Comments on: With a rebel yell, they cried Maher, Maher, Maher

By: steelsheen11b

steelsheen11b — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:42:56 +0000

Maher is such an unconscionable ass hat but fools like him…

By: Max

Max — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:33:53 +0000

Majority of One – “What if you’re that one in a million that has a bad reaction to the flu vaccine and dies? That is especially tragic given that having the flu wouldn’t have killed you.”

People with egg allergies are advised to discuss the risks and benefits with their doctor. They also have to worry about mayonnaise and anything else that contains eggs.

The risk of developing Guillain-Barré Syndrome from the flu itself is about ten times higher than developing it from the flu vaccine. So the flu vaccine may actually LOWER your risk of developing GBS.

In any case, people don’t think twice about taking far bigger risks with less benefit, like using a cell phone while driving.

By: tmac57

tmac57 — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:12:03 +0000

Majority- What you are missing in this discussion, is that first of all, previously healthy people do die from the flu, and secondly, if you contract the flu you become a carrier. You could isolate yourself at that point when you realize that you are sick to prevent transmission, but you are contagious for a day or two before you have symptoms. Also, most people do have others living with them, who now are at risk. So, the point is to immunize yourself for your protection, and for the protection of those that you might also come in contact with, some of which might be at a greater risk of death.

By: Majority of One

Majority of One — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:37:31 +0000

This is one of those areas where there is some gray, IMHO. I’m pro-vaccine when I think they’re necessary, and I’m anti-vaccine when I think they’re over used and could potentially cause more harm than they prevent. In the case of the flu — yes it sucks to get sick and miss work for a few days, but you get over it and live. What if you’re that one in a million that has a bad reaction to the flu vaccine and dies? That is especially tragic given that having the flu wouldn’t have killed you.

Again, I say, get the vaccine if you’re in a high risk group — in other words if getting the flu would be LIFE threatening. Polio, measles, etc. can kill so the benefit outweighs the risks.

As I understand it, this is what Mr. Maher is saying, while also trying to be glib, flippant and of course funny. It doesn’t make me question his religious views. Also, if someone comes to the same conclusion about something as I have, only due to bad information, or faulty logic, I just figure they got there more intuitively than the facts may have let them. I still congratulate them on getting to the right answer.

By: Cambias

Cambias — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:26:50 +0000

Tim sums up my position, probably better than I did. If someone who says things I agree with also says things which are blatantly idiotic, it should make me re-examine the positions we agree on, as well.

By: Beelzebud

Beelzebud — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:30:31 +0000

He’s actually more nutty than the others. I don’t recall any one else on that list advocating armed rebellion, which he has.

By: Max

Max — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:15:42 +0000

“I guess I have ‘herd immunity’ naturally because I was exposed to swine flu directly and did not contact it. Either because of good hand hygiene or a good immune system.”

Do you know what herd immunity is? It’s when enough of the population is immune that it reduces the spread of the disease to people who are not immune. For example, herd immunity protects people who are too young or too allergic to get vaccinated. There’s no herd immunity to swine flu yet.

By: Max

Max — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:43:35 +0000

I agree we should criticize bad arguments even if we agree with the conclusion.

For example, in his open letter to Maher, Michael Shermer argued that to be anti-vax is to be anti-evolution because viruses and immunity evolve. I’m sorry, but that’s a lame argument.
Contrast that with Steve Novella’s spot-on analogy of Maher’s “annoyingly childish view of modern medicine” to that of “a creationist’s view of evolutionary biology.”

By: tmac57

tmac57 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:19:05 +0000

I’ve listened to a lot of Maher on Real Time, and I think his reasoning abilities are fairly good. He doesn’t always have the right facts though (a problem that is widely shared throughout the media). What I think is going on in this instance, is he has developed a blindside about medicine, for whatever reason, and is stubbornly sticking to it instead of re-examining his position. That is where his reasoning is breaking down. The question is, will he work his way back around, and in the end admit he was in error. I believe it is possible, from what I have observed, but I sure wouldn’t put money on it.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:19:20 +0000

You drive in the middle of the road then you are going to hit somebody head on.

Everyone should get vaccinated. There is nothing wrong with getting vaccinated and plenty right. Who cares if we are pill happy or not if the pills work (or shot, or nasal spray)? If I had an infection and one person told me to take the antibiotic and the other told me not to, the right answer is not to take half a dosage, truth isn’t determined by compromise. There is right and there is wrong. Even when considering the gray areas the area is only gray because there is more than one right answer, but there are still right answers. An unrelated example of a gray area would be a 21 year old dating a 16 year old. There might be some gray area there, but gray area or not a 44 year old “going out” with a 4 year old would clearly be wrong.

My point is that just because somebody says that you shouldn’t get vaccinated doesn’t mean that their opinion should carry equal weight to the scientific method. Vaccines are safe, flu is not safe, get the vaccine.

P.S. What is the “real” problem and why would taking shots and pills take us away from solving this “real” problem?