…and this is a 
Bill Maher struck precisely the wrong tone in his recent plea for 'forgiveness' for his anti-vax stand — it wasn't an admission that he had been wrong, it was a rather smarmy, self-righteous claim that he has been the open-minded one who just wants to ask the hard questions . It reminded me of nothing other than the sniffy, sanctimonious tone creationists take when they try to claim they're just interested in the free exchange of information on both sides of their issue. It's just another attempt to put crank pseudoscience on a par with real science.
Orac is scathing in his assessment. Maher managed to make himself look even worse on this issue.
Medicine & Health
Comments
Posted by: B.T. Murtagh | November 17, 2009 9:58 PM
Maher claimed he 'just wants the debate' but he sounded awfully convinced of his position when I watched. His dismissive comments about "Western medicine" really irked me too. Western medicine works fine, when you can get it.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
November 17, 2009 10:00 PM
Not only was it self-serving, it was too fucking long and dull. I thought he was supposed to be a comedian. The least he could have done was make it fun to read and snappy. To me, that just shows how bullheaded he really is about vaccines. If he truly was open-minded, it would have been fun to read and not a wall of text.
Posted by: nintfjr
|
November 17, 2009 10:05 PM
What really irks me is this... distrust of science. I can understand being distrusting of a vague undefined claim, but this is SCIENCE. It's not just some undefined field of though, it's empirical and self correcting.
My father sees that last bit, being self correcting, as a bad thing, for reasons I don't understand. Apparently being completely sure of yourself is more important than being right.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 17, 2009 10:10 PM
Incidentally, Bill, Louis Pasteur did not recant the Germ Theory of Disease on his deathbed.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 17, 2009 10:10 PM
Have to agree. Very disappointing.
Maher's actual blog post is here .
Posted by: GoatRider | November 17, 2009 10:11 PM
Open minded? My grandmother always taught me that I should always keep an open mind, but not so much that my brain falls out.
Posted by: Ewan R | November 17, 2009 10:32 PM
Vaccination: A Conversation Worth Having.
Perhaps he could have his next post be
Creationism: A Conversation Worth Having.
And highlight all the scientists who are being opressed and not allowed to come forw.... wait a mo' that was the movie 'expelled' right.
Somehow I dont see that happening, although both make equal sense
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | November 17, 2009 10:33 PM
I really can't stand Maher anymore. He used to be funny and made some great observations about our politicians, but the vaccine thing has just soured me on him.
After a friend of mine refused to vaccinate her baby, all of the anti-vaccination crown make me sick. Convincing people to put their children's lives at stake is just evil.
Posted by: Newfie
|
November 17, 2009 10:36 PM
We all likely have beliefs that go against our better judgment.. but when it is laid out in a coherent manner to us, we can see it for what it is. Bill just had it click in his brain.. give him time, his ego is still puffing up...
Welcome to the trust science always group, Bill... they have your and my interests at heart.. some even call it 'Truth'.
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 17, 2009 10:44 PM
"Western medicine?" As in "Western science?" As in "laws of physics that only work in half of the world?" Or perhaps "Jewish physics?"
Or are the regularities in the universe the same all over, but there's something about "Eastern people" -- they just can't recognize them? Because they're so different, you see. Tch.
There is no Western medicine, or alternative medicine. There's just medicine.
And science.
Posted by: Mack | November 17, 2009 10:54 PM
Really? I used to respect Bill Maher. I thought Religulous was scary but great.
And this wad of BS just takes the fruitcake.
And with that, he lost any shred of credence. Because 1952 marked a the worst polio outbreak ever in the US.
In 1952, there were 57,000 cases of polio in the US. Within two years of beginning vaccinations, incidence had dropped 90%. There has not been a naturally acquired case of polio in the USA since 1979. In 2005 there were 1263 cases of polio, down from 350,000 in 1988. What happened in between? The Global Polio Eradication Initiative by the WHO.
Posted by: Mack | November 17, 2009 10:59 PM
Sorry, quote fail.
