…and this is a 
Once again, Maher sticks his foot in his mouth and gnaws on it for a while.
The most telling moment for me was when he compares vaccination to global warming and evolution; global warming and evolution, he says, are settled science (which is correct), but vaccination is not. That is not correct. Vaccination works. It's been tested and measured and analyzed, and vaccinations save lives. It has been settled, repeatedly.
Michael Shermer has commented on RichardDawkins.net on this issue, too. Maybe someday it will sink in.
Medicine & Health
Comments
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 17, 2009 12:52 PM
Last night's show was just plain bizarre, although maybe not quite as bizarre as Gary Shandling's face....dude, enough surgery.
Posted by: Didac
|
October 17, 2009 12:54 PM
The problem with "vaccination" or with "global warming" or with "evolution" is that has become a "culture war issue". And in a culture war, the first victim is truth. Vaccination can be good or bad according to the vaccine, the microbiological background, the health status of the "vaccinable", and other considerations (economic, social, cultural, etc.). We need science to decide. Politics must furnish the "what", but it is science who must furnish the "how".
Posted by: Ken | October 17, 2009 12:55 PM
Brings to mind the last two verses of Jesus loves the little zygotes:
Jesus gives the children acne.
AIDS and leprosy galore.
Germs and worms of every kind.
Things to make the children blind.
But he cannot give them smallpox anymore.
Scientists and unbelievers
wiped the pox right off the earth.
Jesus still gives gifts to kids,
broken nose and burnt eyelids.
But he cannot give them smallpox anymore.
Posted by: Eric | October 17, 2009 12:56 PM
That really bothers me, because Maher is spot on with a lot of other topics.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 17, 2009 12:57 PM
Actually, I think that vaccination is more settled than global warming, which has taken a pause for the past few years (paleohistory shows that this does happen during warming phases at times, but still, it's not convenient for efforts to slow warming). The good money has been on AGW for at least two decades (longer, I'd say), but it's a far more complicated problem than vaccination, and still has some uncertainty, while the residue of uncertainty with vaccination is nearly invisible.
Above all, why can't Maher get it through his muddled brain that he should be skeptical of conspiracy theorists? He is essentially in with the anti-AGWs and the anti-evolutionists both in defaming honest scientists and honest science.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 17, 2009 1:00 PM
And totally off the rails into crazy land on a great many others. Usually involving anything to do with medicine / health.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 17, 2009 1:02 PM
HAHA. I said the same thing to my wife.
"Honey, wtf happend to Gary Shandling. Are he and Mickey Rourke getting the two for one at the plastic surgeon?"
Posted by: Randy Crum | October 17, 2009 1:03 PM
In addition to falsely saying that vaccinations are not settled science, Maher says:
"What western medicine wants to do is close off debate".
"We need a debate..."
"lots of people feel the same way..."
Those are all catch phrases of both creationists and global warming deniers.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 17, 2009 1:04 PM
The way you phrased that makes the "good" and "bad" seem equal. Is that what you intended?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 17, 2009 1:05 PM
And totally off the rails into crazy land on a great many others. Usually involving anything to do with medicine / health.
Exactly. There's a kernel of truth in some of his issues with the profitability issues. I mean, (for profit) insurance companies don't exist to provide payment for health care, they exist to make money. So by tossing people off policies, they're doing what they're supposed to: increasing profits for shareholders. (That brings up other issues, like--why are we putting so much trust and power in the hands of these companies, but that's for another day.)
And pharmaceutical companies can sometimes behave pretty badly when it comes to patents and medications (I'm thinking here of HIV medicines and companies suing South Africa.) But, you know what, anti-retrovirals may be profitable and expensive, but they've also done amazing things in extending life spans.
Yes, the lifestyle we Americans have is conducive to lots of health problems, but he goes off on some fucked up tangents. There's a kernel in what he's saying, but it mutates into something really fucked up in his head.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 17, 2009 1:06 PM
Bah crap comment #6 was supposed to have MAJeff's quote from above.
failbag
Posted by: 386sx
|
October 17, 2009 1:08 PM
Those are all catch phrases of both creationists and global warming deniers.
Yeah, he just wants to teach the controversy...
He believes in micro vaccination, that's okay, it's just macro vaccination he has a problem with...
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 17, 2009 1:08 PM
"Honey, wtf happend to Gary Shandling. Are he and Mickey Rourke getting the two for one at the plastic surgeon?"
:-)
When he complained about the swine flu making him unable to speak, I was like, "Dude, your face is pulled to tight."
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
October 17, 2009 1:10 PM
It was funny watching people just kind of stare at him when he went into that territory while he seemed completely unaware that he was being crazy.
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 17, 2009 1:14 PM
I wish Maher would stop pussyfooting around with the phrase "Western medicine." There is no Western medicine. What he means to say is "science-based medicine."
He thinks science shuts off debate? No, that is where the debate is held, within science. Maher's not placing himself against Big Business and the profit motive on this one. He's placing himself against scientific expertise, and a consensus that was hammered out with a lot of real work.
I was a bit surprised, though, by his admission that he was "cocky" on his former position on germ theory. He's actually backing down. Or pretending he didn't mean it in the first place. Or both.
