Saturday, October 17, 2009 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Print | Comments |

An Open Letter to Bill Maher on Vaccinations

by Michael Shermer

An Open Letter to Bill Maher on Vaccinations

From a Fellow Skeptic

By Michael Shermer
Editor of Skeptic magazine and “Skeptic” columnist for Scientific American

Dear Bill,

Years ago you invited me to appear as a fellow skeptic several times on your ABC show Politically Incorrect, and I have ever since shared your skepticism on so many matters important to both of us: creationism and intelligent design, religious supernaturalism and New Age paranormal piffle, 9/11 “truthers”, Obama “birthers”, and all manner of conspiratorial codswallop. On these matters, and many others, you rightly deserved the Richard Dawkins Award from Atheist Alliance International.

However, I believe that when it comes to alternative medicine in general and vaccinations in particular you have fallen prey to the same cognitive biases and conspiratorial thinking that you have so astutely identified in others. In fact, the very principle of how vaccinations work is additional proof (as if we needed more) against the creationists that evolution happened and that natural selection is real: vaccinations work by tricking the body’s immune system into thinking that it has already had the disease for which the vaccination was given. Our immune system “adapts” to the invading pathogens and “evolves” to fight them, such that when it encounters a biologically similar pathogen (which itself may have evolved) it has in its armory the weapons needed to fight it. This is why many of us born in the 1950s and before may already have some immunity against the H1N1 flu because of its genetic similarity to earlier influenza viruses, and why many of those born after really should get vaccinated.

Vaccinations are not 100% effective, nor are they risk free. But the benefits far outweigh the risks, and when communities in the U.S. and the U.K. in recent years have foregone vaccinations in large numbers, herd immunity is lost and communicable diseases have come roaring back. This is yet another example of evolution at work, but in this case it is working against us. (See www.sciencebasedmedicine.org for numerous articles answering every one of the objections to vaccinations.)

Vaccination is one of science’s greatest discoveries. It is with considerable irony, then, that as a full-throated opponent of the nonsense that calls itself Intelligent Design, your anti-vaccination stance makes you something of an anti-evolutionist. Since you have been so vocal in your defense of the theory of evolution, I implore you to be consistent in your support of the theory across all domains and to please reconsider your position on vaccinations. It was not unreasonable to be a vaccination skeptic in the 1880s, which the co-discovered of natural selection—Alfred Russel Wallace—was, but we’ve learned a lot over the past century. Evolution explains why vaccinations work. Please stop denying evolution in this special case.

As well, Bill, your comments about not wanting to “trust the government” to inject us with a potentially deadly virus, along with many comments you have made about “big pharma” being in cahoots with the AMA and the CDC to keep us sick in the name of corporate profits is, in every way that matters, indistinguishable from 9/11 conspiracy mongering. Your brilliant line about how we know that the Bush administration did not orchestrate 9/11 (“because it worked”), applies here: the idea that dozens or hundreds pharmaceutical executives, AMA directors, CDC doctors, and corporate CEOs could pull off a conspiracy to keep us all sick in the name of money and power makes about as much sense as believing that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their bureaucratic apparatchiks planted explosive devices in the World Trade Center and flew remote controlled planes into the buildings.

Finally, Bill, please consider the odd juxtaposition of your enthusiastic support for health care reform and government intervention into this aspect of our medical lives, with your skepticism that these same people—when it comes to vaccinations and disease prevention—suddenly lose their sense of morality along with their medical training. You excoriate the political right for not trusting the government with our health, and then in the next breath you inadvertently join their chorus when you denounce vaccinations, thereby adding fodder for their ideological cannons. Please remember that it’s the same people administrating both health care and vaccination programs.

One of the most remarkable features of science is that it often leads its practitioners to change their minds and to say “I was wrong.” Perhaps we don’t do it enough, as our own blinders and egos can get in the way, but it does happen, and it certainly happens a lot more in science than it does in religion or politics. I’ve done it. I used to be a global warming skeptic, but I reconsidered the evidence and announced in Scientific American that I was wrong. Please reconsider both the evidence for vaccinations, as well as the inconsistencies in your position, and think about doing one of the bravest and most honorable things any critical thinker can do, and that is to publicly state, “I changed my mind. I was wrong.”

