1. Comment #305174 by tvictor on December 22, 2008 at 7:03 pm

Thank you for sharing.

Other Comments by tvictor

2. Comment #305185 by DAVE1618 on December 22, 2008 at 7:32 pm

Serious discussion about science... who knew? Pardon my cynicism. I just spent a year in the US hostage to CNN and FOXNEWS :)

Other Comments by DAVE1618

3. Comment #305235 by Mayhemm on December 22, 2008 at 8:56 pm

The areas where they talk about manipulating trial results to fits your desires and how no amount of negative results will necessarily sway a belief system in part 2 are particularly interesting to me. Makes me think of how it applies to, and is applied by, the religious.

Likewise regarding the section on the perceived "golden age" and us being spoiled. If we stripped away all the societal and scientific progress made in the last 500 years from those who deny its significance, it would shut them up pretty fast.

Other Comments by Mayhemm

4. Comment #305303 by Jabee8 on December 22, 2008 at 10:44 pm

Yes Professor!
This is depressing...

Other Comments by Jabee8

5. Comment #305312 by Mr Jaguar on December 22, 2008 at 11:24 pm

Great interview. Prof. Baum should write a book that coinsides with Dawkins, Harris etc.

The only awkward part on the interview was where the Proffessor would not talk about the royal family. THEY are one of the main reasons that the British population buy into Homeopathy.

Other Comments by Mr Jaguar

6. Comment #305335 by rob00 on December 23, 2008 at 12:12 am

absolutely enlightening

Other Comments by rob00

7. Comment #305401 by rod-the-farmer on December 23, 2008 at 1:32 am

Interesting the parallel between those who are irrational, and who use alternative medicine in place of "approved" drugs, and those who are equally irrational, and are profoundly religious. The former group is smaller than the latter, I would suspect. The reason is that when you discard efficacious drugs, for untested chemicals, you run the risk of dying. That tends to weed out the true believers. There is no similar risk for those who believe in gods.

Well, unless you run into a group who believe in a different god, and have been told they must kill you for not believing in their god.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

8. Comment #305410 by AfraidToDie on December 23, 2008 at 1:50 am

My favorite line in this interview:

You don't see any alternative Boeing 747 pilots

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

9. Comment #305439 by AllanW on December 23, 2008 at 3:00 am

Terrifically interesting and thought-provoking item. Many thanks to this site for making it freely available. The points made towards the end reiterate those made by Francis Wheen and Dick Taverne in their respective books and need to be repeated as widely as possible.

Thanks again.

Other Comments by AllanW

10. Comment #305469 by SOAS on December 23, 2008 at 4:15 am

Legislation should be introduced to exempt drug companies from being prosecuted for unforseen side effects from their properly clinically tested drugs.

In exchange the drug companies , will be required to reflect the savings in the price of the drug.
( before it gets a seal of approval).
Carrot and Stick. Everyone benefits.

Within this policy it follows that alternative treatments do not get this seal of approval, or this excemption from compensation claims.

Thus highlighting the difference between the two types of product.!

Other Comments by SOAS

11. Comment #305490 by Logicel on December 23, 2008 at 4:51 am

Just as Baum would be happy to recruit the compassionate but ill-informed homeopathic practitioners to science-based medicine, I am just as happy that neither of these gentle, earnest, cultured (anyone that uses Hogarth to underline a point is top on my list), excellent communicators, i.e., Dawkins and Baum, were not recruited to be vicars. However, my relief does not mitigate the reality that many good thinkers were sucked in being vicars and lost for the common good.

Baum states all the points that one can find at Sciencebasedmedicine blog, so if one wants to be informed so one can hold their ground in the medical marketplace, add the blog to your newsreader (give yourself a free Holiday gift!):

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/

Other Comments by Logicel

12. Comment #305492 by Logicel on December 23, 2008 at 4:56 am

I have long given up trying to get anything published at this site, so here's something that is worthy of discussion that just showed up on my newsreader:

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/12/pope-shows-his-ignorance-of-ec.html

Other Comments by Logicel

13. Comment #305499 by adangelo15 on December 23, 2008 at 5:14 am

Homeopathy is witch craft. Didn't we used to burn witches at the stake? BURN THE WITCHES!!

