Shocking Michael J. Fox Ad in MO Senate Race

Sports Journalists Forum – Media, Newsroom & Reporting Talk

Help Support Sports Journalists Forum:

A more incorrect understanding of how medical reearch works you probably can't find anywhere in the world.
Well done.
And please note the very first footbote on the "study" that our man has posted.
Voodoo science indeed.
 
Fenian_Bastard said:
A more incorrect understanding of how medical reearch works you probably can't find anywhere in the world.
Well done.
And please note the very first footbote on the "study" that our man has posted.
Voodoo science indeed.

Please, oh great and all-knowing ****ing *******, tell us how many years have you spent in the medical research field? What great cures have you discovered? How would you know of anything involving medical research when your entire life evolves around chomping on pop-tarts and jerking off while looking at the Playboy centerfold?
 
Fenian_Bastard said:
A more incorrect understanding of how medical reearch works you probably can't find anywhere in the world.
Well done.
And please note the very first footbote on the "study" that our man has posted.
Voodoo science indeed.

Unbelievable, isn't it?

Over the last six months I've posted dozens of stories and findings concerning ESC research from Time, 60 Minutes, The NYT and various medical journals, all of which quote scientists and doctors on the progress being made and the potential of this research.

This asshat manages to dig up one research piece from one doctor that says tumors are a problem and now he's arguing there's no future in it and it's all a voodoo science. Because research should yield perfect results from the very start each and every time. And if it doesn't, it should be scrapped and we shouldn't waste our time or money. Let me get the boys over at the cancer research clinics on the phone. Could somebody else call the folks at the AIDS research places? We need to let 'em know we're putting a stop to this voodoo ****.

For all those here with a fully functioning brain, ESC research has obstacles to overcome. In addition to the tumor issues, there are also problems with rejection, since it's basically the same as attempting to transplant organs, and a few other snags. All of the problems are big ones. Just as the problems that come before these were -- the ones that have already been solved through this research. That's how it works when you're attempting to forever change the way we deal with disease and sickness. Some problems are expected. Some kinks must be worked out.

And you know what, maybe it won't work. Maybe we get five, 10 years down the road and the scientists say, "Sorry, we got very close, but we just can't get past the problem of ..." Is that a bad thing? It's not like these guys are working to try and figure out how to shave strokes off your golf game. They're working to cure Parkinson's, diabetes, cancer, Alzheimers and pretty much every other disease out there that takes our loved ones and turns them into mush. I'm willing to spend a little money to see if they can.
 
dog428 said:
Fenian_Bastard said:
A more incorrect understanding of how medical reearch works you probably can't find anywhere in the world.
Well done.
And please note the very first footbote on the "study" that our man has posted.
Voodoo science indeed.

Unbelievable, isn't it?

Over the last six months I've posted dozens of stories and findings concerning ESC research from Time, 60 Minutes, The NYT and various medical journals, all of which quote scientists and doctors on the progress being made and the potential of this research.

This asshat manages to dig up one research piece from one doctor that says tumors are a problem and now he's arguing there's no future in it and it's all a voodoo science. Because research should yield perfect results from the very start each and every time. And if it doesn't, it should be scrapped and we shouldn't waste our time or money. Let me get the boys over at the cancer research clinics on the phone. Could somebody else call the folks at the AIDS research places? We need to let 'em know we're putting a stop to this voodoo ****.

For all those here with a fully functioning brain, ESC research has obstacles to overcome. In addition to the tumor issues, there are also problems with rejection, since it's basically the same as attempting to transplant organs, and a few other snags. All of the problems are big ones. Just as the problems that come before these were -- the ones that have already been solved through this research. That's how it works when you're attempting to forever change the way we deal with disease and sickness. Some problems are expected. Some kinks must be worked out.

And you know what, maybe it won't work. Maybe we get five, 10 years down the road and the scientists say, "Sorry, we got very close, but we just can't get past the problem of ..." Is that a bad thing? It's not like these guys are working to try and figure out how to shave strokes off your golf game. They're working to cure Parkinson's, diabetes, cancer, Alzheimers and pretty much every other disease out there that takes our loved ones and turns them into mush. I'm willing to spend a little money to see if they can.