"Does the polio vaccine have the power to prevent children from getting polio, and did it indeed do just that in the 1950s? I believe it does, and it did. But polio had diminished by over 50 percent in the thirty years before the vaccine -- that's a pretty big fact in the polio story that you don't often hear and which merits debate. It may be the case that the vaccine should have been used anyway to finish polio off, but there are some interesting facts on the other side."
Seriously, though, I can't figure out how to do the block quote things. I'm technologically challenged. Please explain how you embed quotes and make them look shiny and nice. Use little words.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
November 17, 2009 11:04 PM
Mack, type out
<blockquote>Text goes here<br>with spaces inside the blockquote.</blockquote>
to get
Posted by: Stanton
|
November 17, 2009 11:07 PM
So, you guys think that Bill Maher would prefer to have the "natural" vaccines the Chinese developed for rabies and smallpox during ancient times and the Qing dynasties?
That is, applying a rabid dog's brain to the bite injury, or snorting powder or fluid made from a smallpox boil...
Posted by: RobertDW | November 17, 2009 11:09 PM
Playing Devil's advocate briefly - vaccinations do have risks, and parents don't tend to be very well informed of the risks (in particular that the risk of of an outbreak is higher than any risk of reaction).
Also, a lot of Maher's rhetoric is directed at Big Pharma - an industry which does love to pump expensive drugs out when cheaper alternatives (including older, no-longer patent protected drugs) are available.
Oh, and mack:
Posted by: Alec | November 17, 2009 11:21 PM
I guess the new girlfriend who looks like his daughter (has he no sense of ridicule?) is teaching him some whacky stuff.
Posted by: Chuck | November 17, 2009 11:21 PM
Vaccines are victims of their own success. We have no rows and rows of iron lungs or paralyzed children to remind us how important they are, because they worked so well.
People like Maher are always so vocal about their distrust of "Western Medicine" until they come down with a serious medical problem.
Chuck
http://www.irreligiosophy.com
Posted by: bluskool | November 17, 2009 11:40 PM
I am not sure that is playing devil's advocate. You are saying that it is safer to vaccinate than to not, right? Maher is postulating imaginary risks, not the real risk, for example, of the one in a million chance of getting Guillain–Barré syndrome.
Posted by: Dan | November 17, 2009 11:45 PM
"it was a rather smarmy, self-righteous claim"
Um, are you familiar with his work, his HBO show, his movie "Religulous"? He specializes
in smarmy and self-righteous attitudes. And I say this as a fan of his!
Posted by: Bryan | November 18, 2009 12:03 AM
He's using the same ridiculous religious logic that he makes fun of in everyone else. There's a difference between open minded and open to stupid. Bill Maher is letting me down.
Posted by: Geoff | November 18, 2009 12:11 AM
I used to be a fan of Bill Maher. No longer.
How can anyone get any sense of satisfaction from a man who makes a living demanding sense from others while demonstrating the same lack of sense of the people he openly criticizes?
Posted by: Mack | November 18, 2009 12:12 AM
I agree with the assertion that, in the US, we overmedicate, in many different ways. People want a tangible "cure" whether or not it will in fact fix a single thing (hence the placebo effect). People believe that the cure, whether a scrip for antibiotics or St.John's wort, will be effective, despite the dubious evidence of effectiveness in herbal remedies such as ginkgo or echinacea, or the uselessness of an antibiotic against a virus.
Another part of the problem with overmedication is litigious culture in which we live. There is a fear among doctors that they could be subject to malpractice suits if they don't give the appearance of attempting every cure, no matter how specious. (At least that's been my experience with a number of doctors).
On the other hand, I don't think we over vaccinate. Vaccination is preventative, rather then reactionary. And I think the old adage about "an ounce of prevention" is true in respect to vaccinations.
Posted by: Liz Ditz | November 18, 2009 12:52 AM
Roundup of bloggers critical of Maher's article, including this post.
I'm tired of Maher's smug stupidity. I wonder what Attilla the Mom would have to say to Maher. Her son has been on a ventilator since October 25. Complications from H1N1.
Vaccine refusal (or idiocy) has economic effects. For example, Attila the Mom's family's bill for her son's care.
