@billmaher If Ur Bill Maher Ur An Idiot.

About Josh Witten

100% of this the rugbyologist's revenue is donated to Doctors Without Borders (Medecins Sans Frontieres). A click on one of my articles is a click that helps bring high quality medical care to the... Full Bio

Josh
Witten

The illustrious, snarky, debonair, and devastatingly handsome chairman of The Festival of Idiots admissions board, the rugbyologist has previously said about bumper stickers:

If your entire argument can be expressed on a bumper sticker, it is not an argument worth considering.*
-quoth the rugbyologist

appears equally applicable to Bill Maher's twitter activity.

To rephrase:

If your entire argument can be expressed in a twitter update, it is not an argument worth considering.
-quoth the rugbyologist

Recently, Bill Maher has been very popular amongst Skeptics and Atheists for his disdain for 9/11 Truthers and organized religion. Prinicipally to honor his film Religulous, Atheist Alliance International (AAI) gave Bill Maher the Richard Dawkins Award:

. . .to honor an outstanding atheist whose contributions raise public awareness of the nontheist life stance; who through writings, media, the arts, film, and/or the stage advocates increased scientific knowledge; who through work or by example teaches acceptance of the nontheist philosophy; and whose public posture mirrors the uncompromising nontheist life stance of Dr. Richard Dawkins.

Two out of three ain't bad, as long as you do not value your integrity or respectability as an organization. While Maher bangs the drum loudly on the only issue the AAI cares about (atheism, as the name suggests), the AAI needs to explain how the man who made the following statements is an advocate of "increased scientific knowledge"?

I’m not into western medicine. That to me is a complete scare tactic.

A flu shot is the worst thing you can do. . .A flu shot just compromises your immune system.

I don’t believe in vaccination either. That’s a… well, that’s a… what?
That’s another theory that I think is flawed, that we go by the Louis
Pasteur theory. . .it’s not the invading
germs, it’s the terrain.

One of the most corrosive flaws in America is our tendency toward
conformity; in the quest to understand AIDS, it has been stifling.
Christine Maggiore [deceased HIV/AIDS denier] prompts the kind of questioning that is the
lifeblood of scientific inquiry.

Improvement in cancer treatment over the last 50 years, better than shit

Maher is not a critical thinker, he is an ideologue. His opinions are the result of a process - the intellectual masturbation of controversy. Maher is against vaccines, but for the HPV vaccine. Huh? Oh yeah, fundamentalist Christians are against the HPV vaccine. So, Maher has to be for it. Unfortunately, intellectual masturbation is not a substitute for critical thought.

Doctors and pharmaceutical companies want to give chemotherapy? Maher's against it.
The government wants you to get a flu vaccine? Maher's against it.
Fundamentalists are against the HPV vaccine? Maher is for it.
All of science supports the germ theory of disease? Maher denies it.

The only thing we can't figure out about Maher is why he hates the 9/11 Truthers. That's probably because they interrupted his show. Ideologues hate to be interrupted. Oh well. Bill Maher, you are an idiot. A dangerous idiot wth a TV show. Welcome to The Fesitval and you can bring all your Twitter followers with you.

And, an honorable mention to the Atheist Alliance International for being unable to read their own standards for their own award.

*Bumper stickers with this slogan are in production.
**Hat tip to Orac at Respectful Insolence and David Gorski at Science Based Medicine for exhaustive coverage of the Maher/AAI kerfuffle.

Comments

Other than a couple of books that people claim were written by him, and a few pictures that are supposed to depict what he actually must look like, I don't believe that Bill Maher actually exists because I've never seen any actual physical evidence of him.

Stu (not verified) | 10/06/09 | 05:29 AM

I have one bumper sticker with an argument worth considering, which I've placed prominently above my desk: "Critical Thinking: The Other National Deficit"

That seems relevant here.

Michael White | 10/06/09 | 08:56 AM

I'd call that more of a slogan, not a complete expression of your opinion on the subject.

And, just so the subtle comedy is not missed, both of those statements fit on a bumper sticker or a twitter update. Irony rules.

Josh Witten | 10/06/09 | 09:06 AM

I'd call that more of a slogan, not a complete expression of your opinion on the subject.

It's really just a self-evident fact!

Michael White | 10/06/09 | 09:13 AM

My favorite bumper sticker of all time (so far):

Becky Jungbauer | 10/06/09 | 19:49 PM

If you can read this, you think too close … ly.