He also seems to be bothered by people considering him anti-science. He wants a "debate." Which means, he's going to have to prepare for one, and, if he's not stupid, he's going to see the type of overwhelming evidence he's up against. It's not about people, here -- it comes down to the facts.
Posted by: bobxxxx | October 17, 2009 1:19 PM
"Vaccination works. It's been tested and measured and analyzed, and vaccinations save lives. It has been settled, repeatedly."
Yeah, OK, it works, it's been tested, and it's saved lives. I agree with all of that.
But isn't it true that, sometimes, a vaccination can give a person the disease it was meant to prevent? And wouldn't it just be easier and perhaps safer for a person to just wash his hands frequently and stay away from sick people?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 17, 2009 1:20 PM
I think what he meant there was he wants a debate in the scientific community. He's just to stubborn, pig headed, egotistical and willfully ignorant to admit that it has already happened and is happening and his viewpoint is on the shit end of the reality stick.
Posted by: Arnaud | October 17, 2009 1:22 PM
Wow, Maher seems extremely uncomfortable now. Just look at his facial expressions.
Posted by: King of Typos | October 17, 2009 1:25 PM
too...
not to
the typos are flying wild today
Posted by: Pris
|
October 17, 2009 1:31 PM
That clip made my brain hurt.
As for Polio, my great aunt has a crippled leg, because she had Polio as a child. And the old pictures of children in iron lungs are downright chilling. Some still live today, inside iron lungs.
Posted by: Jadehawk | October 17, 2009 1:34 PM
Aluminum?!
fucking idiot. by that logic, there's chlorine in my pancakes.
Posted by: breadmaker | October 17, 2009 1:34 PM
yeah... he got the science thing backward
Posted by: Hyperon
|
October 17, 2009 1:39 PM
He's definitely moving the goalposts. He went miles further than merely asking for debate, as anybody can verify by spending ten minutes on YouTube. At least though he is backing down, even if he's doing so dishonestly. I kind of feel sorry for him. Even if he does eventually admit he is wrong, it would be very difficult for him to make this public on his show. His job is to get the audience laughing, not to cause mutual embarrassment.
Posted by: Frankosaurus, Cupcake of Death
|
October 17, 2009 1:40 PM
Anyone who defends themself by saying "we need a debate" is really saying "I don't know what I'm talking about but someone must...somewhere." No Bill. No one educated, at least.
It's really pathetic to see such outlandish opinions tossed around.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
October 17, 2009 1:47 PM
Actually, of the three, evolution is the youngest. The Chinese were vaccinating against smallpox in the 2nd century BC, and it was widely practiced in the west by 1800. The greenhouse effect was known and mostly understood by the 1820s. And we had to wait 'til the 1850s to learn about evolution.
Bill has obviously made up his mind based on fear rather than facts. That's fine, Bill, but don't pretend it's rational, and don't try to inflict your superstitious fears on others. You of all people should understand that.
Posted by: Keanus | October 17, 2009 1:47 PM
Maher, like most people, understand not at all statistics and probability. He seems to think that if science-based medicine recommends something, it must be 100% foolproof. That a diminishingly small fraction of people vaccinated will be harmed by a side effect is just a fact of life. Ironically, he probably drives about in a car every day but fails to realize that the odds of his dying in a car accident are greater than suffering some uncomfortable side effects from a vaccination or worse yet, death. But that hasn't compelled him to argue on his show that cars should be banned. If he were to be consistent, he should be devoting every show to the banning of automobiles, ladders or stairs, all devices with relatively bad safety record. Note I said relative, not absolute.
Posted by: charley
|
October 17, 2009 1:56 PM
People who catch it are contagious during a symptom-free incubation period before they know they're sick, so you would have to stay away from everyone.
Posted by: Vaughan | October 17, 2009 1:57 PM
Maher is absolutely correct and PZ is the jerk.
Oh well if PZ persuades his idiot daughter the shot and she dies a hideous death from it that will be a blessing.
Posted by: JustinB | October 17, 2009 2:01 PM
Stay classy, Vaughan. And keep those hard hitting, evidence-based arguments flowing.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
October 17, 2009 2:08 PM
I saw that, Rev BDC. I thought that perhaps you were just trying to introduce a new species of cooties.Shermer's summation was great. It should also be effective, since he used Maher's own take (and words) on other issues to point out the fallacious parts of his anti-vax stance. Maher could be quite effective if he just called "Big Pharma" on their errors, with details to back it up. No system is perfect, and watchdogs are needed, but Bill does seem to have some sort of emotional antipathy to needles or nose sprays loaded with vaccine -- that personal antipathy is clouding his judgement.
Posted by: bobxxxx | October 17, 2009 2:12 PM
OK. That's interesting. Fortunately I have no life, so it's not difficult for me to (mostly) stay away from everyone. That has been my strategy and so far it has worked. I seem to never get sick, even though I haven't been anywhere near a doctor for a few decades.
Posted by: Pareidolius | October 17, 2009 2:20 PM
My, but that was quite the little fallacy fest. Sorry about the long-ass post, but this hits kind of close to home for me. It makes me squirm to watch him because he reminds me of, well . . . me ten years ago toward the end of my embarrassingly regrettable magical-thinking period. Sure his cocky, arrogant humorist side seems kind of smart when you agree with it, but his total lack of critical thinking is shocking when he applies his "skepticism" to medicine.