With respect,

Michael Shermer

Posted: Saturday, October 17, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 276 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #424370 by Mango on October 17, 2009 at 3:00 am

Nice to see a summation of some the various critiques about Bill Maher's views on medicine. Hopefully, someone who knows Bill personally will forward this to him.

Other Comments by Mango

2. Comment #424371 by cjnkns on October 17, 2009 at 3:16 am

Good letter! I need to send this to my father-in-law.

Other Comments by cjnkns

3. Comment #424372 by mmurray on October 17, 2009 at 3:18 am

Excellent letter. It will be interesting to see what the response is.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

4. Comment #424373 by Robert_S on October 17, 2009 at 3:21 am

Oh, good grief. Not another Shermer "open letter". Good luck, Mike, after all your "Rational Atheism" open letter was a great success (they still debate about how much of an "accomodationist" you are - though you're business savvy enough to know when to play nice).

Other Comments by Robert_S

5. Comment #424374 by moniz on October 17, 2009 at 3:23 am

Always loved Bill, and his views usually line up with mine...all except his big pharma anti-vaccination stance. Good letter and here's hoping Bill reads it and gives it serious thought.

Plus to paraphrase a quote I believe one of his recent guests made "There is no such thing as "medicine" and "alternative medicine". If it works, it's just medicine!"

Other Comments by moniz

6. Comment #424381 by Ohnhai on October 17, 2009 at 3:52 am

@moniz

The line I remember is from Tim Minchin's poem 'STORM' which goes...

“By definition”, I begin
“Alternative Medicine”, I continue
“Has either not been proved to work,
Or been proved not to work.
You know what they call “alternative medicine”
That’s been proved to work?
Medicine.”

Other Comments by Ohnhai

7. Comment #424383 by Thadd on October 17, 2009 at 4:10 am

Good post. I love Maher's show, but cannot stand his crazy takes on medicine and meet. He needs to get him some science.

Other Comments by Thadd

8. Comment #424386 by debridement on October 17, 2009 at 4:41 am

Nice letter. I hope it achieves its goal.

re: Comment #424383 by Thadd.

I don't think Maher even needs to resort to 'science' to change his views on medicine. At the risk of sounding condescending, I think it only takes a moment's worth of rational thought: How could dozens of pharma and other medical companies, along with hundreds of doctors and politicians, get together and conspire - over decades - effectively. It verges on impossible....

Other Comments by debridement

9. Comment #424389 by Andrew Brown on October 17, 2009 at 4:55 am

At the risk of bringing the flaming hordes down upon me, I can kind of understand his "reasoning"

Don't misunderstand me, his anti-vax/Big pharma etc. etc. woo-woo is cuckoo as can be. He does however point out that people should take better care of themselves. I think he has simply extrapolated that idea until it snaps.

He has stated that the US doesn't have health care it has sick care, and that people abuse their bodies until they go wrong and then expect the doctor to fix them.

Now I can see how living in a country where medicine is governed by the profit motve could lead to that point of view, but I think he has conflated two ideas, namely the need for people to take responsibility for their own health, and the idea that the doctor is a repair shop.

I think he thinks keeping healthy is all you need to do to stay healthy. unfortunately that isn't the case, and that's why we need healthcare.

(PS. I'm not the whining guy from the Grauniad!!)

Other Comments by Andrew Brown

10. Comment #424390 by wkriski on October 17, 2009 at 5:03 am

Bill wants a debate - there are legitimate concerns with vaccines - such as the mercury, aluminum that Bill described tonight.

I also saw a news item that said if you had a flu shot last year you'd be twice as likely to catch the swine flu this year. Not exactly a positive aspect of vaccines.

Other Comments by wkriski

11. Comment #424392 by alaskansee on October 17, 2009 at 5:22 am

WWWWhatski?

The evidence for vaccines is as substantial as the evidence for clean water.

It would be an excellent example of freethinking if Bill got this but only if it's funny.

Other Comments by alaskansee

12. Comment #424393 by mmurray on October 17, 2009 at 5:33 am

I think he thinks keeping healthy is all you need to do to stay healthy. unfortunately that isn't the case, and that's why we need healthcare.