A. Nonymous (not verified) | 10/06/09 | 12:09 PM

Maher is a big time critical thinker. Most Atheists are. I never heard that Maher is against the flue vaccine. Just because he wont get one doesn't mean he wouldn't take one of his elderly parents to get the flue vaccine. He does promote a healthy lifestyle. If more of us ate right we would be a lot healthier. If you'd watch his show, you'd get the point.

Cathy (not verified) | 10/06/09 | 13:11 PM

I got a flue vaccine but my fireplace still backs up into the den. O well.

A. Nonymous (not verified) | 10/06/09 | 14:59 PM

One reason, out of many, not to take the Flu shot is Thiomersal.
Thiomersal is very toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and in contact with skin with a danger of cumulative effects.
Yet we are supposed to be sheep and line up for our shots because they are good for you…
Of course Flu shots are a crap shoot anyways; quite often the Flu going around is not the strain the current Flu Vaccine will help with.
So you get your flu shot like a good sheep, I and many others won’t.

AP (not verified) | 10/07/09 | 15:39 PM

Do you have any tattoos? Did you check that the ink did not contain thiomersal as a preservative? Many do.

But, the real question, AP, is why do you hate newborns, old people, and the immune compromised. While I personally do not care if you spend a lousy week with the flu, vaccine rates below herd immunity levels put these individuals, who may not be able to be vaccinated (e.g., children <6mos of age) at elevated risk.

Research suggests that healthy children under the age of 2 are more
likely than older children and as likely as people over the age of 65
to be hospitalized with flu complications. In addition, children
between 24-59 months of age have higher rates of influenza-related
doctor and Emergency Department visits than older children.
-CDC

I could bother to point out that you have no understanding of
thiomersal toxicity. Thiomersal releases ethylmercury, which is
cleared from the body very efficiently. Flu shots pose zero risk of
causing an ethylmercury accumulation that even closley approaches
safety limits, which are themselves conservative?

Here is additional information from the Wikipedia article on thiomersal, which you appear to considere authoritative, since you are apparently citing it without attribution.

AP: Thiomersal is very toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and in contact with skin with a danger of cumulative effects.
Wikipedia: Thiomersal is very toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and in contact with skin (EC hazard symbol T+), with a danger of cumulative effects.

Ethylmercury clears from blood with a half-time of about 18 days, and
from the brain in about 14 days. Inorganic mercury metabolized from
ethylmercury has a much longer clearance, at least 120 days; it appears
to be much less toxic than the inorganic mercury produced from mercury
vapor, for reasons not yet understood.

Since then, it has been found that ethylmercury is cleared from the
body and the brain significantly faster than methylmercury, so the
late-1990s risk assessments turned out to be overly conservative.

Josh Witten | 10/08/09 | 11:20 AM

First and foremost wikapedia may be what I quoted, however it is not the only source that demonizes Thimerosal. It was simply one of the first I found and quoted.
There is a heck of a lot more out there.

Secondly by your post you obviously have failed to research in depth the Autism correlation otherwise you would not make it out to be such a benign chemical. Likewise you failed to research in depth the Gulf War syndrome connection.
Now correlation does not equal causation, I admit this freely however it certainly does Thimerosal no favors as a benign chemical.

However the fact that there is a correlation between the two and Thiomersal being a derivative of a highly toxic chemical we know as mercury, why take the chance? I for one will not take any such chance now that I am aware of said correlation.

If you are not familiar with the Thimerasol and Autism correlation I suggest a search "brainstem +Thimerosal". Unfortunately you can find support for and against it which again leaves me again with why take the chance when there is a correlation.

Here is a 2001 citation:
A synopsis of a discussion about mercury at the October 2001 Defeat Autism Now Conference in the U.S. stated that, “There are many similarities in symptoms between mercury toxicity and autism, including social deficits, language deficits, repetitive behaviors, sensory abnormalities, cognition deficits, movement disorders, and behavioral problems. There are also similarities in physical symptoms, including biochemical, gastrointestinal, muscle tone, eurochemistry, neurophysiology, EEG measurements, and immune system/autoimmunity.”