I actually don't think he's a skeptic at all, I just think that he lives by the motto: The enemy of my enemy is my friend (a fallacy in itself) in all cases, no matter what. I think he just wants to fuck, smoke pot and hate "the man" (whomever that is at the time) and anybody that gets between him and those goals is fodder for his weak-minded, schoolyard humor. In other words, he's a crappy critical-thinker with a big mouth and a following. This will guarantee him an audience with fewer and fewer smart people in it until he's the left's equivalent of Glenn Beck.
As a smartass who once suffered from poor critical-thinking skills, I can vouch for the fact that I had to go further and further to the extremes of logical fallacies in order to torture reality to fit my once woo-soaked worldview.
I got better and had to feast on a steady diet of crow for a while. But what a tasty bird crow turned out to be, as life was so much better on the other side. But I digress . . .
I think if you venture far enough to the extreme left or right, you'll eventually meet the extremist folks from the opposite side of the political spectrum in a kind of batshit crazy Ultima Thule. This is where Beck and Maher reign in the media. A place where fear and rage is mixed with slick production values and pandering and the only thing that matters to the network is that you are scared enough and angry enough to watch.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 17, 2009 2:23 PM
Someone should tell Maher this, maybe then he'll stop whining about vaccination being "western" medicinePosted by: Blake Stacey | October 17, 2009 2:24 PM
It appears at least possible that the "break" in global warming is an artifact of incomplete data which doesn't appear in a more complete dataset.
Posted by: James Brown
|
October 17, 2009 2:26 PM
I consider this a test of Maher.
He is *almost* always in agreement with science and he professes to have an open mind. The test is that if he is presented with the facts will he change his mind. The problem is how to present the facts to him. Could PZ be invited on his show - somehow? Or could PZ and Bill exchange civil email? Is anyone on Maher's staff reading this blog?
Just a hope.
Posted by: Irene Delse | October 17, 2009 2:32 PM
Yes! I love it when PZ covers the anti-vaccine loonery beat. And lo and behold, Orac returns the favor by posting a deliciously irreligious vid about creationnism:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/10/the_real_explanation_for_transitional_fo.php
Keep up the good work, guys. ;-)
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
October 17, 2009 2:33 PM
Bringing an MD like Orac on the show would be far more effective than anything I could say.
I am not on Bill Maher's personal email list. He probably doesn't have the slightest idea who I am.
Posted by: Merdog | October 17, 2009 2:34 PM
If your sick to the point where you can't take care of it yourself, yeah, for godssakes, go to a doctor. When I get the sniffles, or a persistent cough, I drink a lot of juice. Can't speak for everyone; works for me. I see a lot of folks though, who run to a doctor everytime their ass itches.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 17, 2009 2:35 PM
And speaking of people who are better at making a buck by being contrarian than at thinking critically, what's up with the Freakonomics guys lately?
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
October 17, 2009 2:40 PM
Great Scott! Go back to the Equality everywhere for everyone thread and read your own damn comments, fuckosaurus.Posted by: Irene Delse | October 17, 2009 2:43 PM
@ A ray in Dilbert's space:
Actually, the Chinese practice variolation, i.e. the voluntary inoculation of smallpox (variola) in a controlled manner, to minimize the strain of infection and confer subsequent immunity. And the first records of the practice are in India:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inoculation#India
But yes, indeed, the basic principle of "educating" the body's defenses to make them better at fighting infection can be traced back to ancient Asia, and was practiced there for centuries before being imported to Europe and America as early as 1721.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 17, 2009 2:53 PM
Huh?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 17, 2009 2:57 PM
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 17, 2009 3:00 PM
Yay for hitting post instead of preview
anyway.....
Vaughn did you run off?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 17, 2009 3:01 PM
Great Scott! Go back to the Equality everywhere for everyone thread and read your own damn comments, fuckosaurus.
I had a *jawdrop* moment, too.
Posted by: Tammy
|
October 17, 2009 3:20 PM
Every time I hear someone go off about vaccines, I hear the old Autism/MMR debates, and you know what? As the parent of a child who grew up with Asperger's Syndrome, a form of autism, I'm GLAD I got his vaccines. Because I know he was who he is before them, and I'm glad he never caught polio, measles, mumps, or Diptheria... diseases that could have damaged my son far worse than social awkwardness and a tendency to like things to happen in a certain order. Losing whole days to sock seams sounds much better than visiting a tiny grave. I know, I have done that too. People who think dead kids are better than vaccines piss me off.
Posted by: Peter Ashby
|
October 17, 2009 3:25 PM
I wonder if Maher has someone he cares about or respects who is feeding him all this stuff or he was raised to have a suspicion of doctors and medicine. Something that strong that accounts for this blindness.
Mind you to a certain sort of mind vaccination does seem perilously close to the sort of sympathetic magic we accuse homeopathy of. It isn't of course, it is a simple form of learning and memory that homeopathic type preparations don't touch or address. But if you don't understand that the whole idea of giving a bit of a disease to cure a disease has a sort of yuck factor if you think that way. Then when you find that for eg polio vaccine can cause polio (very mild polio) and vaccinated people can shed virus you have a closed loop of danger.
I don't know what, except a lot of education in immunology is going to get around these reactions. If I did I would be out there converting vaccine deniers.