Other Comments by adangelo15

14. Comment #305501 by BigChiefRainInFace on December 23, 2008 at 5:20 am

I'm a fresh graduate of dentistry but I have made the decision to go into clinical trials as a clinical research associate because I realized the satisfaction of contributing to the proper application of the scientific method is far greater than any dental practice can offer me. This discussion has fired up my enthusiasm even more and I can't wait to start work on clinical trials.

On the other hand I recently found out my father, who I have admired all my life for his intellectual capacity as an engineer and as a mathematician, has been drawn into "alternative" medicine and is increasingly suspicious of proper medicine. I am very worried that he might, in the future, skip proper medical help and try to solve whatever illnesses are inevitably coming with this nonsense. So far I haven't been able to talk sense into him as he seems very emotionally attached to homeopathy (I'm not sure if it stops at homeopathy).

I've found a few sources but I was hoping someone might post some of the more reputable and convincing meta-studies on homeopathy. Edit - a TGD equivalent on homeopathy would be ideal, if there is such a thing.

Like in the case of religion, it could be that reason is often not enough to sway the emotionally engaged.. but it's especially disheartening when it's not enough with someone that has a rigorous education and background in the scientific method.

Other Comments by BigChiefRainInFace

15. Comment #305504 by ezeques on December 23, 2008 at 5:25 am

One problem with people believing all this myth is that as a youngster your life is polluted by it and it takes half a lifetime to get through it all and into the truth about things.

Other Comments by ezeques

16. Comment #305506 by CaptainMandate on December 23, 2008 at 5:41 am

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/nov/16/sciencenews.g2

http://www.badscience.net/'p=578

Bigchief, these might be helpful

Ben Goldacre is a good man to turn to when it comes to putting homeopathy into perspective.

The problem with alternatives, and why people from all backgrounds can gravitate towards them is that they do work

however, they "do work" as well as any placebo and they work as well as any anecdote says they do and naturally this is why you choose to work in clinical trials.

I think the problem we often get with Homeopathy is there is this assumption that it is effective with many people who don't look into it so when they do get round to studying homeopathy they get the misinformation that the argument between science and woo woo goes like this:

science: there is no mechanism by which you can dilute a product out of existance then have the resulting water make physiological changes

woowoo: let's not get bogged down on "how" it works, the fact is it does and the proof is in how many people buy the product

I've nothing against homeopathy insomuch as if a sugar pill works for you then take a sugar pill but ffs don't pay any more than the cost of a sugar pill.

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

17. Comment #305516 by saxquiz on December 23, 2008 at 6:02 am

Always happy to see new videos. Thanks!

Other Comments by saxquiz

18. Comment #305517 by AdamMil on December 23, 2008 at 6:04 am

Wow, Michael Baum seems to be a beautiful, passionate, caring, and intelligent man. I think this might be my favorite interview from the series so far.

I couldn't help but be reminded of the interview with Ted Haggard, and the stark contrast it presents.

Other Comments by AdamMil

19. Comment #305524 by rod-the-farmer on December 23, 2008 at 6:32 am

Re #12. Comment #305492 by Logicel

I have long given up trying to get anything published at this site, so here's something that is worthy of discussion that just showed up on my newsreader:

I too used to have a number of my suggested articles posted here. But then it stopped. No further suggestions have been accepted. I HAVE made a criticism or two about certain articles and HOW they were presented. Perhaps the "owners/authors" were the victims of this criticism, took it personally, and have put me on a list of some sort. Ah well. Many of the items I have suggested appeared anyway, suggested by others.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

20. Comment #305588 by Distant source on December 23, 2008 at 8:58 am

Ahhhhh….. the good old days. Yes I use to be a tree hugging, crystal clutching, card reading, vibration feeling, follower. But even in those days I never quite committed to it 100%. Always a bit of doubt. I do miss the warm happy delusion that some invisible something actually cared whether I was happy or not. Whether I could have what I wanted.
I I I I I.
Super ID is calling!
Why aren’t scientists trusted' I would postulate that it comes from that part of us that has been let down by the authority figure in the earliest days and thus sowed the seeds of mistrust.
That and an appalling ignorance about how to think rationally.

Other Comments by Distant source

21. Comment #305605 by ina.j on December 23, 2008 at 9:54 am

A wonderful interview. I feel happy to have studied at UCL (albeit a far less respectful subject than medicine).

