Shocking Michael J. Fox Ad in MO Senate Race

[Fenian_Bastard]

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.

 

[Scribe4264]

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 forking biscuit, 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?

 

[dog428]

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 shirt.

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.

 

[Scribe4264]

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 shirt.

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.

 

[Scribe4264]

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.

 

[JR]

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).
.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

"From the Family Research Council" reads that first footnote from the link posted by the our new favorite invertebrate. I'm convinced.

 

[old_tony]

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.

 

[JR]

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.

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

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."

 

[dog428]

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 shirt. 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.

 

[JR]

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?