Posted by: Frankosaurus, Cupcake of Death
|
October 17, 2009 3:39 PM
"Go back to the Equality everywhere for everyone thread and read your own damn comments, fuckosaurus."
Well who would know better than me about how stubborn people can be to concede points? Oh, and it's "Frankosaurus" if you don't mind. My mother named me that.
Posted by: titmouse
|
October 17, 2009 3:53 PM
Vaccine science began with people exposing themselves to cowpox to prevent smallpox two. That was over two hundred years ago. We've learned a lot since then. Today we use proteins that sit on the surface of the virus or we modify the virus so it can't infect cells or replicate. So there's no way you can get an infectious disease from a vaccine today.*
Remember that you are swiming in a sea of antigens all day long. Adding a couple more is nothing. It's like worrying about the effect of adding a drop of water to Lake Placid.
Yes, one in a million people has a serious reaction to a vaccine. But one in a million also has a serious reaction to perfumes, sushi, carrots, incense, etc.
__________
*exeption: rare contamination of multi-dose vials.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
October 17, 2009 4:04 PM
So Jello is Bill Maher's banana: Medicine's Worst Nightmare™? Because that is what I took away from the video:
Posted by: Dan | October 17, 2009 4:30 PM
Isn't mercury liquid at room temperature?
Didn't he have to get vaccinations for the travelling he did whilst making Religulous?
I thought I could relate to this man, just goes to show you can't agree on everything and even the most sensible people are capable of stupidity.
Posted by: Orac
|
October 17, 2009 4:57 PM
Although I'm flattered, I highly doubt I could penetrate the denseness that is Maher's skull. For one thing, I'm a lot more eloquent and funny on the blog than I am in person. For another thing, it's Maher's show, his territory, his rules, his editors. Talk about being at a disadvantage! On the other hand, the look on Maher's face when his position on vaccination was compared to Tom Cruise's Scientology beliefs about psychiatry was priceless. It'd be worth it to risk embarrassment on national TV if I could provoke a similar look.
Hell, Richard Dawkins, as far as I know, has no idea who I am, much less a celebrity like Bill Maher. I do wonder, however. Maher started out his rant by going out of his way to deny that he is a germ theory denialist. Of course, he immediately undermined his denial by what he said next, but it does make me wonder if any Oracian Insolence somehow found its way into the protective bubble around Maher. Probably not. It was probably someone else, but you never know...
Posted by: MadScientist
|
October 17, 2009 4:57 PM
What the hell is it with Maher? He's old enough to have seen polio everywhere and maybe even a bit of the smallpox. There are any number of places in the world he can visit to see how vaccines work - or he can check out the CDC website and read about the government's conspiracy,
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 17, 2009 5:09 PM
I've been watching Maher for years. Last night was surreal, you could see his credibility melting away the more he talked, and I think he sensed that to some degree as well. I can't imagine his three guests were happy they were booked on that show.
It's fair to argue that Maher's position on science is not consistent with the group he defines himself to be a part of but instead it's consistent with the very people he detests, i.e., those who pick and choose which theories to support or reject based on how it helps their socio-political ideology.
So Maher stands at a cross-roads, and I think he's conscious of that fact. Will he make the effort to educate himself on why his anti-science positions hold no water with science or will he choose to behave just like a creationist or denialist and dig himself into an unnavigable pit of ideological zeal?
Posted by: Todd I. Stark | October 17, 2009 5:12 PM
This stuff scares me: who among us is taking serious science and medical advice from Bill Maher? Why is it so notable to us that Bill Maher is weak on medical science?
We aren't even talking about a genius polymath like Martin Gardner or a respected general skeptic like Michael Shermer, people whom we might expect to give us a good solid starting point for investigation.
We're just talking about a comedian who plays surprisingly successfully at being a pundit. I enjoy the guy, but like Penn Gilette and a lot of other bright popular celebrities, he's rarely an expert in the things he makes humor about, and it is unusual for him to even research them seriously.
I suspect that one reason we find some topics funny is that we think people are being humorously dense about them and that the topics don't merit serious research. A lot of "skepticism" is really not much more than humor intended to be at the expense of the gullible. But that can sometimes be a dangerous kind of humor that covers up the underlying complexities.
It isn't stupid to wonder whether the benefits of particular vaccines are worth the risks. It is a reasonable and difficult decision that requires knowledge of individual risk factors as well as good knowledge of the effects of the disease and the side effects of the vaccine. It is ignorant I think to be unaware of the value of vaccines in general for serious diseases that have been dramatically mediated by vaccination. Those of us old enough to remember polio or who know the history of smallpox find it hard not to look at the general anti-vaccine skepticism with incredulity. But that doesn't mean every vaccine is equally valuable for every risk group.
Posted by: Shamac
|
October 17, 2009 5:18 PM
Michael Shermer wrote the wimpiest "come to your senses" posts about Bill Maher I've ever seen.
To paraphrase:
Oh, *smooch smooch smooch* you really did deserve that award, Bill. *smooch smooch smooch* You really ought to try being consistent, Bill (said the libertarian). *smooch smooch smooch* I don't understand you not trusting the government, Bill (said the libertarian). *smooch smooch smooch* Science is wonderful, you should really try it. *smooch smooch smooch*
*Sigh* As one comment on richarddawkins.net put it, "Oh, good grief. Not another Shermer 'open letter'. Good luck, Mike, after all your 'Rational Atheism' open letter was a great success..."
