October Surprise: Michael J. Fox Falsely Campaigns for Dems

F

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
Michael J. Fox has cut two campaign ads, one for Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and the other for Ben Cardin of Maryland. In those ads he claims that the Republican candidates running against those Dems wish to outlaw stem cell research in Missouri and Maryland by opposing the ballot initiative that bears the name "early stem cell research."

The deception is that this ballot initiative has absolutely nothing to do with stem cell research. This ballot initiative is a disguised bill that is all about making implanting cloned embryos in the womb of a woman a constitutional amendment. Yes, you heard it: This bill is about cloning, which has failed numerous times to be passed, until now they have resorted to deception to try to get it passed.

Stem cell research has not been shown to do anything to counter Alzheimer's, from which Fox suffers. In fact, there is a new breakthrough involving gene therapy, which is a totally different science. Yet Fox falsely implies that stem cell research is the only hope for Alzheimer's sufferers.

Fox' ad also is deceitful in claiming that Talent is against stem cell research. Stem cell research is actually legal in Missouri, and Talent has made no indication of any attempt to change that.

It makes one wonder: If the facts are so clearly the opposite of what is being asserted by Michael J. Fox, what is his motivation for cutting the ad? Is he nothing more than a Democratic Party hack, or has he been fooled by the McCaskill and Cardin campaigns, both of which are obviously exploiting his tragic illness for sheer political gain?

Either way, it's reprehensible, not just to falsely misrepresent the facts, but to take advantage of suffering human beings in a desperate move to win an election. Furthermore, now that Fox has entered the political arena, he has foregone any protection he would have had from criticism. He's in the game now, and as such is subject to closer scrutiny than a butterfly under a microscope.


Followup:

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT:

http://www.steeleformaryland.com/SE...ainstStemCellResearchforPurePoliticalGain.htm

Cardin Voted Against Stem Cell Research for Pure Political Gain



TEMPLE HILLS, MD – Today, Michael Steele released the following statement setting the record straight on stem cell research:

Michael Steele said, “There is only one candidate in this race who voted against stem cell research and it’s Congressman Ben Cardin. Ben Cardin had a chance to support stem cell research that would not destroy human embryos, and he voted against it – not because of his beliefs on the issue, but as a transparent political stunt. Both Senators Barbara Mikulski and Paul Sarbanes voted for this legislation. Ben Cardin wanted to politicize the issue instead of getting something done, so he voted against it. Marylanders deserve better than Congressman Cardin’s continued Washington double-talk, mistruths and sheer political gamesmanship on an issue as important as stem cell research.”

On September 6, 2006, the Frederick News Post reported: “[Cardin] opposes suggestions that stem cell research is acceptable if the embryo isn't destroyed. (Liam Farrell, “Pursuing Change,” Frederick News Post, September 2, 2006)

Michael Steele added, “I am an enthusiastic supporter of cord blood, adult stem cell and embryonic stem cell research that does not destroy the embryo, and I fully support expanding innovations in technology that make it possible to treat and prevent disease without the willful destruction of human embryos.”

Cardin Voted AGAINST Expanded Research On Stem Cells That Do Not Destroy Embryos.

Alternate Stem Cell Research Methods – Passage. “Barton, R-Texas, motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that would require the National Institutes of Health to conduct and support research on the isolation, derivation and production of pluripotent stem cells that do not destroy human embryos. It would require the Health and Human Services secretary to issue final guidelines for additional stem cell research, with priority for research with the greatest potential to yield benefits in the near future, within 90 days of the bill's enactment.” (S. 2754, CQ Vote #380: Motion rejected. July 18, 2006, Cardin voted Nay)
The Senate Voted Unanimously To Pass the Same Bill that Cardin voted AGAINST. Both Senators Mikulski and Sarbanes Voted In Favor Of The Bill.

