......and you expect people to read this?

I was thinking the same thing...

People don't read their own medicine bottles, much less someone elses.

Medicine bottles I can handle reading...Doctoral Dissertations, not so much (at least on a message board for the sake of an inane debate).

i think it was all cut and paste, i don't think she meant for us to read it....i don't know why, but I found it funny that she posted it

Oh I don't doubt it was cut and paste, but if you're going to take the time to find something like that, you may as well bold and comment on the parts you found relevant to the discussion. Otherwise it's a pointless post.

There, I took one for the team. That dyskinesia is the body movements I believe. Not sure what orthostatic hypotension is though, anyone?

The rest of the side effects not listed here were either systemic issues or more of the same as the above.

Orthostatic hypotension is when your blood pressure drops when you stand up. Not fun.

So yeah, this correlates with what I said before. He gets the dyskinesia from the L-Dopa, or he hallucinates and he's drowsy. I wouldn't take the meds before speaking in front of congress either.

I think it's just a big balance thing. You take the drugs you get all sorts of side effects (not counting interactions with other drugs) you don't take them you show all the signs of the disease. If you really want to show the effects of the disease you don't take them (though maybe you're less effective because you can't express yourself)

I actually heard someone say that Fox was presenting a false picture when he spoke to congress and my jaw dropped. Your actual condition is now considered a lie? That's a pretty ballsy thing to say.

So he should take his meds when speaking except when he's supporting a bill when she shouldn't take them because it gives a sympathetic picture and WAAAAAAAH it's not fair. But when he's speaking he needs to take them because that's how he always is so not taking them presents a sympathetic picture... WAAAAAAAAH.

I'm not saying that his choices aren't motivated by the goal he's trying to acheive but you can't have it both ways.

People should see the harsh reality that Parkinson's is. It's not a false picture to say 'this is my condition, un-medicated.' The meds have on-off periods anyway, they work for awhile and then they quit. If it was me, I'd want Congress to see exactly how much Parkinson's ravages the body, completely unhindered.
For the ad, he was endorsing McCaskill and stem cell research. There was no reason to go 'look at me and what Parkinson's does isn't it horrible oh god!' That ad was more, stem cell research is something I believe in, as you all know I have Parkinson's.
I think there's a difference.

An assumption not a fact

Further proof you are a Jon Stewart-educated lib. It's unlikely "a blundering idiotic drug addict, ... and a background in sportscasting" could have a radio audience of 20 mil weekly, last 18+ years. To correct your error, he worked for the KC baseball club, but not as a broadcaster.

And do you remember when Robin Williams was on the Tonight Show making jokes about Rush's drug problems? A week later, Robin Williams enters alcohol rehab, and asks for privacy. Typical lib.

Bring her on, so the Clinton record can be exposed, defeated, and buried.

So how do you account for Howard Stern, then (minus the background in sportcasting)???

Thanks, but I'm not a lib at all. In fact, I can't vote. And this is further proof that you're a gimmick. Do you remember when Rush went on and on about how drug addicts should be locked up? Well I do.
Stem cell research should be federally funded is not an assumption, it's an opinion.
You're a piss poor gimmick you know that?