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
October 17, 2009 5:23 PM
So now Maher wants to teach the vaccination controversy?
Does this guy never just stop and listen to himself? He is using the same kind of anti-intellectual, evidence free arguments he criticises creo-bots for all the time. He has a massive blindspot when it comes to vaccinations.
Oh and Vaughan @ 28, you make me sick. Have you ever considered doing the world a favour and bagging youself a Darwin Award all in one go?
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
October 17, 2009 5:34 PM
Frankosaurus @ 24;
"Anyone who defends themself by saying "we need a debate" is really saying "I don't know what I'm talking about but someone must...somewhere." No Bill. No one educated, at least.
It's really pathetic to see such outlandish opinions tossed around."
I know I am echoing aratina cage @ 40 and MAJeff OM @ 45, but on the thread 'Equality for Everyone Everywhere' you yourself seemed to be arguing that we 'need a debate' about mainstream society's attitude toward equality as a concept.
To most of the posters here, your rather hostile outlook on the very idea of equality itself might well qualify as one of those 'outlandish opinions'. I am not trying to antagonise you, but this does seem a little like the pot ruminating on the low refractive index of the kettle.
Posted by: Ray C. | October 17, 2009 7:27 PM
global warming and evolution, he says, are settled science (which is correct)
But...but...but...AAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLL GOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRE!
Posted by: Marc Abian | October 17, 2009 7:34 PM
Ironically, his point about people dying from medicines that were prescribed correctly works against his argument.
People die from prescribed pills but no one is calling for debates about whether we should stop prescribing medicines, because the cost/benefit analysis comes out overwhelmingly in favour of medicine.
It's exactly the same with vaccines.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 17, 2009 7:37 PM
Ironically, his point about people dying from medicines that were prescribed correctly works against his argument.
I'm not familiar with the lit, but does the data on proper prescriptions deal with improper use?
A drug might be prescribed properly, but we probably all know folks who don't take as prescribed (early cessation of anti-biotic treatment being one of the most common things I hear about).
Posted by: turnipthebeets
|
October 17, 2009 7:38 PM
And why is this discussion happening with an actor, the governor of Maryland and that dude from the news? We can all be glad that Alec Baldwin was a part of that because he contributed so much to the conversation
Posted by: Tom M | October 17, 2009 7:47 PM
I can't imagine his three guests were happy they were booked on that show.
Well spotted, laddie; Baldwin said in the clip (paraphrase) that having us on this show while you're talking about the problems you had on your last show is like going on a date and talking about your ex-wife.
Maher got a little hot over that shot. He should; when Chris Matthews (another Nantucket ninny like the ex-Tim Russert) is a sane voice you know you're crazy.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 17, 2009 7:54 PM
Baldwin said in the clip (paraphrase) that having us on this show while you're talking about the problems you had on your last show is like going on a date and talking about your ex-wife.
Maher got a little hot over that shot. He should;
I was sort of stunned at that moment. Baldwin is NOT someone who should be bringing up ex-wives, as Maher made clear.
Posted by: Dale Husband | October 17, 2009 9:18 PM
What about those who say that vaccination and evolution are settled science and global warming is not?
How do we know for sure when any issue of science is "settled"?
Posted by: Rorschach | October 17, 2009 9:38 PM
Grrrr, guy drives me insane with his compartmentalizing. He's as bad as the creationists !
Good that he was pissed off that the NYT and others called him nuts, maybe he will look into it now. What he said to Frisk regarding the "healthy 30year-old dead of swine flu" last week was just plain bizarre. This "lets have a debate" makes me cringe.
I have been suspecting that for a while now, and the "germ theory" thing is further evidence.
Posted by: smallvoice | October 17, 2009 9:41 PM
The Washington Post "On Faith" discussion focused on the vaccine issue this week. Susan Jacoby, the panel atheist, had a good commentary titled, "Anti-Vaccine Junk Science: A Question Of Ignorance" here:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_jacoby/2009/10/bad_question.html
Posted by: chakolate
|
October 17, 2009 10:21 PM
Has anyone seen this article in The Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200911/brownlee-h1n1
There are serious people who say that while some vaccines (MMR, polio, diphtheria) are clearly cutting disease, the flu vaccine seems to be ineffective. Annual flu deaths haven't changed (relative to the population) since they were introduced.
I get one anyway, since it's free and there seems to be no downside, but I do wonder if it does any good.
Posted by: ad | October 17, 2009 10:22 PM
Is everything in science, especially with regard to vaccines really that settled? Maybe there's a little wriggle room:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200911/brownlee-h1n1
Posted by: nelc
|
October 17, 2009 10:45 PM
I'm a bit puzzled by how vaccines could be a Big Pharma plot. After all, they're cheap, and you only get one per disease (and maybe a booster when you're older). Big Pharma loves things like HIV drugs, which are ridiculously expensive and have to be taken every single day of your life if you contract the disease. Plus everybody's afraid of HIV, and people just don't fear vaccinated diseases, that's how effective vaccination has been. How is Big Pharma supposed to make money from that?
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
October 17, 2009 11:56 PM
What about them? They're stupid.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 18, 2009 12:04 AM
When Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are all in agreement about a "controversial" issue related to science, it's best to bet against them.