Alternate Stem Cell Research Methods – Passage. Passage of the bill that would require the National Institutes of Health to conduct and support research to develop techniques for the isolation, derivation and production of pluripotent stem cells that do not destroy human embryos. It would require the Health and Human Services secretary to issue final guidelines for additional stem cell research, including a prioritization of research with the greatest potential to yield benefits in the near future, within 90 days of the bill's enactment.” (S. 2754, CQ Vote #205: July 18, 2006, Sarbanes voted Yea; Mikulski voted Yea)
 
"Stem cell research has not been shown to do anything to counter Alzheimer's, from which Fox suffers."

Micheal suffers from Parkinsons.
 
pbslmo said:
"Stem cell research has not been shown to do anything to counter Alzheimer's, from which Fox suffers."

Micheal suffers from Parkinsons.
Click to expand...

You are correct. That was a typo.
 
Come on now Fossten, what's so bad about cloning? We could make hundreds of Dubyas, it would be like "The Boys From Brazil".
 
Where the hell did you come up with article? How about a link?

fossten said:
Michael J. Fox has cut two campaign ads, one for Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and the other for Ben Cardin of Maryland. In those ads he claims that the Republican candidates running against those Dems wish to outlaw stem cell research in Missouri and Maryland by opposing the ballot initiative that bears the name "early stem cell research."

The deception is that this ballot initiative has absolutely nothing to do with stem cell research. This ballot initiative is a disguised bill that is all about making implanting cloned embryos in the womb of a woman a constitutional amendment. Yes, you heard it: This bill is about cloning, which has failed numerous times to be passed, until now they have resorted to deception to try to get it passed.
Click to expand...

This guy has no idea what he's talking about. The proposed amendment specifically says that:

(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.

(2) No human blastocyst may be produced by fertilization solely for the purpose of stem cell research.
Click to expand...

Among a long list of the safeguards. With that said, I'm firmly against constitutional amendments, especially concerning something this controversial, so I hope it gets rejected.

fossten said:
Stem cell research has not been shown to do anything to counter Alzheimer's, from which Fox suffers. In fact, there is a new breakthrough involving gene therapy, which is a totally different science. Yet Fox falsely implies that stem cell research is the only hope for Alzheimer's sufferers.
Click to expand...

Whoa, Fox does not suffer from Alzheimer's, he suffers from Parkinson's. BIG difference. And while researchers seem to agree that stem cell research offers little hope for Alzheimer's, they do believe it can be used to help Parkinson's patients.

fossten said:
Fox' ad also is deceitful in claiming that Talent is against stem cell research. Stem cell research is actually legal in Missouri, and Talent has made no indication of any attempt to change that.

It makes one wonder: If the facts are so clearly the opposite of what is being asserted by Michael J. Fox, what is his motivation for cutting the ad? Is he nothing more than a Democratic Party hack, or has he been fooled by the McCaskill and Cardin campaigns, both of which are obviously exploiting his tragic illness for sheer political gain?

Either way, it's reprehensible, not just to falsely misrepresent the facts, but to take advantage of suffering human beings in a desperate move to win an election. Furthermore, now that Fox has entered the political arena, he has foregone any protection he would have had from criticism. He's in the game now, and as such is subject to closer scrutiny than a butterfly under a microscope.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, and I'm sure they'll try to smear him anyway. But if they do, they ought to at least get the basic facts right.
 
TommyB said:
Where the hell did you come up with article? How about a link?



This guy has no idea what he's talking about. The proposed amendment specifically says that:



Among a long list of the safeguards. With that said, I'm firmly against constitutional amendments, especially concerning something this controversial, so I hope it gets rejected.



Whoa, Fox does not suffer from Alzheimer's, he suffers from Parkinson's. BIG difference. And while researchers seem to agree that stem cell research offers little hope for Alzheimer's, they do believe it can be used to help Parkinson's patients.



Maybe so, and I'm sure they'll try to smear him anyway. But if they do, they ought to at least get the basic facts right.
Click to expand...

I don't have to link that which I write myself. And if you read the definitions below the 'whereas' parts, you will see that they have cleverly defined cloning in a very narrow way so as to leave 99% of cloning out of it. (whoops on your part for not reading the entire amendment - I did)

(2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

Totally leaves out artificial uterus technology. As we know, embryos don't have to be implanted in a human uterus to be cloned. Embryos can be cloned, grown up, and slaughtered under this law. Talk about a Brave New World - they're trying to set up a harvest system of eggs and embryos for spare parts. Sick.