However, on the term 'homeopathic': strangely, we Lithuanians(and I believe - the Russians too, though their language is completely different) call 'homeopathic' medicine any medicine that is made from natural herbs and plants. That explains the strange looks from my American friends, who got cold while visiting me and asked what drugs should they ask at farmacy :)

I feel as an idiot.

edit ps: and that was funny - in Part 2 prof. Baum says: 'I don't share your beliefe, but that is a point of view' to prof. Dawkins

Other Comments by ina.j

22. Comment #305675 by pilot on December 23, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Great... learnt a lot.

Other Comments by pilot

23. Comment #305686 by Gerald Dunlop on December 23, 2008 at 1:23 pm

1. No mention of the autoimune system? Stimulate it with placebos,infinitely diluted coconut juice, or energetic cycling and you feel better. Belief is important. Pharmaceuticals try to mimic the system at enormous expense so it's certainly "The Golden Age" for that industry.
2. I've seen the laws of physics change within my lifetime but that's because of giants like Einstein not pygmies like Dawkins and Baum.
3. I prefer landing in a fog on auto-pilot.
4.Perhaps god is the ultimate in holism, he's certainly not Yahweh aka Allah.

Other Comments by Gerald Dunlop

24. Comment #305734 by HBarca on December 23, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Homeopathy is the ultimate victory of fantasy over reality, it's utterly ridiculous and scientifically vacant. I'm a pharmacist and never recommend any homeopathic products because quite simply, they do not work and there is no credible evidence that there is any efficacy whatsoever associated with these so called therapies.

Other Comments by HBarca

25. Comment #305737 by Wadsworth on December 23, 2008 at 2:34 pm

"2. I've seen the laws of physics change within my lifetime but that's because of giants like Einstein not pygmies like Dawkins and Baum. "

Dawkins (and Baum) could hardly change the laws of Physics,--he is not a Physicist.

Other Comments by Wadsworth

26. Comment #305749 by Sarmatae1 on December 23, 2008 at 2:47 pm

10. Comment #305469 by SOAS on December 23, 2008 at 4:15 am

Legislation should be introduced to exempt drug companies from being prosecuted for unforseen side effects from their properly clinically tested drugs.

How would you formulate that idea from watching these videos?
An incredibly bad idea.

Other Comments by Sarmatae1

27. Comment #305795 by Lastandfirstmen on December 23, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Very interesting discussion. Prof. Baum is a credit to his profession. Don't really think Prince Charles is to blame for homeopathy's popularity in the UK (as mentioned on a previous post). He's more likely to put people off than influence them.

Other Comments by Lastandfirstmen

28. Comment #305798 by Stafford Gordon on December 23, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Doctor Baum is a wonderful man; truly passionate about his vocation and honest to the core!

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

29. Comment #305812 by nickthelight on December 23, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Brilliant. The BBC should make a 'Panorama' episode on this; get that flagship show back to where it belongs, without Jeremy Vine.

Other Comments by nickthelight

30. Comment #305849 by Alternative Carpark on December 23, 2008 at 6:25 pm

Very nice indeed.

Loved the anecdote about his brush with acupuncture.

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

31. Comment #305978 by Sargeist on December 24, 2008 at 3:00 am

Bigchief sayeth:

I've found a few sources but I was hoping someone might post some of the more reputable and convincing meta-studies on homeopathy. Edit - a TGD equivalent on homeopathy would be ideal, if there is such a thing.

I've read a couple of really good books about alternative medicine recently, but the one of the pair that fits your "TGD equivalent" idea is, for me, "Trick or Treatment?" by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst. A very thorough book, carefully presented and argued, with a chapter on each of the most commonly used alternative "remedies" around today. At the end of the book is a section in which many other types of alternative nonsense are examined, with a page for each one.

The other book, which I have only just finished reading, is "Suckers: How alternative medicine makes fools of us all" by Rose Shapiro. This is also very good, but slightly more populist in tone that the Singh and Ernst one. It is nonetheless interesting and informative, though.

A word of warning: reading books about how crazy people can be, and what sort of brain-addled nonsense they will believe, can really be depressing!