Posted by: TM | October 18, 2009 6:26 AM
Still don't get this?
Just because it's science doesn't make it right...
Novartis a-H1N1 2009 Monvalent Vaccine Package Insert Based on Approval For Fluvirin UCM182242
Listed Side Effects
*Local injection site reactions (including pain, pain limiting limb movement, redness, swelling, warmth, ecchymosis, induration)
*Hot flashes/flushes
*Chills
*Fever
*Malaise
*Shivering
*Fatigue
*Asthenia
*Facial edema.
*Immune system disorders
*Hypersensitivity reactions (including throat and/or mouth edema)
*In rare cases, hypersensitivity reactions have lead to anaphylactic shock and death
*Cardiovascular disorders
*Vasculitis (in rare cases with transient renal involvement)
*Syncope shortly after vaccination
*Digestive disorders
*Diarrhea
*Nausea
*Vomiting
*Abdominal pain.
*Blood and lymphatic disorders
*Local lymphadenopathy
*Transient thrombocytopenia.
*Metabolic and nutritional disorders
*Loss of appetite.
*Arthralgia
*Myalgia
*Myasthenia
*Nervous system disorders
*Headache
*Dizziness
*Neuralgia
*Paraesthesia
*Febrile convulsions
*Guillain-Barré Syndrome
*Myelitis (including encephalomyelitis and transverse myelitis)
*Neuropathy (including neuritis)
*Paralysis (including Bell’s Palsy)
*Respiratory disorders
*Dyspnea
*Chest pain
*Cough
*Pharyngitis
*Rhinitis
*Stevens-Johnson syndrome
*Pruritus
*Urticaria
*Rash (including non-specific, maculopapular, and vesiculobulbous).
Posted by: chrisD | October 18, 2009 7:04 AM
Prednisone:
* abdominal, stomach, or back pain
* dizziness
* fainting
* fever
* loss of appetite (continuing)
* muscle or joint pain
* nausea
* reappearance of disease symptoms
* shortness of breath
* unexplained headaches (frequent or continuing)
* unusual tiredness or weakness
* vomiting
* weight loss (rapid)
* abdominal or stomach pain or burning (continuing)
* acne
* bloody or black, tarry stools
* changes in vision
* eye pain
* filling or rounding out of the face
* headache
* irregular heartbeat
* menstrual problems
* muscle cramps or pain
* muscle weakness
* nausea
* pain in arms, back, hips, legs, ribs, or shoulders
* reddish purple lines on arms, face, groin, legs, or trunk
* redness of eyes
* sensitivity of eyes to light
* stunting of growth (in children)
* swelling of feet or lower legs
* tearing of eyes
* thin, shiny skin
* trouble in sleeping
* unusual bruising
* unusual increase in hair growth
* unusual tiredness or weakness
* vomiting
* weight gain (rapid)
* wounds that will not heal
* confusion
* excitement
* false sense of well-being
* hallucinations (seeing, hearing, or feeling things that are not there)
* mental depression
* mistaken feelings of self-importance or being mistreated
* mood swings (sudden and wide)
* restlessness
* skin rash or hives
* Decreased or blurred vision
* frequent urination
* increased thirst
* darkening or lightening of skin color
* dizziness or lightheadedness
* flushing of face or cheeks
* hiccups
* increased sweating
* sensation of spinning
* increased appetite
* indigestion
* nervousness or restlessness
TM, trotting out known side-effects of drugs to indicate that they are dangerous is, quite frankly, moronic. You rely on a list with no percentages of occurrence being listed along with the effects. It doesn't make the point you want it to make. It makes you look like an idiot.
Now, got something to say? Say it.
Posted by: DCP | October 18, 2009 7:10 AM
Here are some possible side-effects of Ibuprofen, TM:
- chest pain, weakness, shortness of breath, slurred speech, problems with vision or balance;
- black, bloody, or tarry stools;
- coughing up blood or vomit that looks like coffee grounds;
- swelling or rapid weight gain;
- urinating less than usual or not at all;
- nausea, stomach pain, low fever, loss of appetite, dark urine, clay-colored stools, jaundice (yellowing of the skin or eyes);
- fever, sore throat, and headache with a severe blistering, peeling, and red skin rash;
- bruising, severe tingling, numbness, pain, muscle weakness;
- or fever, headache, neck stiffness, chills, increased sensitivity to light, purple spots on the skin, and/or seizure (convulsions).
- upset stomach, mild heartburn, diarrhea, constipation;
bloating, gas;
- dizziness, headache, nervousness;
- skin itching or rash;
- blurred vision;
- or ringing in your ears.
Your point?
Posted by: DCP | October 18, 2009 7:12 AM
Darn, chrisD beat me to it.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 18, 2009 8:05 AM
TM the ignorant twit isn't going to scare me from getting the swine flu shot. I've been getting the flu shots since I turned fifty, as recommended, and will continue to get them.
Posted by: chrisD | October 18, 2009 8:17 AM
The more the merrier! I think it's important to beat on the ignorant troll incessantly by many different people even using the same method. It makes the objections look even more obvious and the troll more oblivious to all the onlookers.Posted by: An0n | October 18, 2009 9:35 AM
The open letter by MS was also published in the promised land of woo-woo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/an-open-letter-to-bill-ma_b_323834.html
Posted by: R. Schauer
|
October 18, 2009 10:02 AM
What struck me about this video is that Maher is making anti-vaccine statements to a group of panelists with no credentials to rebut him.