These people will be able to harvest all the embryos they want, and as long as none of them are used to produce a pregnancy, they are within the law.

And thus you and many others are duped by the tricky language of the proposed amendment.

The Alzheimer's error was already addressed. Sorry, you're late. It was a typo.
 
Lopez: Missouri's ballot initiative on cloning risky for egg donors
KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ

National Review Online

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/opinion/27653

Feminists, beware: Missouri may soon become the Clone-Me State. Rise up and stop it.
In Missouri this November, a misleading ballot initiative called Amendment 2 - the "Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative" - promises to "ban human cloning."
In actuality, the referendum - like earlier deceitful state measures in New Jersey and California - would work to do just the opposite.
The Missouri doublespeak is all too commonplace in the cloning debate.
By separating the concept of cloning for research purposes (a baby still comes out of the process; he or she is just killed before anyone can raise the child) from the "Dolly the Sheep" type of cloning (you let the clone be born), voters are fooled with the help of a willing or hopelessly ignorant news media.
Liberal feminists are not the first people you might think of to lead an anti-cloning fight, but they could be important leaders in this struggle. Cloning requires eggs. And women have to provide them.
There's an estimated $38 million market already in existence geared to make in-vitro fertilization possible.
In an unpleasant process that includes prodding and surgery, egg "donors" are given hormones to ensure they produce more than the routine monthly amount of eggs - more means a better shot at success.
This largely unregulated industry has paid scant attention to the potential long-term harm from such hyperstimulation.
As two bioethicists from Stanford pointed out last year in an article in "Science" magazine, at minimum women should be both made aware that risks include infertility and even death and that their "donations," in the case of embryonic-stem-cell research and cloning, may never contribute to a cure for anything.
Judy Norsigian, executive director of the old-school feminist group Our Bodies, Our Selves, told a U.S. Senate committee in 2002: "Media coverage of human embryo cloning research has largely focused on its therapeutic potential, neglecting the technology's dependence on the thousands, if not millions, of women who must undergo the substantial health risks associated with harvesting their eggs."
Unfortunately, though, few feminists are rushing to join the likes of Norsigian.
In reference to restricting the egg market in California, an official from the American Fertility Association recently told a reporter: "I get concerned when some women's groups say, 'Oh, no, we have to make these decisions for women.' "
But how fair is the choice these women are being offered when they don't know what they're getting into, the benefits are overhyped, and they really need the money?
And as we slip deeper into this brave new world of cloning, unprecedented numbers of eggs - and women - will be needed.
Of course, for those who (like me) oppose human cloning on more than the ground of exploitation, there's more at stake and a long battle ahead.
But for now, when the cloning debate is such a mess that few people even know what they're talking about - or voting on - a creative coalition between pro-lifers and feminists is a golden egg to embrace.
 
It'd be like the movie "The Island." All the rich and famous could have a clone as an insurance policy in case they ever need body parts.
 
Federal Stem Cell Research: What Taxpayers Should Know
by Robert Moffit, Ph.D., Kelly Hollowell, Ph.D., Phil Coelho, and the Honorable Dave Weldon
May 24, 2005
WebMemo #749

Introduction
We are in the midst of a major national debate on stem cell research. There are a variety of ethical and religious views on this issue, and these perspectives are important. But there are also practical and scientific issues. The Heritage Foundation recently hosted a panel discussion to raise and discuss these issues. This paper presents excerpts from the remarks of three speakers at that event. All three have expertise in the subject and regularly address the public policy questions involved in stem cell research. Kelly Hollowell, Ph.D., is a molecular and cellular pharmacologist and a patent attorney. Phil Coelho is CEO and Chairman of the Board of Thermogenesis Corp., which provides cord blood stem cell processing and cryopreservation systems used by major cord blood stem cell banks. And Representative Dave Weldon is a physician and represents the 15th Congressional District of Florida.

--Robert Moffit, Ph.D.