Other, less dire real-life effects:
I live in Santa Clara county, California. We've had high rates of novel H1N1 for several weeks -- before the vaccine was available. There's still not widespread availability. One middle school I know of will close for the Thanksgiving recess on 11/19, instead of 11/24, because both students and teachers are out ill with (presumed) novel H1N1. Many parents are employed full-time, so the school is coordinating child-watching efforts.
How is Maher's "conversation" ploy any different from the creationists' "teaching the controversy"?
Posted by: doogan | November 18, 2009 1:06 AM
Damn this rift!!!
::gets back to trolling::
Posted by: bad Jim
|
November 18, 2009 1:16 AM
I was wondering why people would take ancient prophecies seriously (2012 for example) when "ancient wisdom" is an obvious oxymoron. Consider, though, that in many contexts natural is more desirable than artificial, and that the artificial is generally newer and the product of modern technology, which is the cause of many contemporary problems.
If the unstated noun is "food" or "textiles" then many of us might feel inclined to agree, but not if it concerns "medical care" or "communication" or "knowledge".
Moreover, since most Americans believe in angels and demons and magic, they may well believe that earlier generations had better access to special knowledge, and willingly embrace notions that strike us as batshit insane.
Science, for them, is not a way to understand the world, but an obscure practice that delivers the goods in a fashion they do not need to understand, which makes them the Eloi and us the Morlocks.
Posted by: Grant | November 18, 2009 1:17 AM
Maher has basically re-hashed his "presentation" on the season finale for his show. I sneaked my own tajedown out slightly before Orac, but he always write more (!), more in depth, and besides I'm kind-of small fry in this pond for anyone to notice :-)
Seriously, it's appalling that someone can abuse their position to push something they have—by their own admission—no real knowledge about.
One of my favourite clichés is "you can't judge what you don't understand"...!
Posted by: EB | November 18, 2009 1:17 AM
"I believe in science and in studies to determine the truth"
"The medical community can be brutal on dissent, which would hold more weight if I thought this was a terribly healthy country, which it isn't."
If Maher doesn't possess the logic to recognize these two statements, written within the same short paragraph, are contradictory, he really should be placed in a well-lighted room and watered twice daily. In the first, dissent (which is vital to science) is praised. In the second, dissent is a shrill rhetorical weapon to silence.
Hopeless
Posted by: Diane G. | November 18, 2009 1:48 AM
Blaming the medical profession for people having unhealthy habits is stupid; doctors can't force people to eat well & exercise, they just have to deal with what shows up in their waiting rooms. Just like blaming the fast food industry for people eating the wrong foods or, for that matter, blaming Big Pharma for making ED drugs & hair restorers is stupid--industry makes what the consumer wants. We not only need a government option for health care, we need a government subsidy for orphan drugs, etc. And more government regulation of pharma.
Bill--blame your audience, not your sponsors.
Posted by: John | November 18, 2009 2:52 AM
dude he is srsly in stone retarded lmao- what a joke- g thx for writing about how dumb you are - that was great
Posted by: RickR
|
November 18, 2009 3:20 AM
Thanks for stopping by!!! OMG SRSLY LOL!!
kthxbai!!
Posted by: The Tim Channel
|
November 18, 2009 4:44 AM
I still like Bill Mahr even if he is a little whacked out on the vaccine issue.
I don't distrust science in the least, but I do distrust the healthcare industrial complex.
For me, I always take a pass on the flu vacs. I would gladly take a shot to prevent a more serious illness. I just don't see the need for same with seasonal illnesses that are not so dire.
No rift intended.
Enjoy.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 18, 2009 7:23 AM
Oh he shouldn't have had that coca-cola and those chips.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 18, 2009 7:30 AM
A little? Um your sense of scale is fucked. And it's not just the vaccine issue.
Well that's just wonderful. What other science based medical advice do you ignore because of your conspiracy fueled fear of the "healthcare industrial complex"? How do you decide which medical treatments (that have been shown to be effective and safe) do you chose to deem ok and which ones not ok?
That's a fantastically myopic stance you take! Congratulations!
No, just plain arrogance of and argument from incredulity. NICE!
yawn
Posted by: ennui
|
November 18, 2009 7:53 AM
Jesusteabaggingchrist, The Tim Channel, they could fill a whole blog with things that you don't know about the flu vax. Oh wait, they have.