Fair enough. Then spend your own money or find the money in the private sector to fund your research. Just don't use my tax dollars to fund this until it becomes clear that this is reliable science and not a repeat of the Global Cooling voodoo science of the 1970s that we wasted a small fortune on. Especially as ASCs are already showing positive results.
 
Let me see, if I recall correctly, there was a claim made by the same group of researchers Dog seems to favor that the cure for AIDs would be found in the rain forest.
How's that one coming along Poochie?
Oh I'm sorry, that one turned out to be another voodoo science project didn't it? Just like ESCs are likely to become.
There is nothing in the medical profession that even begins to lead anyone with a brain that ESCs are the great cure-all. There is a lot of "we hope it will lead to" and "we theorize that it will" out there, but no conclussive proof that support ESCs as a useful tool in treating diseases.
There is ample evidence that ASCs are and that is where the money should go for now.
 
Scribe4264 said:
Fair enough. Then spend your own money or find the money in the private sector to fund your research. Just don't use my tax dollars to fund this until it becomes clear that this is reliable science and not a repeat of the Global Cooling voodoo science of the 1970s that we wasted a small fortune on. Especially as ASCs are already showing positive results.

If Scribe were in charge of scientific research, doctors would still be using leeches.

(Oh, and there are probably a lot of Americans who don't want their tax dollars spent on invading foreign countries).
.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
"From the Family Research Council" reads that first footnote from the link posted by the our new favorite invertebrate. I'm convinced.
 
Michael J. Fox admits on ABC's This Week that he didn't even read the initiative in Missouri.

From the transcript at ABC.com:
"Fox: Well, I don't think that's true. You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so I have to qualify it by saying I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I'll agree with it in spirit, I don't know, I— On full disclosure, I haven't read it, and that's why I didn't put myself up for it distinctly."

And once that came out, it now appears the lefties here are no longer interested in this thread. I wonder why.

So in the end, the libs played the emotion card over the fact card ... again. Of course, they never seem to have that fact card in their hand. I guess the deck is stacked.
 
There's a big difference between "he didn't read the initiative" and "I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative"

Good Lord, do we have to start running remedial reading for the SportsJournalists.com plankton?

And the dumbassery continues.
 
JR said:
There's a big difference between "he didn't read the initiative" and "I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative"

Good Lord, do we have to start running remedial reading for the SportsJournalists.com plankton?

And the dumbassery continues.
"Fox: Well, I don't think that's true. You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so I have to qualify it by saying I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I'll agree with it in spirit, I don't know, I— On full disclosure, I haven't read it, and that's why I didn't put myself up for it distinctly."
 
old_tony said:
Michael J. Fox admits on ABC's This Week that he didn't even read the initiative in Missouri.

From the transcript at ABC.com:
"Fox: Well, I don't think that's true. You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so I have to qualify it by saying I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I'll agree with it in spirit, I don't know, I— On full disclosure, I haven't read it, and that's why I didn't put myself up for it distinctly."

And once that came out, it now appears the lefties here are no longer interested in this thread. I wonder why.

So in the end, the libs played the emotion card over the fact card ... again. Of course, they never seem to have that fact card in their hand. I guess the deck is stacked.

Yes, this is exactly why I haven't posted on this thread in a couple of days. Not because I have a job or family or hobbies or any of that ****. It's because I went searching the Internet for a transcript of a Michael J. Fox interview and was astounded to find that he hadn't read the full initiative. After that I was just too embarrassed to come back here and comment. I mean, that just wrecks everything for me. Here I thought stem cell research had the potential to cure deadly, debilitating diseases, but come to find out, Fox hadn't even read the initiative.

Moron.
 
PopeDirkBenedict said:
JR said:
There's a big difference between "he didn't read the initiative" and "I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative"

Good Lord, do we have to start running remedial reading for the SportsJournalists.com plankton?

And the dumbassery continues.
"Fox: Well, I don't think that's true. You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so I have to qualify it by saying I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I'll agree with it in spirit, I don't know, I— On full disclosure, I haven't read it, and that's why I didn't put myself up for it distinctly."
My bad. I apologize.

Does someone have the full transcript?
 