Kelly Hollowell, Ph.D.: Embryonic stem cells are the unspecialized cells that form the basic building blocks for all of the specialized cell types in the body. Researchers hope to treat human diseases by using stem cells taken from embryos. The primary sources for embryonic stem cells are aborted fetuses and the donated and unused embryos housed in in vitro fertilization (IVF) facilities. To obtain embryonic stem cells, an embryo is formed and allowed to mature for five to seven days. The inner mass of the stem cells is then removed, plated, and treated with chemicals to become specialized cell types. In theory, these specialized cells will be used to treat dead, diseased, or dying tissue.

Ethical Issues
In the process of harvesting embryonic stem cells, the embryo is destroyed. The primary ethical question raised is whether embryos are people or property. A second ethical issue lies in the extreme inefficiency of harvesting embryonic stem cells. Specifically, the process requires women’s eggs. To treat, for example, the 17 million diabetes patients in the United States will require a minimum of 850 million to 1.7 billion human eggs. Collecting 10 eggs per donor will require a minimum of 85 to 170 million women. The total cost would be astronomical, at $100,000 to $200,000 for 50 to 100 human eggs per each patient.

Even more important than the dollars and the difficulty is that the process of harvesting a woman’s eggs for stem cells places that woman at risk. Superovulation regimens for fertility treatments would be used to obtain women’s eggs. The risks associated with superovulation regimens or high-dose hormone therapies are debated. But there is a growing body of evidence showing that these practices, when used for standard IVF, can cause a wide spectrum of problems including memory loss, seizure, stroke, infertility, cancer, and even death. This points to yet another ethical issue: the future commercial exploitation of women, and particularly poor women, to collect their eggs.

Practical Results
No currently approved treatments have been obtained using embryonic stem cells. There are no human trials—despite all the hype and all the media. After 20 years of research, embryonic stem cells haven't been used to treat people because the cells are unproven and unsafe. They tend to produce tumors, cause transplant rejection, and form the wrong kinds of cells.

Private investors aren’t funding embryonic stem cell research. They are funding adult stem cell research, which is an ethical alternative. Some of the most startling advancements using adult stem cells have come in treating Parkinson’s disease, juvenile diabetes, and spinal cord injuries.

The scientific data on embryonic stem cell research simply does not support continued investment in research. Even if the research were successful, it is morally bankrupt and endangers women. Federal funding should not be used to pay for research that many Americans know is morally wrong and scientifically unsound. That makes embryonic stem cell research a bad investment for our tax dollars.

Philip H. Coelho: Let’s take a look at three sources of stem cells: embryonic stem cells, adult bone marrow stem cells, and neo-natal cord blood stem cells. Embryonic stem cells have theoretical advantages: they can become all the different tissues of the body and they have a whole life's worth of cell divisions available to them. But they have also triggered malignant carcinomas in animals, and so researchers are cautious about expecting any clinical trials using embryonic stem cells in the near term.

Adult stem cells are typically drawn from the bone marrow of patients. They also have advantages and have been used clinically about 30,000 times. They do have some disadvantages, however: there are risks to the donor during extraction; there is significant risk of transmission of infectious disease from donor to recipient; and the cells have the potential for fewer divisions.

The Use of Cord Blood
My company has focused on neo-natal cord blood stem cells because they have some dramatic advantages: they can become several—and perhaps all—the different tissue types; they involve no donor risks; they have the capacity for many cell divisions; and they cause less graft versus host disease, in which the donor cells attack the tissue of the patient’s body, than adult bone marrow stem cells.

The first patient to be treated with cord blood stem cells in 1988 today shows no evidence of the Fanconi Anemia that he suffered from as a child. On the basis of that success, Dr. Pablo Rubinstein, Director of the National Cord Blood Program at the New York Blood Center, and Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg, Director of the Pediatric Bone Marrow and Stem Cell Transplant Program at Duke University Medical Center, launched cord blood transplant medicine.

Good Results
So far, more than 6,000 patients and 66 diseases have been successfully treated with stem cells from cord blood.The clinical advantages of cord blood are promising. A recent study found a survival rate of around 70 percent among high-risk adults treated with cord blood. Results are even more promising with children, with clinical trials showing an 80 percent survival rate for children with immunodeficiency diseases. An article in the New England Journal of Medicine last year showed a 90 percent success rate in treating a disease called Hurler syndrome that affects the brain. And for the first time, not only was cord blood arresting the disease, Dr. Kurtzberg noted, but it was beginning to reverse the symptoms.