Maybe you should read this.
Yawn indeed, Chimpy.
Posted by: Cordwainer Smith | November 18, 2009 7:57 AM
Darwin thought vaccination "weakened the race".
Yep, he sure did.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel
|
November 18, 2009 8:03 AM
Bill the loon said:
Oh, hey! It's Glenn Beck's favorite tactic: "I'm just asking questions!"
The point I am representing is: Is Bill Maher a puppy-raping child sodomizer? I feel its unnecessary and counterproductive to try and silence people with condescension.
Posted by: freelunch | November 18, 2009 8:14 AM
Beseiged -
Are you unaware that there are thousands of scientists producing peer-reviewed journal articles and that science is not a cult of personality?
Rorschach -
I notice that none of the comments have been posted in Maher's blog entry that makes excuses for the fans of vax-ignorance, but that he has approved comments in other ones. I cannot tell if he is overwhelmed by comments showing that he is flat out wrong or has just turned into another reactionary who refuses to be criticized for his wrongheaded opinion.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 18, 2009 8:18 AM
And?
Posted by: King of Typos | November 18, 2009 8:23 AM
All Rev. BigDumbChimp posts come free with their requisite typos as usual.
Posted by: phreack | November 18, 2009 8:27 AM
I think South Park nailed it with their solution to the "just asking questions" mantra. Cartman was spreading misinformation about Wendy by "just asking questions". Wendy got fed up, so she started "just asking questions" too, and ended up turning the whole conspiracy theory Cartman had elaborately planned back on him. It won't work, but it would be awesome if it would.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 18, 2009 8:32 AM
Besieged the village idjit bleated:
First, show him yours. That will show him.Posted by: Rorschach | November 18, 2009 9:15 AM
@ 31,
I still like what he does with regards to exposing religion, but I have changed my mind on the rest, and think that the woo is strong in this one, and it goes way beyond being "a little whacked out".
For a healthy individual that doesnt belong to any high-risk groups this is not unreasonable.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 18, 2009 9:23 AM
Rorschach, I'm not sure if that was intentional or not but that sounds a lot like exactly what Maher claims.
Plus, flu vaccines (and vaccines in general) are not just about protecting yourself.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
November 18, 2009 9:31 AM
Bill Maher is annoyingly smug even when I like his point of view. He makes me feel like saying "get off my side".
Posted by: Rorschach | November 18, 2009 9:33 AM
Rev,
This is what's in the official australian guidelines for H1N1 vaccination, members of high risk groups and health workers are strongly encouraged to get vaccinated, and that makes sense, since the people we sent to ICU last winter were mainly pregnant women and the obese and/or immunocompromised.
For healthy adults it is a rather weak recommendation, they can if they want to sort of thing.
I think it makes sense, given that in those low-risk folks the flu really is mostly a mild disease, and with flu vaccines you never achieve any degree of herd immunity anyway, you want > 90% vaccination rate for that which is unrealistic for seasonal flu.
Posted by: 1984 | November 18, 2009 9:35 AM
Bill asks for a dialogue, but if you criticize his views on this or by simply linking to this blog or Orac's the posts are deleted or not even posted. Shame huffpo(o)!
Posted by: Dr.Woody
|
November 18, 2009 9:36 AM
it was a rather smarmy, self-righteous claim that he has been the open-minded one who just wants to ask the hard questions .
Naher is the past master of smarmy self-righteousness...
What would you expect from someone who could fuck ann coulter?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 18, 2009 9:42 AM
I think my original point was more about the healthy individual comment. Healthy or not you can (and people do) get sick and some very sick from the flu and H1N1. Orac touches this point, or rather hammers it, in the post that PZ links to.
But yes, most people I know don't go for the seasonal flu vaccines. But I think that's mostly out of laziness more than anything else.
Posted by: Joe | November 18, 2009 9:43 AM
DianeG @28:
That's pretty facile. Those industries (indeed, all industries) spend a shit-ton of money to ensure that the consumer wants what industry makes.