A pity he didn't take this to its other logical conclusion. Part of preventative health care is treating things early before they do damage. So take the blood pressure tablets now and avoid a stroke later. Treat the raised intra-ocular pressure now and avoid blindness later.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

13. Comment #424394 by decius on October 17, 2009 at 5:34 am

Comment #424390 by wkriski

Bill wants a debate - there are legitimate concerns with vaccines - such as the mercury, aluminum that Bill described tonight.

There are no legitimate concerns of that sort. They have been thoroughly debunked and exposed for their vacuity.

I strongly recommend that you follow Shermer's suggestion to Maher, and check out the link to the science-based medicine blog, rather than make a fool of yourself on these boards.

Other Comments by decius

14. Comment #424395 by Koreman on October 17, 2009 at 5:39 am

Antivaxx debunked by physician Joseph Albietz and more about H1N1.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2116

Other Comments by Koreman

15. Comment #424397 by mmurray on October 17, 2009 at 5:49 am

@wkriski

Try here

http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/vaccines-and-autism/

for thimeserol (the mercury based preservative) and search around that whole site for the rest of your concerns.

I also saw a news item that said if you had a flu shot last year you'd be twice as likely to catch the swine flu this year. Not exactly a positive aspect of vaccines.

If true but it is probably false. You should treat health reports in the media with great scepticism. The media love creating scares about your health. Taking these kinds of media reports seriously is like believing there are alien bodies stored in Area 51 because you saw pictures of them in a magazine in the supermarket.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

16. Comment #424399 by bendigeidfran on October 17, 2009 at 6:11 am

Fantastic letter. Biology is Chemistry is Physics. It takes a lot of conspiring to alter the laws of Physics.

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

17. Comment #424400 by justaperson on October 17, 2009 at 6:12 am

Thank you Michael! Bill, we love you, but. . . .

Other Comments by justaperson

18. Comment #424401 by Dr Benway on October 17, 2009 at 6:25 am

He has stated that the US doesn't have health care it has sick care.

Meh. The naturopaths have been using that line for a hundred years. Sounds good, means nothing.

Science-based prevention includes:
-balanced, weight-neutral diet
-physical activity each day
-a little sunshine each day
-regular sleep habits
-don't overdo the booze
-don't smoke
-stress management
-build lasting bonds; loneliness is bad for you
-vaccination
-seatbelts, helmets
-don't speed on the highway
-screening tests like Pap smears
-dental cleaning
-hand washing

Naturopathic prevention:
-avoid ill-defined toxins
-avoid vaccines; germs are natural and won't hurt you if you take care of yourself
-eat only "natural" foods
-no meat, dairy, alcohol
-enemas and other purgatives to flush out toxins
-regular chiropractic adjustments
-meditation, prayer
-manipulation of energy fields with Reiki, accupuncture, reflexology
-tweak subjective feeling of "wellness" using vitamins, herbs, supplements.

Naturopaths believe that by maintaining "wellness" one prevents illness. "Wellness" is defined as a physical, emotional, and spiritual harmony with the vis medicatrix naturae, or healing force of nature.

When we are told that we need a "wellness" model not a "sickness" model, we are being sold an anti-science bill of goods.

Look at this excerpt from HR 3200, "The America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009":

Section 125. PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE SERVICES BASED ON RELIGIOUS OR SPIRITUAL CONTENT.

Neither the Commissioner nor any health insurance issuer offering health insurance coverage through the Exchange shall discriminate in approving or covering a health care service on the basis of its religious or spiritual content if expenditures for such a health care service are allowable as a deduction under 213(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as in effect on January 1, 2009.

There you have it: vitalism written into healthcare law.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

19. Comment #424403 by Bueller_007 on October 17, 2009 at 6:44 am

In fact, the very principle of how vaccinations work is additional proof (as if we needed more) against the creationists that evolution happened and that natural selection is real: vaccinations work by tricking the body’s immune system into thinking that it has already had the disease for which the vaccination was given. Our immune system “adapts” to the invading pathogens and “evolves” to fight them, such that when it encounters a biologically similar pathogen (which itself may have evolved) it has in its armory the weapons needed to fight it... It is with considerable irony, then, that as a full-throated opponent of the nonsense that calls itself Intelligent Design, your anti-vaccination stance makes you something of an anti-evolutionist.... Evolution explains why vaccinations work. Please stop denying evolution in this special case.