Congressman Weldon: Adult stem cells and, in particular, cord blood stem cells are going to be the sources for the regenerative, miraculous medicine in the future. Embryonic stem cell research is just not getting good research results.

Now, from a policy perspective: Congress spoke to this issue several years ago when Congressman Roger Wicker (R-MS) and then-Congressman Jay Dickey (R-AR) authored language that said that no NIH funds can be used for any research involving the destruction of a human embryo. President Bill Clinton signed that bill and then, shortly after that, came up with a way to get around the so-called Dickey/Wicker language simply by allowing outside researchers to destroy embryos and then move the stem cells over to NIH.

The Bush Policy
That was what George Bush inherited. His solution, I thought, was rather eloquent: he allowed ongoing funding for research on the stem cell lines that had been accumulated because the embryos were destroyed, but no more additional funding would be provided for the destruction of embryos.

That is basically the debate we have this year. Rep. Castle (R-DE) and Rep. DeGette (D-CO) have introduced a bill in the House to partially override the President's position and allow NIH dollars to be used on the so-called “excess embryos” from fertility clinics. A Rand study found that the vast majority of those 400,000 embryos are wanted. The parents are holding on to them because they want to do another cycle and possibly have another baby. Many of the parents are not comfortable with donating their embryos for destructive research. The other thing that's very interesting is, when you thaw these embryos, there's a very high mortality rate. They've been in the freezer for a long time, and a lot of them die. It's estimated that you would only get about 250 to 300 cell lines if the Castle bill were to become law.

Taxpayer Burdens
There are millions of Americans who do not want to fund destructive embryonic research for the same reason they don't want to fund abortions. I think our prohibition on federal funding is the proper way for us to go, since we have a divergence of opinion in the population. There is no prohibition on private funding. The state of California has moved forward on its own. I think its taxpayers, in time, will regret that decision when they see no good cures coming out of it. But the President's policy is the right policy. The Dickey/Wicker Language is the right thing for us to have in law.

I want to read to you a fascinating quote from William Haseltine, CEO of Human Genome Sciences, Inc., of Rockville, Maryland. He is a leading advocate for embryonic stem cells, but here's the interesting thing he said: “The routine utilization of human embryonic stem cells for medicine is 20 to 30 years hence. The timeline to commercialization is so long that I simply would not invest. You may notice that our company has not made such investments.” And what's going on in California with the taxpayers funding embryonic stem cell research is that the taxpayers are funding what the venture capitalists will not fund. And that's exactly what's going on in this city: People are trying to get the federal taxpayers to fund what the venture capitalists will not fund.

Robert Moffit, Ph.D.,is Director of Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Kelly Hollowell, Ph.D., is a molecular and cellular pharmacologist and a patent attorney. Phil Coelho is CEO and Chairman of the Board of Thermogenesis Corp. The Honorable Dave Weldon is a United States Representative from Florida. Their remarks were made at The Heritage Foundation event “Stem Cell Research: What Taxpayers Must Know,” held on May 10, 2005, in Washington, D.C.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm749.cfm?renderforprint=1
_________________
 
MonsterMark said:
The Civil War II has started. Thank God!
Click to expand...

Here's an idea: Why don't you all move to Texas and secede? Build a hundred foot wall around it and save us all a lot of trouble. Hell, hire some Mexicans to build it, then kick them out.

But seriously dude, you need to see a shrink.
 
TommyB said:
But seriously dude, you need to see a shrink.
Click to expand...

Boy, it doesn't take you liberals long to start with the personal attacks, does it? You haven't been here two weeks, and already you're bashing.
 
95DevilleNS said:
Rush Limbaugh has made himself out to be an ass yet again, and Keith Olbermann covers it no less, I love it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWnPa_ijhms
Click to expand...