Anyway, Maher reminds me of many of my fellow software professionals, who discover a new technology or approach, use it with much success, and then spend the greater portion of their careers trying to shoehorn it into every problem or challenge that they encounter, irrespective of the appropriateness of the application. In Bill's case, his utilization of skepticism as a bludgeon against the creotards and religious whackaloons seems to have led him into thinking that he's some sort of super-hero crusader, speaking Truth to Power and freeing the bleating masses from the wool that we persistently cling to our eyes.
Unfortunately, when it comes to skepticism, in the case he ain't doing it right. The tell is in his unguarded moments - when he's trying to squeeze a point in, or twitter his stream-of-consciousness, or score a zinger, it's not "let's keep the debate open" that comes out of the ol' id (that argument only surfaces later, in the prepared remarks). No, it's stuff like "only idiots get vaccines".
I think that he's absolutely right that the question of whether Americans over-medicate is important, and it's a conversation that our country ought to have. Unfortunately, it's pretty obvious that what's eating at Bill is only tertiary to that particular controversy.
Posted by: BAllanJ | November 18, 2009 9:51 AM
Those here who think healthy folk needn't get the shot should read the blog by attilla the mom linked to above...
... then figure out how much shorter her ordeal at the hospital would have been if there were 10 times more people lined up for the respirators her kid has been on this last month. Her vigil at the hospital would have moved over to the funeral home by now. And that's what it's going to be like in any community that doesn't have a high participation rate in another month or two.
Posted by: mattand | November 18, 2009 9:55 AM
I used to listen to the "Real Time" podcast, but I can't justify it anymore given Maher's anti-vax/science meltdowns. The fact that he's using the "recant on deathbed' bullshit that creationists (people who he actively detests) use is beyond maddening.
IIRC, he does seem to support the HPV vax. Of course, the religious fundies are against it (it'll lead to SEX, ya know), so take a wild guess why he doesn't hate that.
If someone could convince Maher that religious conservatives hate the flu vaccines, he'd probably help pay to get everyone in CA vaccinated.
Posted by: Cory Meyer | November 18, 2009 10:35 AM
I had been long waiting to her Maher's response to Michael Shermer. The response was underwhelming. If Maher wanted an honest discussion of the issue, he had all the time in the world, demonstrated by his lengthy response, to belabor the point and present the scientifically grounded case why vaccinations are unnecessary in lieu of proper diet, exercise, and sanitation in a modernized "Western" world. He didn't. I've never found him particularly funny, anyway, despite my penchant for dry and wry humor.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 18, 2009 10:54 AM
Western medicine? Like... bloodletting?
Oh, so you're too stupid to do it yourself?
Searching Google Scholar for "PZ Myers" yields 299 results.
Restricting the search to "since 2004" yields 108 results.
Naturally, not all of these are necessarily peer-reviewed. You'll have to check out the journals they're published in. Have a nice day.
Posted by: daveau
|
November 18, 2009 10:55 AM
Yeah, right. And Darwin renounced natural selection on his deathbed. What's next? Newton renounced gravity on his deathbed? Faraday renounced electromagnetism on his deathbed?
Maybe Maher will renounce smug stupidity on his deathbed. Or maybe not.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 18, 2009 11:30 AM
No, but the blog may contain reference(s) to the peer reviewed literature. For this say "references therein". There are some peer reviewed journals that are now online. But I'm not familiar with them.Posted by: Steven Mading
|
November 18, 2009 11:32 AM
Maher's boneheaded Big Pharma conspiracy theories wouldn't be as annoying if it wasn't for the fact that they DO hinder his arguments against religion by turning them hypocritical. This attitude of saying "Well, he may be wrong on Big Pharma but he's right on religion so I can still like him" doesn't really work when the exact same skeptical principles he's applying to religion are principles he's perfectly willing to abandon when putting forth his own pet theories.
Bill Maher is one of the people who was advancing the use of the term "rationalist" as a better term than "atheist", specifically because he wants to emphasize that being a nonbeliever is a side effect of being rational, not an ends unto itself... except that his Big Pharma attittudes make him be utterly unqualified to be the one putting forth that argument. He is clearly NOT a rationalist overall like he claims to be.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 18, 2009 11:38 AM
The guy you're replying to is one of the Kansas trolls -- those comments get deleted as I find them, so you're wasting your time replying to him.
