Rush Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

[Pangloss]

I didn't hear any of this on the radio but I read about it online. Apparently Rush Limbaugh went on some sort of diatribe about Michael J. Fox on Monday, basically alleging that he was faking his Parkinsons for political reasons.

 

Article in the Washington Post

 

At first I found this abhorrent, but then I read that apparently Fox has admitted that he has deliberately refrained taking his Parkinsons medication before making political appearances. He says he does that in order to show what the symptoms look like.

 

I can see how Fox might have a legitimate reason to do that when it comes to, for example, testifying before Congress about stem cell research, so long as he is up-front about what he's doing and not trying to hide it.

 

But not taking his medicine before making a political ad for a candidate? I dunno, that seems to cross a line with me. Doesn't that make him fair game for criticism?

[AzurePhoenix]

There's no such thing as good taste in any political ad. I'd say it's just surprisingly classy that they actually used someone who actually had the frickin' disease in question. M.J. supports a condidate that supports something that's in his interests, so he exploits his natural edge to demonstrate why it's important to him as I'd say he's perfectly entitled to do. Besides, I'd say if it were a more democratic democracy appealing to The People themselves directly would be the better course in the first place. Not that I'm naive enough to believe that's how it actually works, so the best you can do is appeal to The People to position someone who at least MIGHT be able to accomplish those goals to get elected. Perfectly valid to me.

[bascule]

So what you're saying is the man is exploiting his crippling, degenerative nerve disease for political gain?

 

Of all the things that someone can exploit for political gain, that has to rank among the least bothersome, in my book...

[Glider]

At first I found this abhorrent, but then I read that apparently Fox has admitted that he has deliberately refrained taking his Parkinsons medication before making political appearances. He says he does that in order to show what the symptoms look like.

That sounds honest to me.

 

I can see how Fox might have a legitimate reason to do that when it comes to, for example, testifying before Congress about stem cell research, so long as he is up-front about what he's doing and not trying to hide it.

 

But not taking his medicine before making a political ad for a candidate? I dunno, that seems to cross a line with me. Doesn't that make him fair game for criticism?

I don't think so. What point would he be making if he showed himself pumped full of levadopa? His tremor would be supressed, his motor function would improve, the facial rigor would be alleviated, his speech would improve and people who know no better might think "Oh, so that's Parkinson's? It don't look so bad to me!".

 

What he can't show on a single advert is that Parkinsosn't is progressive, and sooner or later it won't matter whether he takes the medication or not. I think it's probably more honest to show Parkinson's for what it really is, than to show some supressed and medicated version, especially as that doesn't last.

 

European trials of embryonic cell transplants into the substantia nigra showed significant reversal of symptoms in a few Parkinsonian syndrome patients from the USA (their DA producing cells in the substantia nigra had been destroyed through drug abuse).

 

Stem cell research really is the way to go with Parkinson's. I believe Fox is entirely justified in doing what he's doing in an attempt to achieve that end. It's not like he's being dishonest or pretending to have Parkinsosn's.

[swansont]

I didn't hear any of this on the radio but I read about it online. Apparently Rush Limbaugh went on some sort of diatribe about Michael J. Fox on Monday, basically alleging that he was faking his Parkinsons for political reasons.

 

Article in the Washington Post

 

At first I found this abhorrent, but then I read that apparently Fox has admitted that he has deliberately refrained taking his Parkinsons medication before making political appearances. He says he does that in order to show what the symptoms look like.

 

I can see how Fox might have a legitimate reason to do that when it comes to, for example, testifying before Congress about stem cell research, so long as he is up-front about what he's doing and not trying to hide it.

 

But not taking his medicine before making a political ad for a candidate? I dunno, that seems to cross a line with me. Doesn't that make him fair game for criticism?

 

Is he actually faking anything? Sounds like the answer is no. I haven't seen the ads, but it sounds like the purpose is to show what it's like to have Parkinson's. I don't understand the consternation expressed at someone showing the actual symptoms/effects of a disease when lobbying for people to support research for that disease. When he testified, surely someone could have asked him if his symptoms being exhibited at the time were typical or atypical.

 

And Rush Limbaugh doesn't seem to be fettered by good taste, nor, in many cases, actual facts.

[GutZ]

I don't know if this is a valid point but the medication could have some side effects...If he does it for all live appearance, it might be the case...

 

http://www.pdf.org/AboutPD/med_treatment.cfm

http://www.michaeljfox.org/parkinsons/index.php#4

 

Alot of the side effects included dizziness, confusion, hallucinations, etc.

[Haezed]

What RL said was:

 

"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told listeners. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."

 

I don't see this as a claim that MJF doesn't have Parkinsons.

[ParanoiA]

I was listening when Rush Limbaugh made that claim and it wasn't what everyone makes it out to be.

 

MJF needs to put the medication away when he needs folks to see the effects - that's perfectly valid and Rush went to the trouble to say that several times, that he doesn't criticize Fox for doing that.

 

He criticizes Fox only for doing it on a political ad, using it to tug people's emotions in the disinformation game.