I understand that Fox is highly concerned about finding a cure for Parkinson's and his feelings towards stem cell, but if that above quote about not knowing the page-to-page content of the MO initiative is spot-on, I can say that I'm disappointed in him, but not surprised, given how entertainers (and yes, athletes in this case) lend their names to something that they haven't really read up on before consenting to do it. Dog, don't feel too bad or embarassed. It's common to assume that someone knows what they are supporting or non-supporting for. To not read it in full does leave some questions.

It shouldn't be that hard to sit and read an initiative or a proposal and ask questions about it before voting on it.

Are we, as a society, really that lazy in not reading up on stuff we think we know, but not know in full details?

FWIW, Fox was here in town at Drake U. stomping for the Dem candidate for governor.
 
What facts about stem-cell research are trumped because Fox did not read the Missouri initiative, the poster does not explain.

And the taunt about the "fact card" is especially rich. Considering the accuracy of claims made by the Bush administration and their sycophants the last six years, their fact card is not only absent from the deck, it's not even in the casino.
 
JR said:
PopeDirkBenedict said:
JR said:
There's a big difference between "he didn't read the initiative" and "I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative"

Good Lord, do we have to start running remedial reading for the SportsJournalists.com plankton?

And the dumbassery continues.
"Fox: Well, I don't think that's true. You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so I have to qualify it by saying I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I'll agree with it in spirit, I don't know, I— On full disclosure, I haven't read it, and that's why I didn't put myself up for it distinctly."
My bad. I apologize.

Does someone have the full transcript?
No offense taken. The full transcript can be found at ABC.com.
 
old_tony said:
JR said:
PopeDirkBenedict said:
JR said:
There's a big difference between "he didn't read the initiative" and "I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative"

Good Lord, do we have to start running remedial reading for the SportsJournalists.com plankton?

And the dumbassery continues.
"Fox: Well, I don't think that's true. You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so I have to qualify it by saying I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I'll agree with it in spirit, I don't know, I— On full disclosure, I haven't read it, and that's why I didn't put myself up for it distinctly."
My bad. I apologize.

Does someone have the full transcript?
No offense taken. The full transcript can be found at ABC.com.
I mean a link to the piece. ABC.com is kind of a big place.
 
D-3 Fan said:
I understand that Fox is highly concerned about finding a cure for Parkinson's and his feelings towards stem cell, but if that above quote about not knowing the page-to-page content of the MO initiative is spot-on, I can say that I'm disappointed in him, but not surprised, given how entertainers (and yes, athletes in this case) lend their names to something that they haven't really read up on before consenting to do it. Dog, don't feel too bad or embarassed. It's common to assume that someone knows what they are supporting or non-supporting for. To not read it in full does leave some questions.

It shouldn't be that hard to sit and read an initiative or a proposal and ask questions about it before voting on it.

Are we, as a society, really that lazy in not reading up on stuff we think we know, but not know in full details?

FWIW, Fox was here in town at Drake U. stomping for the Dem candidate for governor.

I'm not embarrassed. Maybe the sarcasm font didn't come through as clear as I thought.

This thread hasn't been about Fox since about page three. It's been another debate -- most of it noticeably absent of facts -- over stem cell research. And really, it wasn't about Fox from the start. Nobody gave a damn that Fox was standing up for stem cell research. What they cared about was that he was standing up for a Democrat.
 
JR said:
old_tony said:
JR said:
PopeDirkBenedict said:
JR said:
There's a big difference between "he didn't read the initiative" and "I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative"

Good Lord, do we have to start running remedial reading for the SportsJournalists.com plankton?

And the dumbassery continues.
"Fox: Well, I don't think that's true. You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so I have to qualify it by saying I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I'll agree with it in spirit, I don't know, I— On full disclosure, I haven't read it, and that's why I didn't put myself up for it distinctly."
My bad. I apologize.

Does someone have the full transcript?
No offense taken. The full transcript can be found at ABC.com.
I mean a link to the piece. ABC.com is kind of a big place.
Sorry about that. It's actually ABCnews.com and you're right, I did have to look around for a while.

But, here's the link:
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=2613377&page=1
 
Boy this Fox guy obviously has no idea what he's talking about. ::)

Stephanopoulos: In the ad now running in Missouri, Jim Caviezel speaks in Aramaic. It means, "You betray me with a kiss." And his position, his point, is that actually even though down in Missouri they say the initiative is against cloning, it's actually going to allow human cloning.