Great equivocation, Shermer.

Other Comments by Bueller_007

20. Comment #424405 by benbird on October 17, 2009 at 7:06 am

Our immune system making antibodies in response to a pathogen is not an example of evolution. But the general sentiment of the letter is noble. Maher would be a better sceptic and friend of science if he dropped this silly conspiracy rubbish about vaccinations.

Other Comments by benbird

21. Comment #424406 by bad_andy on October 17, 2009 at 7:11 am

Good summary of why you can't accept science only when it suits you. Peer review is the great equalizer that keeps the conclusions of biology honest. If vaccines were weaponized for business interests rather than optimized for medicine, the international hue and cry from people in the know would be deafening. Come home Bill, we miss you.

Other Comments by bad_andy

22. Comment #424407 by willdabeast on October 17, 2009 at 7:11 am

Why is everyone so extreme. At one of the spectrum you have people like Bill Maher and at the other end of the spectrum are people like on this site.

I do realize that there are vaccines that are critical for us to take and it would be ridiculous, even immoral, to not take them as well as having your kids not get them.

On the other hand I see robust healthy people getting yearly flu shots which probably makes them feel sick more often than if they actually came down with something.

The pharm industry is a mess. You have companies that do genuine research with real concern for people, and then you have companies that fit Bill's conspiracy theory perfectly. Tack on the sewer sludge that is the medical insurance industry and it becomes difficult to believe that the medical industry is looking out for your best interest. And I don't see how vaccines are immune from whatever corruption goes on.

Maybe Bill's stance is a bit too much, but it certainly does keep us on our toes. I think Shermer would have a better case to win Bill over if he at concedes that not all vaccines have benefits that outweigh the risks. I don't think there is a "grand conspiracy theory" going on but I do think companies are greedy enough that it'd be silly to think they aren't going to abuse the "miracle pill" mentality that the lazy unhealthy burger-quaffing masses are clamoring for which the free market will provide.

Other Comments by willdabeast

23. Comment #424408 by mmurray on October 17, 2009 at 7:31 am

Why is everyone so extreme. At one of the spectrum you have people like Bill Maher and at the other end of the spectrum are people like on this site.

Because people like Maher mean less people in the community vaccinate. Less people vaccinating means more people dying. Look up whooping cough epidemic for example.

On the other hand I see robust healthy people getting yearly flu shots which probably makes them feel sick more often than if they actually came down with something.

Do you have any data to back up that `probably' ? In my own experience when I get flu I feel really sick for 2-3 weeks when I have the shot I get a sore arm and sometimes a bit of a headache and I don't get the flu.

You have companies that do genuine research with real concern for people, and then you have companies that fit Bill's conspiracy theory perfectly.

Sure there are genuine problems having this kind of research driven by the profit motive and, as you point out later, the pharmaceutical industry would be really happy to find a `miracle pill' we all need to take twice a day. These are good reasons to treat the industry with robust government regulation and a degree of personal scepticism but not good reason to retreat to the dark ages. I don't think it follows that there is a problem with vaccines.

I think Shermer would have a better case to win Bill over if he at concedes that not all vaccines have benefits that outweigh the risks.

Which vaccines would they be ?

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

24. Comment #424409 by Shifty Gray on October 17, 2009 at 7:37 am

I think it is a bit ridiculous to call Bill Mayer an anti-evolutionist just because he doesn't believe in vaccinations. It's not like we have reproducing anti-pathogen cells that mutate and the bacteria or virus we get acts as natural selection and determines which ones live or die. Yes there is adaptation and evolution in the sense that our immune system can become better and succeed, but there are many other things that do that as well. I adapt and evolve to some situational stressors so I can perform better or simply deal with the stressor, does that make me an example of the validity of the theory of evolution?

Other Comments by Shifty Gray

25. Comment #424410 by Dr Benway on October 17, 2009 at 7:50 am

Yeah Bueller, that equivocation over "evolution" kinda undermined the whole thing for me, though I appreciate Shermer's effort.

