Fox Pitches Stem Cell Alzheimer's Deception
Michael J Fox For Ben Cardin
More deception from Michael J. Fox. In this ad, he claims that "stem cell research" "offers hope" for Alzheimer's. But it is well known that of all of the degenerative conditions that either adult or embryonic stem cells could theoretically treat, people with Alzheimer's are among the least likely to benefit. Indeed, one notable biotech researcher told the Washington Post that the biotech sector permits Alzheimer's patients and their families to believe false assertions such as Fox's because "people need a fairy tale."
There are concrete reasons for hope for Alzheimer's disease patients in other areas of medical research. But embryonic stem cell research and human cloning are highly unlikely to provide it, since unlike Parkinson's, Alzheimer's is a whole brain disease with billions of neurons, synapses, etc. affected, making the disease unlikely to respond to ES cell therapies.
I assume Fox is ignorant of this, but it is no excuse. His ad is deceptive and cruelly exploits the hopes and yearnings of Alzheimer's victims and their families.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 5:16 PM
8 Comments
8 Comments:
You claim that you think he's both ignorant and being deceptive. I don't understand. How can it be both? For you are not lying if you believe the statement.
I was giving Fox the benefit of the doubt, Royale. But he has a duty to educate himself about these issue when creating such high profile ads.
Gregory has it right. He does not have the right to deceive, whether intentionally or negligently.
Pardon my ignorance and uninformed opinion, but despite all the rhetoric I'm reading from these blog posts and comments, (and selective criticism I might add, as I'm the only one whose questioning the OTHER side's response ad)...I still fail to see how it 1. is deceptive, and 2. how it is deceptive as compared to the other political ads.
Please, inform me. Please quell my suspicion that you're gunning for Fox as an emotional reaction for the simple fact he opposes you politically, and not for neutral, detached, rational one based on all information available.
You aren't paying attention. He speaks in this ad of stem cells as providing hope for ALzheimer's disease. Stem cells do not offer such substantial hope. That is deceptive.
Oh no, I'm not going to let you guys off the hook that easy.
Time and time again, there were posts and comments discussing the deceptiveness of Fox and ESC supporters in general.
If you want to argue about a very specific thing (i.e., whether or not Fox is informed about ESC and Alzheimer's), fine, but that is not what all these repeated discussions were about.
Besides, what you're really saying is that Fox (or the ESC community in general) is being deceptive because they are not listening to YOUR experts. Meanwhile, other doctors and embryologists say the opposite. That is not enough to call "deceptive" about Alheimer's, Parkinson's, or any other disease. Selective and biased? Perhaps, but that is the nature of politics. If you consider yourself neutral and balanced, well, I don't see the fruit of that.
Again, I am amazed at the selectivity of the criticism. Has anyone read the "2000 pages you won't read" on Amendment 2?
I almost feel compelled to actually read the full text of Amendment 2 so I can pick apart the response criticism with the exact same tenacity that I see Fox/ ESC supporters criticized here.
Royale, the Fox ads ignore many things, including these two biggies:
1. That adult stem cells have already been used to treat a patient with Parkinson's (Dennis Turner), that he enjoyed a reversal of more than 80% of his symptoms for more than four years, that he testified to Congress that he was eager for a second treatment, and that further trials in this area are forthcoming.
2. That embryonic stem cells caused tumor formation when injected into lab animals with Parkinson's just last week.
Embryonic research is being presented as a panacea, whereas adult stem cell research and other avenues are being dismissed as junk science by the likes of Fox, when if anything it's the other way around.
I'm still not convinced.
In common parlance, cloning is typically synonomous with "reproductive cloning." That is what people fear.
Therapeutic cloning, SCNT, or what not, is "cloning" but I think the general population would consider that a scientific technicality. Or if they don't, they do not fear it nearly to the same level as "therapeutic cloning."
Is it deceptive to use one when you mean the other and hope the general population doesn't figure it out? Well, it goes both ways. To say "cloning" when you mean ONLY reproductive cloning is omission of fact. Likewise, to lump therapeutic cloning in with reproductive variant by saying "the amendment would make cloning a constitutional right" plays on both the word confusion and people's fears of reproductive cloning.
That is deceptive as well.
If you're against both, fine. But the response ad is guilty by your own standards.
Indeed, Gregory L. Ford: Beware of movements that resort to euphemisms and junk definitions. Thanks for contributing to Secondhand Smoke.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home