Fox: Well, I don't think that's true. You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so I have to qualify it by saying I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I'll agree with it in spirit, I don't know, I— On full disclosure, I haven't read it, and that's why I didn't put myself up for it distinctly.

But I've made this point before, and I really am sincere in it, that anybody who's prayed on this, and thought about it, and really considered it and can't get their mind around or their heart around the idea of embryonic stem cell research, I'd go to war for your right to believe that. And you're right to feel that. I respect it. I truly do.

My point is, and our point as a community, is we have a very good and supportable conclusion that a vast majority of people in this country are in favor of science playing a leading role in making changes in the future and believe in embryonic stem cell research.

So we're just saying, know that we have prayed on it, too, and we have thought about it, and we are good people, and we are family people, and we are people that take this very seriously, and we're as concerned as you are.

And we've decided that we would like to take this step and to do it with caution and to do it with oversight and to do it with the strictest adherence to ethics and all of the principles this country stands for.

But, allow us to do that without infusing the conversation with inflammatory rhetoric and name-calling and fear-mongering. It doesn't help.


Stephanopoulos: Do you think there's any way to finally find common ground with people who do believe in the end that this is tampering with tiny lives?


Fox: Well, again, the point has been made that these lives are going to be thrown away, anyway. They are marked for destruction — thousands of frozen embryos that are a byproduct of in vitro fertilization. We have routinely, before this conversation started on stem-cell research, we have for years thrown them away.

And that's the other thing, you know, this idea of snowflake babies: We're in favor of that. The truth of the matter is that it is only going to account for a tiny fraction—


Stephanopoulos: Those are the embryos that are adopted and then brought—


Fox: Absolutely. Who would have a problem with that? That's fantastic.

But it will, in the end, account for only a tiny fraction of those eggs. And so our point is that the pro-life position is to use that — what up to this point is waste, of literal waste that is going to be thrown away — use it to save lives and to ensure lives for the future. I mean, they talk about unborn. Unborn kids are going to be born with diabetes. People are going to be dealing with a genetic predisposition to Alzheimer's or to Parkinson's or kids that are going to be injured, have spinal cord injury.

That those kids may be born into a world that has the answers for that. That's our position.


Stephanopoulos: You were just saying you're about to hit a pocket.


Fox: Yeah, I just hit a nice pocket. I should be calm for a sec.


Stephanopoulos: Good.


Fox: It's kind of like surfing, you know. You wait for the wave. And I just hit a nice wave I think.


Stephanopoulos: Well, I don't want to rile you up, but I am going to bring up Rush Limbaugh one more time.

Fox: There it goes!

Stephanopoulos: One of the things he says is that when you're talking about all these cures, you're giving people false hope and that it's cruel.

Fox: It's so funny. What is crueler, to not have hope or to have hope? And it's not false hope. It's a very informed hope. I mean, it's hope that's informed by the opinion of our leading scientists, almost to the point of unanimity that embryonic stem cells, because they're pluripotent, because they have the capacity to be anything, and, are truly— Will [it] be a straight path to victory? Probably not. Probably you'll have stutter steps along the way.

In fact, they just did some work where they found that it actually relieved the symptoms of Parkinson's in one test, but there some residue, some tissue residue that built up, which is not ideal. But two steps forward, one step forward, one step back, you know, it's a process, it's how this country was built. It's what we do, you know. It seems to me that in the last few years, eight, 10 years, we've just stopped, we've become incurious and un-ambitious. And hope, I mean, hope is— I don't want to get too corny about it, but isn't that what the person in the harbor with the thing—? (Gestures)

It's about hope. And so to characterize hope as some sort of malady or some kind of flaw of character or national weakness is, to me, really counter to what this country is about.
 
dog, point taken and I respect your take on it. I couldn't care less that he was endorsing McCaskill, but we know that many people will see that (Hollywood favoring Democrats) as an entirely separate ball of wax. Let's stay on the stem cell issue, since the transcript is up for reading (thanks again).

Jeez whiz. I don't know what to say after reading this transcript. :/
 

Latest posts

Back
Top