 

Personally, I rank Fox up there with the rest of the sleazy disinformative political ads. He's joined the ranks of the sleazeball politicians. I don't care how sick he is, it doesn't make it ok to basically lie and cheat people into voting for something. He has plenty of company down there in the sludge of politicians, lobbyists, liars, theives..etc.

 

That said, I'm all for amendment 2 to pass. However, I would rather it pass on its own merit, rather than distorting all of the facts to get it passed.

 

It's election season, and I'm disgusted as usual....

[swansont]

In what way is it "disinformation?"

[ParanoiA]

In what way is it "disinformation?"

 

Because it's already legal to do stem cell research in Missouri. There's nothing stopping them from doing it.

 

There are some added bonuses to the Amendment 2 though and I'm trying to figure out what they are. It's hard to find information on it that isn't biased one way or another and doesn't toy around with the language.

 

I've read the amendment, but it's hard to tell what it changes since I don't know the status quo.

[Sisyphus]

What does the ad actually say?

[AzurePhoenix]

What does the ad actually say?

and also, would I be right in guessing that these people M.J.'s vouching for want to be elected at the FEDERAL level? Beyond missouri?

[YT2095]

I see no problem with a guy trying to raise awaeness of a very profound malfunction that affects millions of others.

 

does anyone make such accusations about the starving impoverished people in third world countries (I hate that term)?

 

or seeing injured amimals portrayed in RSPCA ads?

 

or dying children in Cancer ads?

 

or abused kids in Save the Children ads?

 

why should he be any different?

 

fair play to the chap IMO

[Pangloss]

It's a good point. The other side in the Missouri campaign has resorted to a number of questionable ads, such as having a 7-year-old girl ask "Who is he to decide who gets to live and who gets to die?"

 

One thing that really bothers me about this is how it obscured rather than brings out the relevent issues. As Paranoia points out, embryonic stem cell research is legal -- this is about taxpayer funding. But you certainly don't get that impression from the ads spewing forth from EITHER side. They're too busy demonizing each other.

 

And Fox is just as guilty of that as Limbaugh is. So much for "increasing awareness". He's just a partisan now.

[ParanoiA]

What does the ad actually say?

 

Well, I'm going to have to eat some crow here because it's not as bad as I was making it out to be. It's arguably a bit disinformative, but it's certainly not blatant.

 

He does say it expands the current stem cell research methods rather than suggest that it allows it ( thereby implying it's not allowed presently ).

 

I'm not nearly as upset with him, but as Pangloss points out it's also about tax payer money.

 

Here's a link to the amendment 2 contents if anyone is interested:

 

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp

 

And here's the MJF ad on youtube:

 

[swansont]

and also, would I be right in guessing that these people M.J.'s vouching for want to be elected at the FEDERAL level? Beyond missouri?

 

Yes. McCaskill is running for the US Senate, assuming her website is accurate. http://www.claireonline.com/

[Phi for All]

What RL said was:

 

"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told listeners. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."

 

I don't see this as a claim that MJF doesn't have Parkinsons.

First, MJF is not exaggerating the effects of the disease, he is simply not taking the meds that mitigate the effects of the disease. We're seeing what happens to those who aren't medicated. It follows then that it's not an act at all since it's not an exaggeration.

 

Second, you can't point to MJF's use of spin in this instance unless you also point to the politician whose ads show them in their military uniform, or kissing a baby or any one of thousands of small theatrics used to help sell the pitch.

 

Third, if MJF had been caught before he admitted it this would be completely different. The fact that he admitted it when he didn't have to shows me he's not hiding it.

[ParanoiA]

and also, would I be right in guessing that these people M.J.'s vouching for want to be elected at the FEDERAL level? Beyond missouri?

 

Yes, and both of them are despicable. They both embody everything I can't stand about politicians. It's Clair McCaskle vs Jim Talent.

 

Clair McCaskle ran as state auditor and "vowed" to clean up the corrupt Nursing Homes and blah blah blah. So, she audited two or three of them and then married one of the owners and suddenly the auditing came to a stop. She's your typical money grubbing democrat that uses the spite and ignorance of the poor and blue collar workers to get in office and then shucks all of the responsibility and promises.

 

Jim Talent is your typical oil loving god promoting good ole boy republican. The one or two ads I've seen of him that aren't trashing McCaskle try to paint him as a "patriot" who "loves his family" and wants to "fight for the american way of life" around the world and blah blah blah. He would sell his own grandmother to get in office. He looks like a car salesman.

 

Both of them have run far more smear ads than positive ones. I'd like to see how that would work for the rest of us trying to get a job. Try that next time you go to a job interview. When they start asking about your qualifications, just say "Well, I don't know but that guy you just talked to is a real piece of crap. He called in sick for two days in a row in his last job only to find out he was out fishing. He also divorced his wife for a younger woman"

 

I wonder how well that would help you get the job...

[AzurePhoenix]

well of course I can't argue with any of that, most politicians shouldn't be allowed within a hundred yards of a law, much less be allowed to run. But even when the pickings are meager, you still have to eat. Gotta bite your cheek and try to pick the least-wormy apple.

