IANAP, but I saw him take a pill on Bravo. 
Bullshit. How is a cure NOT better? As for “effective” treatment, not all of it is.
No, posted (in effect) by Fox himself: there were direct quotes from his book. And no one else in this thread was making a claim about Fox’s specific condition or medication – only that doctor was.
You can put your eyes back down now.
My mother is dead, but suffered from Parkinson’s Disease for years.
I appreciate Michael J. Fox’s efforts and have yet another reason to literally hate Rush Limbaugh and the Fox and Friends group.
(Please nitpickers - my use of the word hate is deliberate. Any misspelling or grammatical error is unfortunate.)
perhaps you should watch this interview with Fox on CBS:
Your interpretation of his book is wrong.
There needs to be a word for when you argue a point, get shut down, and then pretend that arguing a completely different point somehow makes you right about the first one. Whatever that’s called, you’re doing it.
Let’s recap:
Carnivorousplant stated that behaviour he witnessed in Fox last year was counter to what the quoted doctor claimed about how Parkinson’s medication works. My response was that the doctor’s claim was rather broad, shouldn’t be considered applicable to Fox’s specific condition, and that everything else we’d seen in the thread implied no contradiction. You stuck your nose in and got snarky with me about doctors and opinions, and I corrected you by pointing out that the opinions you rolled your eyes at included Fox’s own – as quoted in his book.
Your response (quoted above) has absolutely nothing to do with the points that have been made so far. The doctor’s claim turns out to be correct, but that doesn’t mean it should have been taken as gospel to the point of believing him over Fox himself.
I did not “interpret” Fox’s book at all, let alone incorrectly. Early in the thread there is a quoted portion where he states that he deliberately did not take meds before a subcommittee hearing. That book was published in 2002, and I’m not sure of the date of the hearing, so it’s entirely possible that his need for/reaction to medication has changed in the past 4+ years. We also know that Fox left the set of a taping just last year to wait for a pill to take effect, so it’s also entirely possible that his need for/reaction to medication has changed that recently. Fox and that doctor agree now (as opposed to 1 or 4 years ago), but all of the information I had at the time of my posts indicated otherwise.
What is your problem with this/me?
NPR has a link to the ad this is how he appeared on the Larry King show several years ago.
So in the interview I linked to, when Fox says the medication causes the dyskinesia, not the absence of medication, we should believe him? When he says he cannot predict with certainty what the effect of the medication will be on any given day, we should believe him? Is that what you are saying?
Yep.
From NetDoctor.co.uk:
Why wouldn’t you believe him? Have you heard information to support Whoosh Windbag’s accusation that he’s a liar?
I do. Then we are all on the same page. My work here is done.
I know I should have read further to see how others destroy your stupid ideas, but I’m so PO’d I have to respond.
Treatment=cure in your feeble imagination. I don’t know how anyone can be so insular as to not know that ‘treatments’, from simple asprin on up, often cause other problems, sometimes even causing death.
A treatment is merely a means of trying to alleviate symptoms of a disease we don’t know how to cure. These means of alleviation usually involve their own risks, which are often as scary as the disease being treated. (No actual cite, but my Brother-in-law, who had Crohn’s disease for decades, died of the steroid treatment, not Crohn’s.)
Treatment is another round of new symptoms, debilities, etc., possibly better than the ones caused by the disease, but also causing new symptoms to become accustomed to.
Cure is FREEDOM. No more disease, no more pills, no more treatments.
Maybe you should have read my post further. I said myself treatments are usually only partially effective and carry costs, side-effects, etc. My point was that should a treatment exist which doesn’t carry too many of those, it would be comparable to a cure. (And comparable doesn’t mean “same as.”) I tried to tackle thinking that perhaps leads some to say “it doesn’t matter if the guy in the tv ad’s been treating his symptoms like a typical patient would.” It does matter. Potential cures must be evaluated in light of existing treatments.
But I then go on to say that tv ads are retarded anyway, because the real questions of how effective are the current treatments, what is their harm, how likely is it that stem cells would provide cures, etc, etc, get glossed over by emotion and loveable celebrities. Tv ads are a dispicable form of social discourse. The whole system is gone to shit.
I am not arguing anything unreasonable, and no one has “destroyed” my ideas.
Then again, no, it doesn’t matter too much if social discourse is proper and rational. If all society had was rationality, we would have nothing. So I guess, I’ll shut up and let your emotions rip.
Misnomer,
Could it be that the Doctor is a better expert on the disease than Michael J Fox?
Of course, even if MJF allowed his symptoms to present themselves better, by not taking medications, is that even comparable to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads?
Was Rush Limbaugh decrying those ads as being unfair?