One other thing that struck me was...it seems like Martin O'Malley is a thoughtful governor...just saying.
Posted by: davud | October 18, 2009 10:17 AM
I have RLS which Maher makes fun of by saying the disease was invented by the pharmaceutical industry and those of us who 'think we have it' are actually gullible idiots. If he did just a little research he'd find the disease was named Restless Legs Syndrome in 1945. Yes, it is somewhat rare, yes the commercials are stupid but if not for the medication I'd have blown my brains out by now. Maher is no different from creationists who deny evolution despite a preponderance of evidence to the contrary.
Posted by: Orac
|
October 18, 2009 11:18 AM
@68
Mark Crislip has said that he wrote this post more or less as a rebuttal to the execrable Atlantic article:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2040
Posted by: chrisD | October 18, 2009 11:30 AM
I feel your pain Davud, I too have RLS. It's the most aggravating, annoying, irritating feeling anyone could ever imagine. It's like having electrodes strapped to every nerve and muscle in your leg pulsating at a very high frequency and if you leave your legs sit for too long the sensation builds. Moving your legs about frantically helps albeit only in the most minuscule way. My bed partners all tell me how I'm like a dog running in my sleep. They're shocked to find out I'm not asleep, nor can I fall asleep, due to the sensations overloading my nervous system preventing me from doing so!
If you read this Mr. Maher I sincerely apologize for your current disease. Being irrational to such a degree is certainly something big pharmaceuticals are looking at divvying out high-priced drugs for. Side-effects may include:
* Decreased douchebaggery
* Fewer people calling you stupid
* Increase in humility
* Increase in respect
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 18, 2009 12:07 PM
There used to be, though. Bloodletting... mercury... already some sCAMmers are digging up good old Paracelsus.
Yes, if it's a live-virus vaccine, and if you have an unusually weak immune system.
By far most vaccines do not contain viable viruses. Often it's just a single surface protein or the like. Spend an hour in Wikipedia to find out more. I think I was taught the basics of all that in the equivalent of highschool.
If you come into contact with any people, you come into contact with people who carry infections. Importantly, your hands aren't necessarily involved – keyword: droplet infection.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 18, 2009 12:15 PM
Yes it is clear you still don't get it.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 18, 2009 12:24 PM
At philosophical levels of strictness, nothing in science is ever settled. Science, after all, cannot prove, only disprove.
(Suppose we discover the truth. How do we find out that what we've discovered is indeed the truth? By comparing it to the truth, which we don't have? – In contrast, when we come up with something that's wrong, it's enough to compare it to reality; as soon as we find that it disagrees with reality, we've found out that it's wrong.)
So you'll have to find your own level of certainty you're comfortable with. How many more thousands of scientific publications will it take for you? Or maybe you just need to learn about the physics of infrared absorption? Or about the carbon cycle? About carbon isotopes? About paleoclimatology – the history of the Earth's climate, the causes and effects of past temperature swings? Methane, CFCs, FCs, ozone, soot?
I suggest you simply get out less and read more. Perhaps start here and spend a few days on that site.
Posted by: Knockgoats | October 18, 2009 12:31 PM
Science, after all, cannot prove, only disprove. - David Marjanović, OM
*Sigh*. Only true with regard to universal generalisations. Whenever you disprove A, you automatically prove ~A.
Posted by: amphiox
|
October 18, 2009 12:37 PM
re: #84
What bloodletting, mercury, the theory of the humors, medicinal cannibalism (look it up!) etc, really are, is traditional medicine - of Europe. It was derived through the same methods - confirmation bias, appeal to authority, oral tradition, maybe a little bit of proto-scientific method style observation and experimentation, and dates back at least to the Greeks, and probably some of it back to the Egyptians and Sumerians, making it at least 2500+ years old, and possibly over 5000 years old. And it was also accompanied by a vast compendium herbal and other natural remedies.
In short, it is no different from all the other "traditional" medicines touted by the CAM people these days, be it Chinese, Ayurvedic, Native American, or whatever. Indeed, the theoretical parallels run deep. Humors, Chi, Chakras, all are ideas based on the concept of vitalism, and the idea that imbalances of one kind or another lead to disease to common throughout.
It just so happens that because many aspects of modern civilization evolved out of the old European one, and the scientific revolution first took place in Europe, that we have a bit better documentation of this form of traditional medicine, and it was the first to be tested and debunked by the rise of scientific medicine, while other traditional medicines do not have an extensive a paper trail and/or have not been subjected as yet to as much scientific scrutiny, by accident of history and circumstance.
So when I hear someone touting the advantages of "traditional" medicines, and using these old discredited European practices as somehow an indictment of "Western" medicine in contrast, I cannot help but see it as a fundamentally racist argument - that the Chinese, or Indians, or Native Americans, etc, were so much more clever and intelligent and sensible, and the Europeans so stupid and inferior, as reflected by the relative merits of the types of medicine each group practiced.
Posted by: amphiox
|
October 18, 2009 12:49 PM
"How do we know for sure when any issue of science is "settled"?"
