Printable View
For anyone who wants to see the ad / interview, heres a link on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14pGY1P97L8
This is the first time i've seen Michael on TV in a long time ... and its so sad :( Its too bad that so many people listen and believe in what this Rush Limberger guy has to say, and to accuse someone of faking an illness like that is just disgusting.
Ewwwwwww! WATCH OUT! God has a strange sense of humor!
Open mouth...... insert foot...... all the way up to his HIP!
Well, Rush is in danger of swallowing himself!!! :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Laura's Babies
My dad had Parkinson's and it's nothing that anyone who has it would treat lightly, specially someone like Michael J. Fox. He's one of the few in actors I admire.
I just saw the MJF ad.
With a familial history of Parkinson’s, I had never seen anyone with such pronounced body movements.
Fox looked more like he had Tourette’s .
No, I am not being mean or trying to be funny.
The PD I saw in my family was mostly hand and arm tremors. After working in a hospital for a little while I saw quite a people with symptoms stemming from neuro disease.
I am not saying I am a doctor or play one on TV-I have a 25 percent chance of getting PD myself. That commercial was very troubling to me.
Limbaugh’s rant was what you can expect form a drug addled, deaf, irresponsible talk show host.
THAT SAID….
Why are we supposed to support giant mega medical companies in finding a cure for PD or any other illness?
If you break a bone and you need a screw and plate to fix it you are looking at a at least 150 dollars for two screws and another few hundred for the plate.
Then the hospital is sold a ‘special’ screwdriver with a special driver bit for a few grand.
The screws are stainless steel, threaded and driven differently……..I can buy 30 boxes of regular stainless screws the same size, at my local hardware store.
That’s roughly 3,000 screws.
Giant medical companies sell pills manufactured for pennies to ill people for astronomical markups.
Why should the public finance stem cell research and then pay for it again when a cure is found?
It’s not like these companies have no research facilities in operation now. They want the money from the gov’t. so they can make even more profits.
Company “A” uses 1 million to find a cure for “X” disease. They spend 1 million to produce the cure. Another million to package and distribute it.
Why spend 3 million dollars that can go into the company coffers when you can get the money from the U.S.?
I do feel sorry for Fox, but find the idea that a few dollars will suddenly make the difference is absurd.
On the date that any disease is conquered, take a look at the stock for that company the next day, check the cost of the cure and about the dollars that the company heads will make.
Giant drug companies are not willing to spend money on research that may not give them any answers. It’s far more easy to use someone else’s money.
I'm going to get flamed for this, BUT......
I had to go run a couple errands during lunch, and caught Rush Limbaugh's broadcast this afternoon. I listened mainly because of this blowup. Normally if I get a chance to listen to the radio in teh afternoon (Rare, I'm normally working) I listen to sports.
Mr. Limbaugh's comments have a basis in Mr. Fox's past actions. In an interview with Diane Sawyer after his congressional appearance in 1999, (the interview was in 2001) Mr. Fox stated that he stopped taking his meds prior to appearing before congress because he felt it was the right thing to do and it would help him get his point across. In other words, he did exactly what Mr. Limbaugh is being pilloried for accusing him of.
I didn't hear anything about any of this, I'm just reading this thread. I'm not flaming you at all, but, from what I'm understanding, Mr. Limbaugh is accusing Mr. Fox of faking the disease, right? Please, correct me if I'm wrong, because again, I didn't hear anything about it. But, Mr. Fox wasn't faking the disease during the Congressional hearing, he simply didn't take his medication so that Congress would see what the disease can and does do to people. In a way, he was doing it to get "attention", I looked at it more like he was "bringing attention" to something not many know too much about... but, not "faking." Again, I could be completely misunderstanding all this. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
NOT to defend the Limburger Toad in any way ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
but I was starting to think *I* was the only one who heard about MJ Fox intentionally
not taking his meds to insure that his PD was "noticable" for an interview.
I think Limburger should have just avoided the PD subject totally ... there's enough
"other stuff" for him to rant & rave & act like and Idiot over.
/s/ Phred
During the congressional hearings he made not one mention of not taking the meds. Not exactly full disclosure one would expect in front of the governing body of the United States.
Mr. Limbaugh was not accusing Mr. Fox of faking the disease, he was accusing him of exaggerating the effects (sort of like testifying in front of Congress without telling them he didn't take meds). He said nothing publicly about that until an interview with Diane Sawyer in 2001 when he admitted he had done so "As an actor". In other words he thought it would be good for effect to not take the meds, he thought it would be good to be "uncomfortable" in front of Congress.
Full transcripts of both Mr. Limbaugh's original comments and the vid clip of Mr. Fox's interview on 20/20 in 2001 are on Mr. Limbaugh's web site.
Just as an addition, as I know there are people who will not go to the above mentioned website, is the FULL apology offer, and the close of the monologue:
The FULL text of his remarks :
Now, people are telling me that they have seen Michael J. Fox in interviews and he does appear the same way in the interviews as he does in this commercial for Claire McCaskill. All right, then I stand corrected. I've seen him on Boston Legal. I've seen him on a number of stand-up appearances. I know he's got it; it's pitiable that he has the disease. It is a debilitating disease, and I understand that fully. Just stick with me on this.
All I'm saying is I've never seen him the way he appears in this commercial for Claire McCaskill. So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act, especially since people are telling me they have seen him this way on other interviews and in other television appearances.
And the close of the monologue:
So let there be no misunderstanding about this. I stand corrected, did not know and had never seen Michael J. Fox in the way I saw him in this commercial for Claire McCaskill. But people have and have seen him say in interviews that he doesn't take his medications when he wants to make an impression to show people just how horrible the disease is. And it's true of all Parkinson's patients. At some point the medication will not work, and the condition will become permanent, and there's nothing pleasant about it. It's one of the most frustrating diseases one can have. Pope had it. It's not pleasant in any way, shape, manner, or form, nor did I mean to implicate that one could easily act it out for the purposes of a commercial.
You mean like smoking pot, but not inhaling???Quote:
sort of like testifying in front of Congress without telling them he didn't take meds
I think what MJF was trying to do was drive the point home to Congress on how debilitating the disease is and to show people how it effects them. Nothing wrong with that.
When you see someone who has a disease that is treatable in some respect one normally makes the assumption that they are doing everything they can to treat the illness. Personally, I would NOT suspect someone was testifying in Congress in a purposefully created situation, like not taking meds to magnify a condition.
I guess even the devil has his defenders. :( :( :(
Defending? no. Showing what the media didn't in a barely 3 second voice clip that they are attacking someone with? Yes.
(Pssstt.......It's called a balanced presentation)
Psssttt...I call it defending a horrible man who said horrible things....
You call it whatever you like.
It was nasty and cruel. I suppose to some...that is balanced.
Whatever....like I said...
1) 10-1 you didn't even read the entire transcript.
2) Nothing I said was nasty, just showing a more complete version of what was said.
3) Bias? Sara? Naaaaaaahhhh