Posted by: Steven Mading
|
November 18, 2009 11:46 AM
There's also a little bit of the "retroactive reduction of certainty" tactic going on there. You know the tactic - Make an bold claim, and then when the claim is shown to be bullshit, try to retroactively alter the claim so it was never really a claim in the first place but rather was something lesser - a question, or a metaphor, or just a fun story. Bonus points for having the chutzpa to turn things back on the reasonable skeptic who pointed out the bullshit by pretending (again, retroactively) that this lesser meaning was obvious from the start and the skeptic was being an idiot for actually reading what you wrote and actually thinking you meant it.When Maher pretends he was "just asking questions" when clearly in actuality he was making definite claims, he's engaging in this dishonest tactic - much like those apologists who try to retroactively weaken the claims of literal Biblical passages that are known to be embarrassingly wrong today.
Posted by: Robocop | November 18, 2009 11:59 AM
Bill asks for a dialogue, but if you criticize his views on this or by simply linking to this blog or Orac's the posts are deleted or not even posted.
This shouldn't be all that surprising. Many people (even many smart and accomplished people -- unlike dopes like Richard Dawkins Award honoree Maher) speak of the benefits of free speech, all the while repressing or censoring views with which they disagree (see, e.g., Coyne, Jerry). Those generically seen as of "the Right" probably do it more often and more consistently, but many generically seen as of "the Left" do it too, usually more hypocritically.
Posted by: Prometheus | November 18, 2009 12:11 PM
My drinking buddy loves Halloween but has costume limitations because of his crutches (Spina bifida).
I agreed to push him around in my antique wheelchair next year if he would go as poetic justice i.e. "I'm Bill Maher with polio!" He can't wait and has already signed up a zombie-smallpox Jenny McCarthy and a whooping cough Jim Carrey.
I'll E-mail Maher the party pics and a caption that says "We are not laughing 'with' you."
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | November 18, 2009 12:25 PM
I have never had a seasonal flu vaccine. There are actual reasons for this though. In my area, the vaccines are always in short supply and I am neither in a high risk group nor do I have regular contact with members of high risk groups, so I don't take a dose that could be going to someone more likely to get the flu and suffer severe complications. If the vaccines weren't in such short supply in my area, I would get one.
In fact, we seem to have tons of seasonal flu vaccines this year, so I'm going to go to the next vaccine clinic and get one. I don't qualify for the limited number of H1N1 vaccines available because I'm over 24 and don't have any health problems that leave me with a weakened immune system. If more become available, I'll be getting that one too. I've never had the flu and I would like to keep it that way :)
Posted by: B.T. Murtagh | November 18, 2009 5:05 PM
Beware, NoR, of the slippery quality of comparative words like "peer" - PZ's peers are not village idjits.
Posted by: We Are The 801 | November 18, 2009 6:07 PM
I wonder what Maher thinks about the Wall Street folks getting the vaccinations while hospitals in NYC still struggle to get theirs for patients?
Posted by: We Are The 801 | November 18, 2009 6:17 PM
I'm curious... what exactly is Maher's position on the healthcare debate in the US?
Presumably he would be opposed to something like Medicare for All, since it would simply be giving US Americans free access to all that terrible "western medicine."
Posted by: Rorschach | November 19, 2009 12:27 AM
See what happens when you spout unscientific BS ?
You get to see Abbie in Bikini !
It's just not fair.
Posted by: CantakerousMook | November 19, 2009 1:39 AM
What a bunch of fundamentalists in here.
Posted by: JebusFreak | November 19, 2009 10:05 AM
I haven't followed this at all, noticed that everybody was on about how stupid Bill was and then read his post. Now, to be completely honest, I think just about everybody here has decided that Bill is talking crap and that's that, and now they're pulling only the stupid things he said out and concentrating on that.
Hello! Bill makes a living talking crap! He has a lot of warped ideas about LOTS of things. But if you can manage to put preconceptions aside and look at the SANE things he is saying, I really don't see what justification there is for everybody to call for his head.
I'm no expert on vaccinations, but when my first child came along I did try to find out some pros and cons to make at least a partially informed decision. I found way to many conflicting statements to feel entirely comfortable, and only got the shots that were COMPLETELY necessary.