I equivocate, deflect, and distract all the time in my personal interactions when I don't want an open conflict. 100 percent honesty take time, more time than I usually have. So I settle for "pretty good honesty," for the sake of other's feelings.

But I don't see how Shermer's little white lie is helpful or even necessary in this context. It tarnishes the better parts of the letter with the stink of a sales pitch.

Maher may not fully grok evolution --he clearly doesn't grock the antigen-antibody response. So no biggie, I guess.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

26. Comment #424411 by PERSON on October 17, 2009 at 7:51 am

4. Comment #424373 by Robert_S on October 17, 2009 at 3:21 am
"they still debate about how much of an "accomodationist" you are"
Who is "they"?

18. Comment #424401 by Dr Benway on October 17, 2009 at 6:25 am
Here's the link
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:2:./temp/~c1119uFTBu:e2578428:

However, the bill can yet change significantly as it goes through the legislative procedure. Call your congressman and representative-- I think it's still possible for the house to modify the bill, and even if it's not, the congress can.

You might also find this article useful

http://factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/

The public option is the most important part of the bill to support IMO, but stuff like section 125 should be protested too. I don't know if it will be politically important in terms of what the bill achieves, that is the effect it has on the way the country functions, but I'd suggest that rationalists should make their voices heard just like any other interest group. They will find that they have influence outside their own group if they do.

"24. Comment #424409 by Shifty Gray on October 17, 2009 at 7:37 am
I think it is a bit ridiculous to call Bill Mayer an anti-evolutionist just because he doesn't believe in vaccinations. It's not like we have reproducing anti-pathogen cells that mutate and the bacteria or virus we get acts as natural selection and determines which ones live or die. Yes there is adaptation and evolution in the sense that our immune system can become better and succeed, but there are many other things that do that as well."
Schermer may be a little confused himself. The human body could not function if it did not have defences to remove other organisms, and these defences have adapted over evolutionary time. That's not in contention here, but isn't directly relevant to vaccines working or not that I can see.

However, they have also adapted to adapt. There is a kind of natural selection of antigens. And I think that is what Schermer is talking about.

I don't know exactly how this selection process works, but if this did not occur, every new mutation of pathogens that hosts had not adapted to by genetic natural selection would (by definition) be able to overwhelm the host.

Unless you think that new variations of pathogens cannot occur, this would happen. Would anyone like to make that case? I'm not being rhetorical here.

That perfectly healthy hosts are on occasion overwhelmed strongly suggests to me that an organism against which there is no defence and which has not been selected to constrain itself will reproduce without limit, e.g. anthrax or necrotising fasciitis.

"I adapt and evolve to some situational stressors so I can perform better or simply deal with the stressor, does that make me an example of the validity of the theory of evolution?"
That depends on what you mean by "I". Natural selection is not constrained to DNA and its phenotypes.

Other Comments by PERSON

27. Comment #424412 by Reckless Monkey on October 17, 2009 at 8:08 am

It's just more proof that people who are otherwise rational can section off a part of their brains.

Bill, like many others thinks all you need is healthy eating and exercise. This is only true for him because almost everyone else is getting vaccinated thus giving him the protection that helps foster this delusion.

My father talks about coming back from school holidays as a child to find 3 kids in his class missing either dead or on Iron lungs each year due to polio. His brother got it but recovered although the damage is effecting him now in his old age. He happily consumed the live virus vaccine made, at the time in blended rats brains (I believe).

Otherwise, love Bill's show.

Other Comments by Reckless Monkey

28. Comment #424414 by Thor25 on October 17, 2009 at 8:21 am

Tonights Real Time with Bill Maher his panel was utterly silent at some of his irrational statements about medicine, about his mistrust of doctors and his irrational beliefs on vaccinations.

He's obviously aware of the backlash since his last show with Frist making him look stupid (how crazy is that) and now after this show I suspect the pressure an noise will only grow 100 fold after his antics tonight.

Its too bad, like Mr. Shermer said he's so skeptical of all these other things while in this respect he treats all of this much like the people he routinely mocks in creationists, truthers, etc..