Other Comments by Sargeist

32. Comment #306132 by SOAS on December 24, 2008 at 5:19 am

Comment #305749 by Sarmatae1 on December 23, 2008 at 2:47 pm

10. Comment #305469 by SOAS on December 23, 2008 at 4:15 am

Legislation should be introduced to exempt drug companies from being prosecuted for unforseen side effects from their properly clinically tested drugs.

How would you formulate that idea from watching these videos?
An incredibly bad idea.
.

The video made the point that 'proper' drugs undergo independent rigorous testing before they are licensed to be prescribed..

I conclude from that that any side effects were unforeseen and because due diligence is always undertaken before these drugs are licensed , little can be gained from penalising the drug companies..

I must point out that I am a UK ite, where the compensation culture is a relatively new import, and IMHO unwelcome.

'Alternative' drugs should not have this exemption.
This may have interesting ramifications. E.g. The treatment of Malaria was mentioned

Other Comments by SOAS

33. Comment #306337 by DoctorMelkor on December 24, 2008 at 12:52 pm

This discussion made me feel better than any holiday-time song, movie or story ever has...having two very intelligent and compassionate people discussing ideas with such a passionately rational and humane attitude helps reinvigorate my confidence in the human spirit more than does any Jimmy Stewart movie or even a classic Dickens short story.

re: Comment #305686 by Gerald Dunlop...
Remember, the laws of physics haven't changed, just our understanding of them. Also, our understanding of biology and medicine has advanced in many ways that can be considered as potent and sweeping as Einstein's reformulations of the descriptions of motion and gravitation. Think of Watson and Crick finding the structure of DNA, the cracking of the genetic code, the applications of quantum theory that led to nuclear magnetic resonance as a way of uncovering the structure of molecules and the subsequent use of magnetic resonance imagery as a revolutionary way of seeing the structures of the body and now even the function of the brain. I also think that rethinking the point of view of evolution as working at the level of the "selfish" gene is just as important a revisualization as looking at motion from the point of view of a light wave and/or a body in free fall.

And remember, Einstein himself didn't give his name to a specific Physics institute (as far as I know), but he DID give his name to a medical school.

Other Comments by DoctorMelkor

34. Comment #306357 by amalthea on December 24, 2008 at 1:55 pm

I'm just wondering, here (in the UK) if a patient goes to a homeopathy clinic, gets an 'anti-malarial perparation' then contracts malaria, is that grounds for a law suit? I'm not a friend of lawyers per se, but maybe if all these frauds and charlatans were just bankrupted back to obscurity, that would be a step in the right direction. Or maybe the TSA could force them to advertise (as is law for fortune tellers and the like in the UK) "for entertainment only".

A

Other Comments by amalthea

35. Comment #306520 by Gerald Dunlop on December 25, 2008 at 12:09 am

Re Comment#306337 by DoctorMelkor.
1. So Watson and Crick may be regarded as Giants; why should this change my estimation of Dawkins and Baum?
2. O.K. I've seen our understanding of the laws of physics improve significantly in my lifetime.
3.The trivia that no specific physics institute is named after Einstein is as relevant as the Pope's declaring that Galileo was a heretic. What is important: Einstein, in 1921, was awarded the Nobel prize in PHYSICS and not for "The Theory of Relativity". He was an all round physicist.
4. What annoys me is having to watch a smug, self-satisfied, elderly academic declare, and I paraphrase: My God we'd have to change the laws of physics. And then watch a similar creature smilingly nod in the comfort of having found someone who shares his views. You at least, DoctorMelkor, have grasped that we don't know the laws of Physics. If the future of science were left to these two I fear for its progress.
5. The other annoyance is the apparently tacit "faith" in the altruism of pharmaceutical companies. It must be understood that the first and most important objective of all companies is to maximise profit for the benefit of the shareholders. The relief of pain and suffering, in the case of drug companies, comes farther down the list.
6. If we agree there is no God looking after us then the next step must be to start looking after ourselves. I had hoped Richard Dawkins might show us the way but he seems to be busy writing, lecturing and interviewing. That means we need to go back 2000 years to the guy who said "love your neighbo(u)r" - pity God had him nailed to a cross as a PR exercise for Theism. Anyway, I'm happy to celebrate his birthday. Merry Christmas.