I have a lot of trust in "western" medicine and the scientific method, but I'm not a zealot... and to be honest a lot of the comments here are sounding like that. Either most here are very young or they have very short memories: I can recall at least 5 times in the last 2 decades that the medical community changed their minds regarding butter. Now it's good for you... now it's not... no wait it IS good for you... NO WAIT... IT'LL KILL YOU! Are you seriously suggesting we should all just accept everything we get told? I thought you were skeptics?
Comparing this to the creationist debate is ridiculous. Creationists have no valid points or any evidence. In this debate it seems like there are still some discussion required. Would any of you bet your life on the assumption that a vaccine CANNOT IN ANY WAY have a negative effect that we simply aren't aware of yet?
There are a lot of things that we just don't know of yet, eg do too many ultrasound scans have any negative effect on a baby... perhaps something that only becomes apparent at a much later age? We don't know for sure, because the device just hasn't been around long enough. It seems okay, and the huge advantage of being able to inspect the fetus probably outweighs the possible risks. But are we really going to burn somebody at the stake if they dare suggest that it might be harmful and they would rather not use it?
I must say I'm rather disappointed in this group.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 19, 2009 10:25 AM
Oh good grief.
Here we go.....
And which ones were those? Where did you get your conflicting data? What made you think you were better qualified to determine what was COMPLETELY necessary?
The science was wrong before gambit?
No it is very similar in that the massive amounts of data fully supports the efficacy and overall safety of vaccination yet people will twist the truth, argue from personal incredulity, lie and just deny the evidence just because they feel they know better.
Where are you getting your conflicting data from?
No, but Bill is suggesting he knows better that vaccinations and "western medicine" are wrong. He knows better than the people trained in the subject. He makes statements that are demonstrably wrong and then continues making them after he's been shown they are wrong. He's promoting ignorance and idiocy. He is wrong on this and so are you.
You sound just like the creationists you say we shouldn't be comparing the discussion to.
Posted by: quinno | November 19, 2009 1:09 PM
Blind faith in anything is foolish. Science provides the most reliable methods for generating knowledge, but it isn’t immune to corruption and misuse, especially where billion dollar profits are concerned. Big pharma is powerful and our health isn’t their top priority. Skepticism is appropriate here.
Thought this was interesting:
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/56151/
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 19, 2009 1:20 PM
Skepticism is appropriate anytime, denialism is not. This is pure denialism. Skepticism should lead you to doing honest research on the subject and doing so you'd discover that there is nothing that suggests vaccinations are any more dangerous than the possible side effects that are present in any and all medical procedures / treatments.
What other medical treatments deemed safe do you apply this same denialism to?
Posted by: astrounit | November 19, 2009 2:37 PM
That guy - Bill Maher - is a "merely" a stubborn person...one who can't seem to bring himself to retract the lies that he thoughtlessly promoted in his own name in the past...because it's hard to admit to having been dead wrong.
Watch. I predict that Bill Maher will eventually come around and admit he was wrong. If he has the balls to do what he does, he easily has them to do the other thing. Eventually.
Because deep down, Bill Maher basically understands it is IDIOTIC to pose an "opinion" on a topic BEFORE one learns what the hell it's all about. And he will simply have to admit that his "opinion" was drafted BEFORE he learned what he needed to learn about this topic.
Train wrecks happen all the timne, little ones and big ones. It's no big deal unless anybody DENIES knowing how a wreck may have been precipitated.
Doesn't that make SENSE Bill?
Posted by: quinno | November 19, 2009 8:21 PM
@70
You're generalizing here, Rev. Each medical procedure/treatment and vaccine is distinct in its array of possible side effects and benefits, and in the degree to which such things have been studied. It is reasonable to be less confident in those medical interventions for which benefits and side effects have been less extensively studied.
Mass flu immunization may very well be justified, but the risks of the vaccines are not entirely known.
From the package insert (this is for CSL; other manufacturers’ inserts are very similar; all are available on the FDA web site):
I am not anti-vax. I advocate skepticism in general, but especially where bias and distortion are probable. A billion dollar vaccination program is no exception.