus differentiated stem cells? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14bair:
>Technically, I believe to be considered an embryo, the fertilized egg will have to have already begin to split. From what I remember the embryonic stage occurs from the time when the fertilized egg first splits up to around eight weeks, at which point it is considered a foetus.
Yes, I am using the term "baby" pejoratively. These are blastocysts or embryos cultivated from fertility clinics. Whether you or I feel that it's right or wrong, the Republicans value a cell from these more than finding a cure for him. So the cells/blastocysts, etc. get dumped down the toilet (quite literally, actually).
Strange concept of "wanting to find a cure just as much as he does." They simply don't. - bbatsell, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13No, they were not retracted. In fact, Rush went on air yesterday and said he stood behind everything he said.
- piratearggghhh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Spanka - That's not true, every state university funds medical research. Federal agencies like the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Health etc. has federal grants.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Actually Rush libelled a guy with a brain disease on air, then when confronted backed down and went on his belly saying that he would apologize, then chickened out of a proper apology.
Right stand up guy, that Rush is. - ClassicJBC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Michael J. Fox = Hero
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Killinger:
>Here are the facts about what Rush said:
No, those are the "facts" that Rush says are true. Unfortunately, we already read the transcript and saw the video. - zjbird, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10MJ Fox is my freakin hero, I could never go on a news with a disease like that and be able to speak without stuttering
- eatasandwich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I don't understand why anyone cares what level the guys meds were at. Is the fact that someone can be treated with a drug a reason for not researching it further or finding a cure? The ad was SUPPOSED to stir up emotions and gain support for stem cell research.
I work in the pediatric medical field. I work with children, have friends, an ex girlfriend, and members of my own family who would benefit from the giant leaps forward in medicine that some people are preventing and controlling with their ridiculous stance on this issue.
Rush Limbaugh needs to walk around the hospital where I work for half an hour and then blurt out his nonsense. He makes me absolutely sick as does anyone who stands in the way of better and more flexible stem cell research.
The giant leaps forward WILL happen. I don't know where they will come from, but probably not America. America WILL take advantage of the better treatments though - I just wish that certain members of the political right gave up their right to those future benefits with their vote. - missoulasamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Actually, without his meds, he would be UNABLE to move at all.
Of course, if he was on the ad unable to speak or move or do anything, I'll bet ol' Rush would accuse him of "acting." What a dick. - aywwts4, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13I think what people are saying is this _Issue_ will affect the the outcome of elections.
And in my particular instance, being in one of those key states Fox is advertising in, I am voting against a candidate I otherwise agree with (Economically and policy wise) simply because they are against Stem Cell Research, (and for a constitutional gay marriage ban) this issue is simply that decisive for me, and the long term effects of this are a lot more important than the short term effects of the economy. - luther70, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@ killinger777
you did see the video where Rush is mocking Fox's movements while making his ignorants comments right ? - chaimpot0k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I ***** love Michael J. Fox and I could give two ***** about Rush Limbaugh, he's just another politician.
Stem cell research is going to happen, if not in America then in a country that isn't full of conservative pricks - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8On the contrary, he's using the system to get himself a cure. Good for him.
Beats spending $6 billion a week on absolutely nothing. - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"I called Rush Limbaugh and he told me: I believe Democrats have a long history of using victims of various things as political spokespeople because they believe they are untouchable, infallible, they are immune from criticism."
Wait...the GOP has NEVER done that ever, right? Right? *cough* 911 *cough* - TheZorch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8If Rush Limbaugh thinks this way, and he's one of the Republican Parties most outspoken supporters, then it makes you wonder about the principles of the Republican Party as a whole.
Its something to think about. This is political party that has given the President a blank check, in the words of Keith Olbermann, to basically become our dictator. Do we really want to vote these people back into power?
I don't think so. - CarbonEclectic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10He didn't come on the show to take on Rush's comments, Rush's comments came to him via Katie Couric.
- Feanor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It should be the medical companies job to fund research, but they are too damn greedy and won't do something that doesn't have an immediate profit. Thus, gov. funding is necessary to provide any kind of advancement in science.
- jiminoc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11rush is a pill popping idiot who wants tough laws for all but himself.
"Drug users should be put to death! Well expect me cause I likes me somes codo"
no one ***** with Alex P. Keaton on my watch! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Koose:
>Well, that just shows how much I pay attention to Rush.
Enough to feel the need to barf out an incorrect opinion about him.
>My advice to MJF would be to do the same and stop commenting on the whole affair.
Yes, let Rush get away with it.
No, this is a perfect opportunity to bring more attention to Parkinsons and the draconian, backwards, stupid policies of the Republicans. This alone will probably save some lives and change some minds. - CarbonEclectic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@creepyman
*enter captain sarcasm*
Yeah, Michael J. Fox USED his symptoms to show people evidence of how he has to cope with his illness and dupe them into supporting politicians who are pushing for medical research for treatment of disease. What a selfish prick. Just like all of those scientists and lawyers who USE evidence to support their arguments/theories.
*exit captain sarcasm*
Michael J. Fox was showing what people have to go through with his illness. It's called informing the public and isn't an informed public required for the democratic process? Or would you rather have people vote thinking that Parkinson's is some disease from going to too many theme parks? - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"It's not governments job to fun medical research. Never has been."
It's not the governments job to make life better for it's own citizens. Never has been. It's sole purpose is to make the rich richer on the backs of the working class. Duh. -
Show 51 - 100 of 197 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is