Other Comments by Gerald Dunlop

36. Comment #306523 by Sarmatae1 on December 25, 2008 at 12:54 am

SOAS

Please take this conversation in the spirit it is meant. Just an objective exchange to expand understanding. This is not a criticism of any ones knowledge or understanding. I am very ignorant in many subjects, but not this one. I will take just ten minutes so that I may exchange on a subject I actually know something about.

Let me tell you a little of myself. I am recently "fully" retired at the beginning of this year at age 84. I have worked in economics in some capacity since just after WWII. The last fifteen of those years I worked with an investment firm that specializes in private interest investments in pharmaceutical corporations. In a nut shell, we told people where to and not to invest within the pharma industry.

Certainly there have been many miracle drugs and medical treatments in recent decades. In this video Prof Michael Baum refers to this being the golden age. He is absolutely correct. I would never argue with that. However, there is another side to this equation. In the U.S. the predominant venue for the advancement of medical science is through the corporate structure.

There are always exceptions to the rule. The following type of corporate practices, in my long experience, are the rule not the exception.

32. Comment #306132 by SOAS on December 24, 2008 at 5:19 am
I conclude from that that any side effects were unforeseen and because due diligence is always undertaken before these drugs are licensed , little can be gained from penalising the drug companies..

For an egregious example of how what you state can be a more complicated situation. See this link to a Wall Street Journal article.(You may need adobe acrobat reader)

http://www.vioxxlawyer.com/news/11022004.pdf

One of the largest pharma recalls in history. Unfortunately it appears Merck had foreseen years in advance the toxicity of its drug, but due to it's own overriding needs was forced not to take the safety of the public as a consideration. Making the estimated 80 million people who took this drug veritable guinea pigs. If I remember correctly the death toll attributed to this(according to the FDA) was approximately between 28 and 29 thousand.

This is an extreme example of irresponsible business practices but not an isolated one by far unfortunately.

Someone with familiarity with this industry knows, it is not a matter of does pharma do this sort of thing. Rather it is a matter of; how often, with what drugs, will they be caught? If so will this affect the company stock? will they be able to keep the drug a money making investment? etc...

You may logically ask "How would a company stay in business if it is killing people purposely?"

I will use this example as it is common. Take a car manufacturer. In one model of car there is a flaw in the chassis design that allows for fatal failure with a collision over a certain speed from a certain angle. After cost analysis it is determined that it will cost 2 billion for recalls and redesign of that model car. But it will only cost and estimated 800 million for litigation settlements due to injury and death claims. Unless a government agency steps in to correct the problem people are going to die. This type of problem in many types of industries goes unchecked.

Of course in the case of pharma corporations it is far more complicated. For example evidence of product failure would be much harder to ascertain in many individual cases.

Understand SOAS, Pharma are corporations. They have one purpose and profit is it. That is not meant as a criticism of morality. No more than if we were talking about the nature of an animal like a shark. It is neither good nor bad despite any moral standard we can project onto its actions.

This is an observation we need always to keep in mind when talking about pharma. Some imbue, maybe even subconsciously, pharma as inherently good. It does manufacture many medicines that saves lives and reduces suffering. You must recognize that corporations are not good or bad. Pharma as a corporate structure has as much interest in doing "good" or "bad" as any other corporation. Like a weapons manufacturer for instance.

Can you understand the consequences that may arise from having legislation to keep pharma exempt from being prosecuted?

Other Comments by Sarmatae1

37. Comment #306755 by BryanEvans on December 26, 2008 at 9:16 am

Gerald Dunlop

What on Earth is wrong with you?

Other Comments by BryanEvans

38. Comment #306902 by Lastandfirstmen on December 26, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Gerald Dunlop

I'd really rather not want to know what's wrong with you.

Other Comments by Lastandfirstmen

39. Comment #306907 by Jenny Taylier on December 26, 2008 at 3:04 pm

Brilliant interview. I found it quite moving to see how Prof. Baum despaired at the legal authority that has been given to homoeopathy by legislators who should know better.

I am surprised that the pharmaceutical industry has not been more vociferous in its objection to having to compete with medicines that have no evidence to support their effectiveness.

(In the original post, that should be 'complementary', of course.)