I don't know if Bill will back off or even admit that he was mistaken, there is so many people part of this anti vaccination movement that he probably feels comfort in that.

Very sad, Richard Dawkins award winner, even though I don't really feel that upset about it, this last 2 weeks shows by Bill makes me wish I just hadn't heard the things he's saying.

I definitely like for people to keep the pressure up and not let Bill get away with these comments, just like Jenny Mccarthy he's helping to spread fear and mistrust based on no real science and this no only hurts heard immunity but is needlessly killing people and sending many people (very costly Bill to our healthcare) to hospitals.

He talks about preventative care, how about one of our most effective tools to avoid people dying or getting sick?

Wake up Bill.

Other Comments by Thor25

29. Comment #424415 by Baron Scarpia on October 17, 2009 at 8:23 am

Well done Dr Shermer, who is considerably less vitriolic than I would be.

('Dear Bill, your stance on vaccinations could easily cause fatalities, kindly STFU.')

Other Comments by Baron Scarpia

30. Comment #424416 by Dr Benway on October 17, 2009 at 8:27 am

I think Shermer would have a better case to win Bill over if he at least concedes that not all vaccines have benefits that outweigh the risks.

My, there's a fair amount of toopid at the clear thinking oasis today.

The speaker above is obviously ignorant of vaccine science. No shame in that. I'm ignorant of most things. However, advocacy from ignorance is shameful, particularly when lives are at stake.

This commenter apparently feels that Maher might be too hurt if bluntly told that vaccines are a good thing. So we ought to cajole Maher with something like, "Most vaccines is gud. But I admit you do got a point regarding a coupla dem that ain't so gud an iz just der to make profits for de fat cats."

I wonder, which vaccines should we throw under the bus for the sake of our good buddy Maher's precious ego? Hib? Hepatitis B? Polio? Measles? Swine flu?

Here's a plan: we write the names of each vaccine on little slips of paper that we dump into a hat. Then we call "fair game" on the first two we remove.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

31. Comment #424417 by Jos Gibbons on October 17, 2009 at 8:32 am

Bueller_007 has called Shermer's description of the development of acquired immunity as evolution an "equivocation", a term which implies the comparison is invalid, although AFAIK that's not what Bueller_007 meant to say. Shifty Gray, Dr Benway and benbird certainly do have that attitude, and they are wrong. My immediate reaction to this letter was that Shermer needn't have used those scare quotes. If only he had referred to the lymphocytes instead of the body, then evolution by natural selection - namely monoclonal selection - is the literal truth.

Let me review how it works. Our lymphocytes all have several randomly varying proteins joined together in a complex structure to form their antibodies, which they also have on their membranes. Dendritic cells capture antigens from pathogens' membranes and release them near lymphocytes. An extremely small minority of the lymphocytes, literally only a few in many billions, have antibodies which are at least a partial fit for these antigens. These begin dividing with rapidly mutating antibodies; and, as the reproducing population becomes more diverse, its individuals divide at variable speeds, with those whose antibodies fit the antigens best dividing fastest.

This literally is natural selection on lymphocytes. Once extremely close fits exist, the best lymphocytes move to the site of infection, then release 2,000 antibodies each per second. These complex proteins attach to the pathogens' surface antigens, immobilising them. Then it's just a matter of eating them with phagocytes and/or poisoning them with T lymphocytes (so far I've been referring throughout to B lymphocytes).

As the letter proceeded, I only became more confident Shermer should have made the literalism involved clearer, since his pro-vaccination argument appeals to the truth of evolution, the very truth Maher uses in anti-vaccination arguments. (He pointed out swine flu has had time to evolve again since the vaccine was developed. But our cells evolve too!) Admittedly the detailed explanation I've just given might have been too long for Shermer's purposes, but it would suffice for him to say that acquired immunity is literally produced when a cell population evolves by natural selection to produce antibodies which bind well to the enemy antigens.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

32. Comment #424418 by AN_1 on October 17, 2009 at 8:40 am

Bill should have no problem saying "I'm sorry, I was wrong", right?

Or does he have a secret PhD that we don't know about?