Here is a 2004 citation:

MATERIAL SOURCE: MOLECULAR PSYCHIATRY
PUBLIC RELEASE DATE: 8-JUNE-2004
A new study indicates that postnatal exposure to thimerosal, a mercury preservative commonly used in a number of childhood vaccines, can lead to the development of autism-like damage in autoimmune disease susceptible mice. This animal model, the first to show that the administration of low-dose ethylmercury can lead to behavioral and neurological changes in the developing brain, reinforces previous studies showing that a genetic predisposition affects risk in combination with certain environmental triggers. The study was conducted by researchers at the Jerome L. and Dawn Greene Infectious Disease Laboratory at the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University.

Third, I have not had the flu or any other serious illness for a good 10 years. Likewise I have not had a vaccine in a good 10 years.
Your singular sample has been matched.
Seriously though a good strong immune system is all one needs for non-terminal illnesses like the common cold and the flu and yes, even the Swine Flu.

What this really boils down to:

Why would they ban legal remedy from the Swine Flu vaccine unless they are expecting complications? Are they afraid of a similar occurrence from the 1976 Swine flu vaccine? Add to that the rush to market on the current Swine flu vaccine. Why not hold it until Human Trials are complete, and why not come clean in the MSM with the recent deaths of test subjects in Europe?

And
Since the "brainstem +Thimerosal" search pulls 28,000+ hits
And
Thimerasol is a derivative of a highly toxic chemical called Mercury
And
“Gulf War Syndrome +thimerosal” search pulls 47,000+ hits

Why would you inject into your body an obviously questionable chemical?
Familiar with Thimerasol? I am not so sure I want to be so familiar as to inject myself with it. 75,000+ hits, even if 1% are bad something stinks and it is not the air where I live.

Honestly though with Google one can find whatever one really wants to find. Just like I can find studies by Dr’s that say all vaccines are bad, not just the flu shots, for completely different reasons than Thimerasol.
So my opinion is do your own research and decide for yourself don’t just take my word for it.

AP (not verified) | 10/10/09 | 22:39 PM

Quantity of Google hits as biomedical evidence? Really? Do you know how search engines work?

Fortunately, I don't think we need to worry about anyone who reads that comment taking your uninformed opinion seriously.

Josh Witten | 10/12/09 | 09:39 AM

I am fully aware that not all those hits support my argument and I am 100% aware that some do. Just as I am aware that each result of these particular searches contain each keyword given, which was my point in bringing it up… Plenty of hits for people to look through and come to their own decisions instead of taking your obviously biased word or my own.
Your post betrays that you obviously did not bother to look at either search nor click through to the available data.
You can ignore the numbers if you like just as you ignore the rest of my argument but that changes nothing.
Good job disregarding the rest of my post in favor of indirectly insulting me. It would seem your own argument is lacking...
GG

AP (not verified) | 10/13/09 | 14:46 PM

I'm highly aware of the research, beyond simply compiling statistics, but with regard to the quality and the design of the study. Many of your "hits" are for completely worthless studies. Google popularity is a poor way to evaluate whether the studies have been done well. Furthermore, most individuals lack the training to evaluate the qualities of those studies.

My only interest in engaging your arguments is to prevent the dispersal of bad information into the public sphere without opposition.

Josh Witten | 10/13/09 | 15:22 PM

years I get the flu shot: I haven't caught the flu

year I didn't get the flu shot: 104 fever and deleriously sick throughout the entire college bowl season.

One individual may not be a good sample size, but I'm sticking with the shot. I really, really like college football.

Justin Gerke | 10/07/09 | 18:34 PM

"Many of your "hits" are for completely worthless studies"
I never commented how many were good or bad, obviously I have not the time to click through thousands of links let alone critique each one.
I posted the numbers because the sheer size of the numbers suggests something could be going on and that something deserves an in-depth look as it pertains to chemicals they inject into our bodies.
My only interest is getting people to get off their butts and to question things and especially to question what they put in their body. They should not just take it on faith as being “good for you”.
I have a serious problem with Derivatives of toxic chemicals being "Good for you” or “Good for your genetic future” when there are now studies proclaiming your diet today can affect your future offspring and their future offspring. The vaccines go straight into your system; it bypasses everything, so how much worse would the above be with something that is Not “Good for you”?
Thimerasol is not the only questionable material in some of the vaccines, it just happens to be the one I chose to bring up.

AP (not verified) | 10/14/09 | 14:26 PM

The numbers suggest nothing on their own. Numbers showing any interest in almost any topic can be generated, no matter how ridiculous. Statements claiming "toxic chemicals" in vaccines and injecting vaccines "straight into your system" demonstrate that you lack functional knowledge about how vaccines work and basic biology. That, like statements before, is not an insult, it is a statement based on the quality, or lack thereof, of your arguments.