Other Comments by Jenny Taylier

40. Comment #307028 by DawkinsDarwinFan on December 27, 2008 at 4:05 am

Look at: Comment #305499 by adangelo15

Why aren't anybody reacting? It's so stupid of him to say. Witches were freethinking women fighting suppression and stupifying theories lain upon the public by the church. It's so insulting to compare homeopaths with wiches. Besides Homeopathy isn't witchcraft, it's just drinking water. They don't really do anything. People pay money to be cared for by nice people, and the price includes a bottle off non-working remedy as an excuse. Homeopaths are like non-approved psychologists. But off course, it's stupid. But not speak bad about witches.

Other Comments by DawkinsDarwinFan

41. Comment #307590 by johnnyess on December 28, 2008 at 7:00 am

A very interesting and heartwarming interview. I'm very glad to have listened to it.

Other Comments by johnnyess

42. Comment #307919 by Gerald Dunlop on December 29, 2008 at 1:46 am

Re Comments #306755 & #306902
When I go to RichardDawkins.net I get a page full of material to buy. When I type in error: RichardDawkins.org I get a page full of material, for sale, refuting Dawkins' views. Both are apparently in it for the money. The fact that like Dawkins I'm agnostic does not prevent my being cynical about his objectives. What's wrong with me is: I wasn't born yesterday.

Other Comments by Gerald Dunlop

43. Comment #307926 by epeeist on December 29, 2008 at 2:11 am

Comment #307919 by Gerald Dunlop:

When I go to RichardDawkins.net I get a page full of material to buy. When I type in error: RichardDawkins.org I get a page full of material, for sale, refuting Dawkins' views.

The .org site is a goDaddy site owned by Access Research Networks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_Research_Network) and registered by Dennis Wagner. Looks like they camped on the Richard Dawkins name as TrueOrigins camped on the TalkOrigins name.

Other Comments by epeeist

44. Comment #307961 by Jiten on December 29, 2008 at 6:33 am

I don't have much faith in conventional "scientific" medicine either, not after reading http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22237 and Dr Ben Goldacre's excellent book Bad Science. Everyone should read it.

Other Comments by Jiten

45. Comment #307963 by myodoc42 on December 29, 2008 at 6:54 am

Great post. I teach agriculture at the University level, and am constantly dealing with unsupported claims of alternative therapies in animal medicine and claims about the harms of conventional methods (many already refuted by sound research). By the time I get students, they are already indoctrinated in uncritical thinking. Most get their information by a google search, and have no idea how to read a scientific paper. Most have no idea what peer review entails and are as trusting of an unsupported opinion on a listserver as a sound research study.. Evaluating research findings by considering study size, methods used and statistical outcomes is beyond many. By the way, these are generally university seniors. Many with excellent grades in their science classes (since much science is taught by learning facts, even at the university level).
One way I have used to combat this is to start with ads, often from an internet site, with company names removed. Some are from well-tested products, some from more questionable products. They evaluate the claims, focusing on WHY they believe some, but not others. My goal is that they leave with a better BS detector than they had when they arrived.
The more open minded students benefit greatly from this. Some will be frank enough to ask why I make the recommendations I do (great outcome). Unfortunately for some, alternative methods really are a religion. I firmly believe, as stated in the interview, we must start teaching scientific reasoning early. Science must become regarded as a METHOD, not just a collection of facts. To do this, we must engage not just high school teacher, but those involved in primary education. Far too many of out elementary teachers are untrained in critical reasoning and how to teach it.
Uncritical acceptance of what we want to be true is always easier than demanding proof, especially when the proof seems to offer less hope than the claims of alternative methods. But maybe we can at least raise the education level enough to demand action against fraudulent claims.

Other Comments by myodoc42

46. Comment #309346 by SOAS on December 31, 2008 at 3:42 am

To Post 306523..

Very interesting , thanks for that.

So Am i to understand that the clinical testing of drugs is not done independently? Mmmmmmm..

Other Comments by SOAS

47. Comment #310965 by Quine on January 2, 2009 at 12:44 pm

Very good interview indeed. I completely loved the last 30 seconds; what a beautiful human being.

Other Comments by Quine

48. Comment #311163 by mnphenow on January 2, 2009 at 7:48 pm

"Infinitely more beautiful."

Indeed.

Other Comments by mnphenow