 

And it's sad, but in this game if you're gonna at least try for something you might as well try to advocate the one closest to your interests, which I assume is why MJ is working for whoever. I certainly wouldn't hold it against M.J. for trying to get the guy he considered the lesser evil into office. I mean, it's not as if he has better choice available in all likelihood, so why hold it against him?

[bascule]

One thing that really bothers me about this is how it obscured rather than brings out the relevent issues. As Paranoia points out, embryonic stem cell research is legal -- this is about taxpayer funding. But you certainly don't get that impression from the ads spewing forth from EITHER side. They're too busy demonizing each other.

 

Well, on one side you have people with debilitating diseases or traumatic injuries. On the other side you have fundamentalists/evangelicals.

 

One side wants to see taxpayer money used for research that will greatly benefit the public health. The other side objects based on solely religious concerns.

 

When you pit human suffering against religious concerns, well... yes both sides are "guilty", it's called politicking. But one side is suffering, and the other, well, just want those suffering to suck it up and adopt that religious morals should dictate government spending.

 

The general public is too dumb to understand the issues involved, so both sides have to play to people's emotions. That's how policy shaping works these days, particularly in regard to scientific research.

 

I have no problem with someone suffering from a debilitating/degenerative disease saying whatever they have to to secure money for their cause. I have an enormous problem with religious people spinning lies to ensure they don't get it.

[Rhino]

I'm not comdeming or defending what Rush accused MJF of doing, but I'm sure Rush wouldn't have been so quick to say anything if he hadn't read MJF's memoir, 'Lucky Man'. Where MJF is aware of how he can be "on" and "off" depending on how he adjusts his medication.

 

From MJF's 'Lucky Man' Without my even realizing it, my whole system of symptom management changed. I began to see that being "off" in a public situation was really only a problem if I found it troublesomeóif it kept me from doing something I wanted to do. If not, then being "off" was downgraded to the status of mere inconvenience. My tremoring, shuffling, and dyskinesias might earn me second looks from people, but what the hell, I was that guy from TV. I was used to getting second looks. So what if the second look now might mean, oh, that's right, I heard he has Parkinson's.

 

There is a lot more to read here..

Excerpt from Michael J. Fox's memoir, Lucky Man

 

Rush only used MJF's words, and admittances against him. I don't think anyone in this forum can blame him for that.

[ParanoiA]

well of course I can't argue with any of that, most politicians shouldn't be allowed within a hundred yards of a law, much less be allowed to run. But even when the pickings are meager, you still have to eat. Gotta bite your cheek and try to pick the least-wormy apple.

 

 

True, but I'm not a single issue guy. I will likely vote libertarian as usual, if there is one to vote for. I need to get started looking into who all is available. They can't afford commercials as it's hard to run for office on 15 bucks...

[swansont]

Rush only used MJF's words, and admittances against him. I don't think anyone in this forum can blame him for that.

 

I can't make this statement jibe with the article linked in the original post. Limbaugh accused him of acting, and that's not the case. From your quote, Fox took the medication, in part, to keep others from seeing him display symptoms, but realized that that wasn't necessary.

 

Rush also accused him of allowing his illness to be exploited, and that's a matter of perspective. Is it exploitation or is he using it, and his celebrety, as leverage to try and help himself and others with the same affliction?

[Mokele]

The only issue here is that the American Taliban are feeling guilty because the ad actually shows the suffering they are allowing to continue.

 

IMHO, he did a good think. Everyone who votes against stem-cell research should be taken to a hospital burn ward, then given a chance to change their votes.

 

Honestly, this is why I don't even listen to politics anymore. Most of them aren't even human anymore, by any moral standard.

 

Mokele

[ParanoiA]

Ok, I just read up on somatic cell nuclear transfer (which is the "language" referred to as allowing human cloning) and as usual, politicians are playing semantics.

 

This really pisses me off too, because both sides have done nothing beyond repeating themselves over and over again. And I literally had to seek out this technicallity to find it, when it should have been forthcoming from the Yes Vote seekers when it was first challenged by the religious elite.

 

If you don't know, apparently somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is the process of replacing the nucleus of a donor egg cell with the nucleus of a body cell, or somatic cell (from the patient) so that it will form a blastocyst with virtually identical DNA to the patient.

 

This will generate stem cells that are genetically identical to the patient, avoiding complications from immune system rejection. This is the same technique used to clone Dolly the sheep.

 

So, they appear to be correct that it is cloning - but it is not intended to clone a human being to full term. I believe this is the purpose for the first line of the amendment that reads:

 

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

 

So, basically both sides are being disingenuous at best. The Yes Vote crowd doesn't want to call this cloning, which it clearly is and the No Vote crowd doesn't want to admit that the first line cancels any chance of cloned humans beyond a blastocyst.

 

I'm officially confused though, because isn't a blastocyst a human being? Or is that another subjective debate about when a fetus is developed enough to earn a right to live?