Josh Witten | 10/14/09 | 14:41 PM

The numbers are related to two combined key words in two searches, one of which is Thimerosal and the others are a medical issue. There just happens to be a lot of interest between the them, by your own words above. Coincidental, I think not.

However you have a point about interest in almost any topic, such is the nature of search engines and such was my point in bringing it up. Why all the interest in Thimerosal in vaccines? It could not possibly be because it may cause health issues though, could it?

So with the above in mind let’s talk about a search Phrase instead of keywords then. What is the purpose of a search phrase? You should be able to answer this question I would think.
If you are interested try this one with the quotes: "Thimerosal causes Autism".
Now discuss why 12,000 plus hits is a number everyone should ignore and is no cause for concern, no cause to click through and see some of the data. Seems blatant enough to me, but as you say I know nothing about how search engines function. No interest and no information on that topic apparently.

Statements claiming –derivative- of a toxic chemical being injected are undeniable.

Do you deny the flu shot is not normally injected into the fleshy part of an extremity bypassing the normal means of entry into the body and thus some of its defenses thereby getting adsorbed into the bloodstream? Perhaps you care to take another jab at my understanding and explain how the vaccine enters the body via an IV syringe if the above is not on target.

Riddle me this, why did some countries ban Thimerosal? It can not be because it is good for you.

AP (not verified) | 10/15/09 | 00:29 AM

It is not coincidental. It reflects public interest stoked by bad information. This correlation says nothing about whether there is a causative relationship. It is profoundly uninteresting. If you agree that Google hits does not constitute medical evidence, then why do you keep citing it? All this reflects is public popularity, which is a great way to pick American Idol winners and a is a horrible way to make medical decisions.

Entry method is irrelevant. Most toxins enter through "normal" methods. Digestion is not magical. All that is altered in this case is the dosage reaching the bloodstream. It might shock you to know this, but pharmacologists and toxicologists are very aware that method of administration affects the effective dose.

Countries removed thimerosal because elected governments are highly sensitive to public pressure. Are governments actively conspiring to poison us or protect us? You have argued both sides.

Josh Witten | 10/15/09 | 13:21 PM

"It reflects public interest stoked by bad information."
That is simple opinion/assumption backed by nothing concrete. Myself having actually clicked a few links and having read through some of the information Google gave me access to I can say "It reflects public interest stoked by Good and bad information". Mine would be a more accurate statement.

"All this reflects is public popularity"
Which is why I cite it. Why the interest by the public?

"Entry method is irrelevant"
Entry method is not irrelevant; otherwise you could shoot all these so called safe vaccines right into a vein. Something Not recommended by a good many sources. I suggest you research that part instead of assuming as you like to do. A little basic understanding of biology should help in this regard.

"Countries removed thimerosal because elected governments are highly sensitive to public pressure"
Prove they did so because of public pressure. Obviously I think your reasoning is flawed. Your reasoning would suggest ours should do the same right? Yet we still use it, And now we are not allowed to sue for damages on this upcoming Swine Flu shot.

Some Governments have banned Thimerosal and some have not. I will not say what any Government conspires to do directly.
I will continue to advocate that people should research this issue for themselves. Unlike you I firmly believe that the people can research using Google and make up their own minds…

AP (not verified) | 10/21/09 | 15:39 PM

You are falsely assuming that the information accessed through Google is quality information. You are using popularity as a metric for scientific quality. Not only is that illogical, it is un-American (see founding fathers on mob rule - e.g., electoral college, senate, supreme court, etc.).

Actually, I assumed that the injection method used had to do with maximizing efficacy and avoiding the trickier and more dangerous intravenous injection. There is no medical reason to inject something into a vein if not necessary for the treatment. You were discussing toxicity, which remains irrelevant.

There is no evidence supporting your assertion that thimerosal at dosages far in excess of vaccine exposure. The governments were not acting on evidence. Perhaps I was hasty in attributing this behavior to sensitivity to public pressure. After all, there is plenty of historical support for governments simply being stupid. And, the US government did remove thimerosal from children's vaccines without evidence of any harmful effects or biological plausibility for harmful effects.