The only circumstance where such a consideration matters is when we need to apply our scientifically obtained conclusions to some practical matter. Otherwise the quest for knowledge is endless and nothing is ever completely "settled".
But, since this then becomes a question of practical application, we should guide ourselves using practical concerns.
The more urgent the need for action, the less stringent should our threshold for certainty need to be. This remains very true in many aspects of modern medicine, where evidence remains sparse, contradictory, and/or of poor quality. But when the alternative is death or serious disability, we will act with a certainty threshold that can be barely over 50% sometimes - there is literally almost nothing to lose in this situation, and so we proceed.
The more serious the potential for harm, the more expensive, the more ambitious the contemplated action, the more stringent the threshold for certainty must be. It makes sense to be cautious if what you want to do is going to eat up a lot of resources, affect a lot of different things, of involve the application of a large amount of energy/power.
The exact threshold has to be decided on a case by case basis.
I should point out that the level of certainty right now for evolution, vaccines, and global warming are all well over 99%. Indeed, 99% certainty is underestimating by several orders of magnitude in all three cases.
Posted by: amphiox
|
October 18, 2009 1:10 PM
"But isn't it true that, sometimes, a vaccination can give a person the disease it was meant to prevent? And wouldn't it just be easier and perhaps safer for a person to just wash his hands frequently and stay away from sick people?"
That would depend on the reliability of washing hands, avoiding infected people, and other preventive measures in stopping transmission, compared to the reliability of vaccines.
Then we would have to factor in the relative risks of both options - the adverse reactions to vaccines versus the loneliness and lack of social life, the missing out of all the benefits of being part of a social network, psychological and material, the chapped hands, the allergies to soap, pollutants in tap water.
Then we would have to factor in the cost of both options, the cost of the vaccine versus the cost of missed financial opportunities from avoiding other people, the extra cost of maintaining technologies for communications, more time on-line, more use of the cell-phone, the increase in the water bill and the electric bill.
It's a complicated process, but fortunately these cost-benefit calculations have been done, taxpayer funded, by the government. Universal vaccination is then used for all those conditions where the equations support the vaccine. For those conditions where we have a vaccine but the equations do not support the vaccine, we don't universally vaccinate, and save the vaccines for situations of increased risk, like occupation-specific hazards, travel, etc. For those conditions where the equations support a vaccine but we don't have a vaccine, we're out of luck, and make do with the best preventive measures we can think of, while funding vaccine research.
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | October 18, 2009 11:43 PM
"Actually, I think that vaccination is more settled than global warming, which has taken a pause for the past few years (paleohistory "
just because we had a year that was so off that charts that the last decade, with a La Nina event and the solar minimum, was less than the peak, it is still a fact that the hottest 14 years on record are in the last 20 years...
average is still trending up, and just wait a while, we will start heading towards a new record.
Posted by: DLC
|
October 19, 2009 4:19 AM
I've commented before on this over at R.I. but --
For Bill Maher -- Bill, nothing wrong with skepticism, but you are not being skeptical here, you're throwing out the message because it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions.
For "Ooh how clever am I that I can post the list of side effects to a vaccine " guy: -- ever read the package insert on asprin ?
I won't bother with the list, you can google one up yourself.
The point "Ooh how clever I am (etc) ",is that drugs, including time-honored well tested ones such as aspirin, have side effects, some of them are even serious ones. but they are also mostly vanishingly rare. In the risk-benefit analysis, Vaccines benefits outweigh the risks by a huge factor.
Posted by: jon2112
|
October 19, 2009 10:50 AM
I believe in Science, BUT not government run science therefor i have to pass on Government issue H1N1 vaccine, something in me says the obama clan no more about this *outbreak* then we know about, and that scares the hell out of me, so in a way i guess i agree with bill maher on SOME of his rant
first time post long time lurker
Posted by: Rorschach | October 19, 2009 11:00 AM
@ 93,
Please see a mental health professional.
Posted by: jon2112
|
October 19, 2009 11:47 AM
that sounds like something a good christian would say @94,im happy you believe everything the gov. shoves in your head, lemmings
Posted by: Rorschach | October 19, 2009 11:56 AM
Uhuh.
About those meds.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 19, 2009 12:05 PM
Usually anything following that statement is an expression of opinion based on nothing but one's desire to be a conspiracy theorist.
yep here it comes
BINGO!
Should have kept lurking
Except it's backed by the science, Christianity isn't.
Dumbass
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 19, 2009 12:07 PM
obama controls the whole world now?
cuz otherwise, H1N1 vaccine doesn't make any fucking sense as a conspiracy, jon. do what the doctor says and get thee on some meds.
Posted by: Scot Rafkin | October 19, 2009 10:21 PM
I blogged about this exact thing last week!
http://freethoughtranch.blogspot.com
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 19, 2009 10:26 PM
obama controls the whole world now?
in crackerworld
Posted by: Don Teuton | October 20, 2009 12:56 AM
I like Bill Maher. And I like PZ Meyers. The way I see it, they're like peanut butter and chocolate. In that vein, I posted a link to Pharyngula on Maher's most recent Facebook blurb.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=751175&id=1431963094#/Maher?ref=nf
Posted by: Don Teuton | October 20, 2009 12:59 AM
Whoops...
http://www.facebook.com/Maher?ref=nf#/video/video.php?comments&v=101273186559584