Other Comments by AN_1

33. Comment #424420 by Sheol99 on October 17, 2009 at 8:59 am

An open and candid letter like this is necessary once in a while. There are still truthfulness, friendship, care to comment to a friend, on top of being rational and scientific. The tone of this letter is as important as its (rational) message.

Maher should consider himself lucky to have a friend like Shermer willing to put himself in public in this way. It will be nice if Bill answer yea or nay in another polite way ..

Other Comments by Sheol99

34. Comment #424422 by MMAtheist on October 17, 2009 at 9:06 am

I read this yesterday and really liked it.

Especially the way Shermer equates Maher's paranoia ("I don't trust the government") with the 9/11 Truthers.
And his point about Maher being for public health care, but not for vaccinations.

Other Comments by MMAtheist

35. Comment #424423 by Dr Benway on October 17, 2009 at 9:09 am

Very nice try Jos. Certainly there are parallels between immunity and evolution. Both involve mutation and selection. But they aren't the same thing and a "denial" of immunity doesn't imply a denial of Darwinian evolution.

But all that is neither here nor there. Maher's anti-vax stance has nothing to do with mechanism. Rather, for reasons unclear to me he's concluded that BigPharma is a scam and he's not gonna be taken.

"Hey Maher, don't be liek a fundie evolution-denier, which you is if you hate vaccines, haha!"

Yeah right. That'll work.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

36. Comment #424426 by gbooster on October 17, 2009 at 9:35 am

In resonse to: 18. Comment #424401 by Dr Benway on October 17, 2009 at 6:25 am

hehe, good post Dr.B (even though I am a vegetarian) I whole heartedly agree.

“You young squirts couldn’t lance a pimple without an electric vibrating scalpel with automatic drain and suture…"

Other Comments by gbooster

37. Comment #424427 by GBile on October 17, 2009 at 9:37 am

If mr Maher would respond negatively to Dr Shermers open letter, without presenting a sound body of evidence to support his present point of view, maybe we should suggest to him that he might, voluntarily, return the award that was given to him.

Mr Maher ??

Other Comments by GBile

38. Comment #424428 by keddaw on October 17, 2009 at 9:43 am

Bill's stance on vaccination is an obvious ploy to get with Jenny McCarthy. Her views on the MMR vaccine allow Bill to have her on as a guest, have her, and then return to the rational world. The sooner this happens the better.

Other Comments by keddaw

39. Comment #424430 by Koreman on October 17, 2009 at 10:13 am

Bill needs some acupuncture?
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1950

Other Comments by Koreman

40. Comment #424431 by Corylus on October 17, 2009 at 10:14 am

Comment #424418 by AN_1:

Bill should have no problem saying "I'm sorry, I was wrong", right?

We all have our egos. Admitting error is generally very hard, and for someone surrounded by sycophants I suspect very hard. That's why Shermer's 'Look dude, I fell for teh crazy once myself' statement in the letter is IMHO the best and most persuasive bit. It's not so bad if we have company in our SNAFUs. However, no company and stupid pride tends to quickly move things from SNAFU to FUBAR.

Generally, we need to foster the notion that it is:

a) OK to reserve judgement on subjects about which you nothing, and
b) it is laudable to be able to change your mind if you realise you know less than you thought you did - or that you have misinterpreted the information at hand.

Other Comments by Corylus

41. Comment #424442 by reason-first on October 17, 2009 at 11:23 am

Shouldn't it rather read "co-discoverer" instead of what the text says:

"It was not unreasonable to be a vaccination skeptic in the 1880s, which the co-discovered of natural selection — Alfred Russel Wallace — was, ..."

Other Comments by reason-first

42. Comment #424443 by TIKI AL on October 17, 2009 at 11:39 am

I think Dr Shermer's letter is a tad bit harsh.

It might be more effective for him to become a guest on the show, and when Bill swiftboats vaccine, he could scream out "YOU LIE!"

Other Comments by TIKI AL

43. Comment #424447 by Mark Jones on October 17, 2009 at 12:54 pm

Comment #424417 by Jos Gibbons

Good post, and thanks for the science. I think there is validity to the anti-evolution charge - the battle between the bugs and our immune systems is surely one of the battlefields in the arms race that is evolution by natural selection.

