Michael J. Fox & Parkinson's

You do realize that the shaking is caused by the medication, don't you? Had MJF not taken his medication, he probably would not have been able to talk clearly.

Why is it that when Michael J. Fox does a commercial for someone else's campaign in reference to a cause to which he is supporting he is using his illness for political gain? Is he not allowed to do that? Should he simply keep quiet? Is that any different than when the POTUS declared that he was vetoing that bill surrounded by those children? Or is it only allowed when the people in question are supporting "conservative" causes?

BiR

 

BiR, you beat me to the punch. I posed similar questions in the other thread, but no one seemed to answer. I find this whole idea of "political sympathy" absurd. What about Megan Kanka's parents? They used her death to make sure Megans Law was passed in all 50 states. MADD on a consistent basis uses those killed or injured by drunk drivers for political sympathy. Where is the outrage for that? It is funny how it is okay, as long as it is something conservatives would agree with.

 

That's quite a stretch even for you BiR

 

Mr. Fox has admitted in interviews that the constant motion usually seen in his interviews is often a result of the medication. He has overmedicated at times, causing the reaction, in an attempt to avoid the possibly difficulties in speaking that would occur without the medication.

 

Did those children make the choice to appear on stage with the POTUS, or were the paraded out there by their parents at the request of the POTUS? Most of them were rather young to be making a political statement on their own.

Oh, okay: so the children and the elderly "should receive special treatment," but not the physically challenged? You're all heart, EG.

Especially when they don't share your political viewpoint, right? This is unbelievable. So, if I understand you correctly, it's okay to bring out children when the POTUS is announcing a veto but someone with a physical ailment should not have any "political influence" (your words). Wow: thanks for clearing that up.

I asked you several questions, didn't I?
But thanks for clarifying your opinion on this. This was quite a revealing post.

BiR

 

Of coures it is correct, use whatever you have. Even Rush Limbaugh said it was a good idea.

Michael J. Fox has admitted in print and on national network news to going off his medication and exaggerating his symptoms for interviews when it would help his cause. There is nothing wrong with this.

Fox is using his own life and own experience to advance his cause. There is nothing wrong with that, politicians do it all the time. I have a bigger problem with those who use children or set up other victims and try to profit from someone else’s pain or experience. At least Fox knows what he is doing. I don’t think someone else is taking advantage of him. Whenever you see kids used for political gain that may not be the case. Parents have a right to use their children that way but you are much closer to that grey area than with an adult.

 

He wasn't shaking in the commercial, he was swaying. The word is dyskinesia (linkie).

Does your experience include Parkinson's disease?

Yet you feel qualified to state categorically that Fox's movements are NOT CAUSED by the medications?

 

Do you have it?

 

Since you are using yourself as an authority by stating that you are "aquainted" with it, yeah. Don't bring your personal life into the discussion if you don't want it discussed.

And since you've been hinting at it, it becomes a fair question.

:BangHead:

No, you do?

How is it you can state that Fox's involuntary movements (head weaving, hands gesturing) are not caused by medicines which are well-documented to cause dyskinesea and is instead caused by Parkinson's which is known to cause tremors and rigidity? Yes, the information is out there - why do you seem to be unaware of it?

 

Thanks for stating the obvious, as I never claimed to express a knowledge of the disease, did I?

As you didn't answer a single question I posed to you, I seriously doubt you will answer that one either.

Really? You "understand" his desire? As I don't have the desire, I don't truly understand it.

Unless you plan on answering any of my questions posed to you, a response is not necessary.

BiR