Limbaugh not far off on Fox, neurologist says

National Post ^ | 2006-10-31 | Dr. Paul Ranalli, FRCPC (letter to the editor)

[Clive]

Re: Oct. 28 editorial cartoon, showing Rush Limbaugh shouting into a radio microphone, with a technician saying, "He must be off his meds."

There is no doubt that the U.S. radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh's direct style and his own past medication issues make him an inviting target. And although he was, in all probability, technically inaccurate in accusing Michael J. Fox of "acting" in his recent political TV ad supporting a Democratic senatorial candidate, Mr. Limbaugh may have been very close to the mark.

As a neurologist with a large number of Parkinson's disease patients, my impression of the video is that Mr. Fox displayed the poorly controlled "choreo-athetotic" movements seen when advanced Parkinson's patients take their medication to turn "on" and emerge from their natural state of rigidity and rest tremor. At some point after taking a pill, a patient's voluntary movements are freed up, without much excess involuntary movement.

The issue, then, is one of timing. Indeed, a few days after his political ad came out, Mr. Fox appeared at a Democratic event in Chicago with his movements under control, a situation he called "ironic." Strangely, however, he seemed unable to appear controlled for a pre-taped TV ad a few days earlier, when the appropriate timing should have been easier, given the possibility of multiple "takes." Lest this all sound too cynical, consider that Mr. Fox admitted in his 2002 autobiography to going off his medication to appear more disabled before a 1999 Senate subcommittee appearance.

Democratic party manipulation appears to go much further. In offering Mr. Fox as a spokesman, they have clearly hoped he would cut a sympathetic figure immune from criticism, and the faux outrage at Mr. Limbaugh's comments seems to confirm this. While Mr. Fox deserves sympathy for this medical plight, he must assume full responsibility for his words and actions when he chooses to enter the political arena. By politicizing a medical issue, he is, in effect, saying that anyone who cares about new treatment hope for Parkinson's disease patients must vote for the the Democratic candidate in Missouri -- not coincidentally, a pivotal state in the upcoming election to control the U.S. Senate.

This is not only unfair, but absurd. Everyone, including Republicans, supports the many new treatments emerging for Parkinson's patients that promise far more immediate application than do stem cells. Republicans also support stem cell research when it comes from ethically sound sources, such as adult tissues and umbilical cord blood. Ironically, these forms of stem cells have had greater success to date than the embryonic-source stem cells lionized in the Michael J. Fox TV ad.

Dr. Paul Ranalli, FRCPC, Toronto.

[Matchett-PI]

"Fox threw a dirty punch, Rush punched back, and the MSM threw a left hook -- making Rush the issue."

Exactly. It's called dragging a red herring across the trail so as to get the dogs off the trail and sniffing off in the direction they want them to go.

Change the subject from the message (the issue) and make the messenger the issue.

Of course this tactic always works with the easily distracted whose emotions overrule their heads as they allow themselves to be easily swayed into focusing on irrelevancies.

Because of Rush deliberately being willing to make himself a target when he blew the RAT'S cover (tax-payer-funded human cloning -disguised as something else- enshrined in the MO Constitution), support for this Missouri initiative is "sinking like a stone."

More HERE and HERE

[joesbucks]

I have to disagree. Fox never singled out someone as faking it.

I don't agree with the statements made in the ad. That's where Rush would have been effective. Had he simply pointed that out instead of waltzing into the politics of destruction, he would have been fine. BTW, I've always enjoyed your scenery photography.

[subterfuge]

So what do you say about the likelyhood that Mike Fox PURPOSELY timed his medication for the maximum effect? Is that off limits too? Since he's "disabled" would that make it okay if he did time his meds to appear more pronounced?

[Redcloak]

No, Rush was quite correct to address Fox's symptoms. Fox, as a actor, has only so much political influence. But Fox as a horribly disabled actor not only has political influence, he has immunity from argument. The Democrats presents various "victims" so that they can bash anyone who argues with them as cruel or mean-spirited. Rush decided not to play the game; just as Ann Coulter did in Godless when she took the Jersey Girls to task. It's not enough to address Fox's inaccuracies and distortions. He also need to be called out for presenting himself as an infallible victim who's beyond debate with us mere mortals.

[DouglasKC]

consider that Mr. Fox admitted in his 2002 autobiography to going off his medication to appear more disabled before a 1999 Senate subcommittee appearance.

I did not know that.

[DouglasKC]

Rush's identification of the Republican party with mockery of a disability and failure to show compassion showed an appalling lack of judgment.

You're confusing the spin of the Democrat party with what actually happened. They're hardly ever the same.

[ozzymandus]

Fox admitted in print that he went off his meds to heighten his symptoms when he testified before Congress. He did the same thing for the commercial. Rush didn't "mock" him, Rush caught him.

[ozzymandus]

Rush didn't "mock" Fox, he caught him lying and cheating. Fox has admitted he skips his meds to exaggerate his symptoms. You are an ignorant fool.

[Eagle Eye]

Rush's identification of the Republican party with mockery of a disability and failure to show compassion showed an appalling lack of judgment.

Your comments regarding an issue about which you are uninformed (Rush's comments about M. Fox) show an appalling lack of judgement.

[Myrddin]

Whether Fox could have timed the filming of the commercial better or not, we don't know, but his suffering is real.

Baloney. It was a taped ad. Fox could have timed his medication and/or done multiple takes until he achieved a perfect delivery...just as he does in any theatrical performance. He deliberately chose to air a "disabled" appearance to leverage his celebrity and immunize himself from criticism with his "victimhood". In retrospect, he even admitted that he hadn't even read the "Amendment 2" that he was touting on behalf of a Democratic candidate.

[okie01]

Anyone with a chronic illness who depends on medication to function normally knows that it isn't always possible to time it perfectly.

On the other hand, it is always possible to time the takes to the condition.

And I, with some knowledge of the commercial video production business, would wager that is exactly how it was done.

Might I suggest that you reserve your ire for those who exploit people with disabilities, not those who reveal such exploitation?

[ValerieUSA]

Fox singled out a candidate and said he was against research to cure diseases and his election would destroy the hope of "people like me" -- meaning himself. The "people like me" reference was illustrated by his palsy movements onscreen as he talked.
That is how Fox made it personal, and a response on a personal level is appropriate.
Rush did not mock him or the disease. Rush explained the message and debunked it.
He also did something important by questioning the extent of the effects of Fox's disease and the control that can be attained through meds available now. Is Fox really without hope, or just without meds he likes to take? Let's understand the disease and the current treatments, and to do that we must ask questions.