Actually, not only has Odorman misused the podcast by playing it faster than usual to emphasize the hyperbole (which may be a libel suit), but he has also taken the words out of context.

Transcript available at rushlimbaugh.com, but since you're watching Der Fuhrer Ubermann, and since you obviously didn't listen to Rush's show, I doubt you'll bother to go after the truth.
 
95DevilleNS said:
LOL... Jim Caveizel is a freaking clown, speaking the lines from "The Passion of The Christ" in Aramaic no less. What a joke.
Click to expand...

Oh, but Michael J. Fox is unassailable because he's sick, right? I bet you had lots of laughs over Limbaugh's hearing illness, didn't you? The FACT that Fox is lying through his teeth in the ad is ignored by you, but you try to discredit Caviezel because...why, exactly? What did he say that was dishonest? Oh, you're just making fun of his appearance? Gee, isn't that what you're accusing Rush of doing?

What a joke of a hypocrite you are.
 
fossten said:
Actually, not only has Odorman misused the podcast by playing it faster than usual to emphasize the hyperbole (which may be a libel suit), but he has also taken the words out of context.

Transcript available at rushlimbaugh.com, but since you're watching Der Fuhrer Ubermann, and since you obviously didn't listen to Rush's show, I doubt you'll bother to go after the truth.
Click to expand...

You're claiming that Olbermann speed up Rush? Okay, considering that is the truth, how does that exonerate Rush from being an ass for what he did? He still said and did what he did, play it in slow motion and it is still the same.

I will check it out though, I am curious to see the severity of the changes, if any...
 
fossten said:
Oh, but Michael J. Fox is unassailable because he's sick, right? I bet you had lots of laughs over Limbaugh's hearing illness, didn't you? The FACT that Fox is lying through his teeth in the ad is ignored by you, but you try to discredit Caviezel because...why, exactly? What did he say that was dishonest? Oh, you're just making fun of his appearance? Gee, isn't that what you're accusing Rush of doing?

What a joke of a hypocrite you are.
Click to expand...

No, I never said Fox was untouchable, but Rush went about it the wrong way, he should have stuck to nit-picking what Fox said as truth/untruth, not act like some clown making fun of the physical limitations of a diseased stricken man.

I did not laugh about Rush's hearing loss back then, it was rumored that it was caused by his abusive-overuse of painkillers; I found that funny since he is the supposed anti-drug guy.

I am not discrediting Caviezel, I did not say what he said was true or untrue, I think that using his acting role as 'Jesus' as a political tool to be asinine.

You crack me up Fossten, by the way you personally attack me each and every time I say something negative about Rush I would think you're his personal butt-boy.
 
95DevilleNS said:
LOL... Jim Caveizel is a freaking clown, speaking the lines from "The Passion of The Christ" in Aramaic no less. What a joke.
Click to expand...

Gee, I didn't know that the words, "You know now, don't do it" were lines from "The Passion of The Christ". What part of the movie were those lines from? Was it right before they pounded the nails in Christ's hands???

LOL.
 
MonsterMark said:
Gee, I didn't know that the words, "You know now, don't do it" were lines from "The Passion of The Christ". What part of the movie were those lines from? Was it right before they pounded the nails in Christ's hands???

LOL.
Click to expand...

In the opening of the add he is speaking in Aramaic, I do not understand Aramaic and I did watch "The Passion..." about two years ago, but if memory serves right, those same lines were spoken in the movie by Caviezel. Regardless, he is clearly using his "Jesus" fame to fuel the add and that was my point.
 
I just watched the Olberman hit piece.

It takes the Limbaugh statement out of it's complete context, and it fails to include his correction.

And why discuss anything with someone from AirAmerica, there are fat girls sitting in their underwear with webcams right now with a broader listener base.

But I appreciate the clip, I now remember exactly why I don't watch this piece of crap show with Olberman.

By the way, did I miss the moment where Olberman tried to get some balance? Say what you will about anyone on Fox, they will have a representative with another point of view on the show as well. Not just one asshate from Air America who is being interviewed as an expert but only provided opinionated, half-ass observation, with liberal amounts of personal attacks...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 161 (members: 1, guests: 160)
Back
Top