I would also agree with Corylus about the benefits of changing one's mind. I've had my mind changed countless times on this website, and it should be seen as a *strength*, not a weakness, as long as one can show it is in response to reason and evidence. Bill's advocacy of a kind of knee-jerk anti-pharma line suggests that he might not be arriving at his conclusions through reason and evidence. Which makes one wonder how he's arrived at his anti-religion position.

Other Comments by Mark Jones

44. Comment #424448 by phil rimmer on October 17, 2009 at 1:04 pm

Comment #424447 by Mark Jones

Bill's advocacy of a kind of knee-jerk anti-pharma line suggests that he might not be arriving at his conclusions through reason and evidence. Which makes one wonder how he's arrived at his anti-religion position.

I completely agree. I also think this is an angle of argument that can be made to BM, i.e. if you have made an error in your logic over antivax, might you not also be perceived to have made an error over religion, undoing all that good work? To be effective in your advocacy you must be seen to be bullet-proof in your thinking and on this issue why are the BIG minds lined up against you? How does the pro-vax conspiracy extend to the guy who gave you that award recently? Why did you not refuse to accept it as tainted by such foolish thinking?

Other Comments by phil rimmer

45. Comment #424449 by russkid on October 17, 2009 at 1:05 pm

Bill should have no problem saying "I'm sorry, I was wrong", right?

Or does he have a secret PhD that we don't know about?

He doesnt have a PhD in a subject that would qualify him to argue the positive on evolution with any authority either. He is just a guy that picks what he wants to believe on the basis of what makes sense to him, like most of us.

Other Comments by russkid

46. Comment #424451 by Lucas on October 17, 2009 at 1:16 pm

Jos Gibbons, thank the FSM for your participation here. You've saved me thousands of words in the last few months because almost every time I get here you've already made the arguments I would have! (Shout out to decius and mmurray too.)

I fully expect Bill to respond to this letter, and I sure hope that response is posted here in this thread, along with whatever back and forth follows.

I just saw Religulous for the first time a couple weeks ago, and I was surprised to like it so much. I doubted it would add much to the conversation, but I was wrong. Good job, Bill.

And Mr. Shermer, I try, oh how I try, to introduce skepticism about the 9/11 "conspiracy" to my best friend, but it just won't go through! This is a guy who is an atheist and generally a skeptic and logical thinker, but when it comes to the government doing something evil or misleading, he swallows it whole every time. Cheney blew up the towers. We never landed on the Moon. Etc. Sigh. Can someone point me to an argument/explanation of how the 9/11 conspiracy theories are flawed that might be more convincing than I apparently am?

Other Comments by Lucas

47. Comment #424452 by Spinoza on October 17, 2009 at 1:17 pm

By the by, the REST OF THE WORLD is ordering adjuvanted H1N1 vaccine (meaning it's got mercury-based content in it), which means more doses can be made with less of the viral material. The United States, due to their wacky beliefs about Thimerosal, has ordered only non-adjuvanted vaccine, which is why the production is falling short of their goals.

Other Comments by Spinoza

48. Comment #424453 by Mark Jones on October 17, 2009 at 1:22 pm

Comment #424448 by phil rimmer

Quite agree Phil, which is why I enjoyed Religulous but had a nagging doubt about how Maher had arrived at his opinions. Of course, it's possible he used valid reasoning on religion, but failed on the vaccinations; we all have failures of reasoning at times. But it does cast a *doubt* on the logic behind his anti-religious opinions.

It's like a maths exam; showing your workings adds marks and *validity* to one's answers.

Other Comments by Mark Jones

49. Comment #424454 by ridelo on October 17, 2009 at 1:23 pm

Is it true that for Big Pharma health was always more important than money? Or is there some kind of unavoidable fuzzy area? It's about money, you know. Remember the tobacco industry.

Other Comments by ridelo

50. Comment #424456 by Lucas on October 17, 2009 at 1:26 pm

Spinoza - It seems that this rejection of thimerosal is based almost entirely on the unscientific conclusions of parents of autistic children. Now, I think that there is SOMETHING, or perhaps many things, in the environment in the US that is causing high rates of autism, but we don't know what that is yet. Seems that mercury has been scapegoated.

Other Comments by Lucas

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next | Last