Josh Witten | 10/21/09 | 15:57 PM

“You are falsely assuming that the information accessed through Google is quality information. “

Not true, I said some was good and some was bad, I have looked at a few and can safely make that call.. You however are falsely assuming that all the information accessed through Google is not quality information. You like to assume.
“You are using popularity as a metric for scientific quality. “
Incorrect, I am asking why is it so popular, why the interest. I never stated my opinion on what was considered good scientific quality and what was not. You assume quite a bit without real thought or consideration.

“Not only is that illogical, it is un-American (see founding fathers on mob rule - e.g., electoral college, senate, supreme court, etc.).”
Based on erroneous assumption and quite Irrelevant.

“Actually, I assumed that the injection method used had to do with maximizing efficacy and avoiding the trickier and more dangerous intravenous injection”
And you admit to even more assumption.
“You were discussing toxicity, which remains irrelevant.”
Efficacy of the Flu shot is questionable.
You ignore the point on how the body treats what is injected vs other means of entry there are differences. I submit it is not irrelevant and that your argument here is.
“There is no evidence supporting your assertion that thimerosal at dosages far in excess of vaccine exposure.”
By EPA regs the amount in multishot vials are considered hazardous waste material. It is not assertion.
“The governments were not acting on evidence. “
Incorrect, the Old Soviet Union did indeed act on evidence. That is the first one I bothered looking at.
“Perhaps I was hasty in attributing this behavior to sensitivity to public pressure. After all, there is plenty of historical support for governments simply being stupid.”
You assume they are stupid. Can you make any argument at all without assuming? How scientific is that? And you talk about me? Hilarious.
“And, the US government did remove thimerosal from children's vaccines without evidence of any harmful effects or biological plausibility for harmful effects.”
Obviously Not all of them had it removed or this discussion would not be happening and it would not be such a popular issue. They state they did so without evidence. Such a large area with a lot of money involved. I have to doubt their statement was completely true.

AP (not verified) | 10/22/09 | 09:37 AM

In formal logic argumentation, it is impossible to make any argument without defining assumptions.

You are equating public interest as a measure of plausibility of claims. All I say about Google is that presence in a search conveys no information about quality. In general, bad information is more frequent than good information, because it is easier just to make something up.

You mix your arguments. There are safety reasons not to inject anything, even sterile saline, into a vein without good reason. Method of entry affects dosage.

EPA treatment of hazardous waste materials, such as vials, has nothing to do with individual dose toxicology. Those regulations exist to protect people who might be handling lots and lots of vials. The dose makes the poison.

The long-term effect that Trofim Lysenko had on Soviet science, not to mention millions of starved Soviet citizens suggests that the Soviet Union, if motivated at all by evidence and not ideology, was motivated by bad evidence.

Josh Witten | 10/22/09 | 12:37 PM

You are reaching now...

you chose: An assumption is a statement which is to be taken as true for the purpose of an argument.
Making an assumption WITHOUT any factual information (which is what you have repeatedly done and I have repeatedly pointed out) is not useful and quite often leads the argument to the wrong conclusion. If that is what you like to do, then have fun by yourself.
I likely will not post back to any more of your replies if you have nothing more useful to add than assumptions based on zero factual information. Define your assumptions if you like, but if there are no facts used when you define them they are worthless and no longer deserve attention.

AP (not verified) | 10/23/09 | 13:39 PM

Since you have just admitted that you are not familiar with logical arguments and, therefore, with the scientific method.

My facts were the documented safety and efficacy of the flu vaccine, the risks posed by influenza, the fact that Maher's approach to medicine is contrary to the germ theory of disease, that there is no correlation between thimerosal in vaccines and autism, and that thimerosal doses in vaccines are well below highly conservative safety levels.

Your only facts, if memory serves, are a misapplied EPA materials handling policy and an inaccurate reading of a poorly written Cochrane report.

AP, you will be missed.

Josh Witten | 10/23/09 | 14:26 PM

Honestly you sound like the old Iraqi Minister of Information. Anyways have fun with your propaganda.

AP (not verified) | 10/23/09 | 21:53 PM

Son of a. . .are there tanks behind me? Again?

Josh Witten | 10/26/09 | 10:47 AM

More Rugbyologist articles

About Josh Witten

Comments

Add a comment

Know Science And Want To Write?

What People Are Saying

Books By Writers Here

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

More Rugbyologist articles

About Josh Witten

Related Articles Here On Scientific Blogging

Comments

Add a comment

Know Science And Want To Write?

What People Are Saying

Books By Writers Here