Bill Maher: Still an antivaccine wingnut after all these years

I got sick without getting a vaccine this year, but I while I don’t know whether the vaccine that was distributed this season was partially ineffective, I do know that viruses have a diabolical tendency to mutate rapidly under the current ability of medicine to keep up. Bill Maher establishes himself as a willful ignoramus in thinking that if vaccines don’t always do as advertised, in the asinine absolute terms which he requires of everything he examines, the whole idea, however well established in theory let alone practice, must therefore be suspect. And of course he transmits this unscientific bullshit with his tiresome approach to humor via sneer. That requires one despicable human being.

From Bill Maher:

Thanks, Doc, I thought there might be a little man inside the needle.

Given some nonsense spouted regularly by antivaxers on how vaccines are working (OMG, it’s full of dead viruses and potassium chloride), Dr Shermer may be forgiven for thinking he needed to start with some basic explanations.

Seriously, you would sometimes think vaccines work by black magic.

Back in the days before we started closing bases all over the world, and particularly in the Sixties, tens of thousands of military and their families were administered extensive banks of vaccinations before shipping out. Especially those assigned to tropical climates. Seems to me that we may actually have a ready-made database of multiple-vaccinated adults and children from that era. I have no idea how to access such data, if indeed it exists in any usable form — but a long-term examination of these folks and any rates of negative responses to the vaccines could certainly be useful….

And just so I’m clear: I’m one of those recipients of those vaccines back in the Sixties, and I find the whole paranoia about vaxing utterly perplexing. I also am a regular recipient of the flu vaccine at my doctor’s suggestion, since she believes I’m more at risk for complications from such things as a result of enduring (and surviving, so far) chemo and radiation for lung cancer. So I am decidedly inclined to believe scientists over polemicists. Every time.

I think some words need to be defined.

Go to Google and type in these 2 words to search: antivaxxer definition

Google returns this at the top of the screen:

ANTI-VAXXER (noun)
“a person who is opposed to vaccination, typically a parent who does not wish to vaccinate their child.”

Now use Google again and type in these 2 words to search: naturopathy definition

NATUROPATHY (noun)
“a system of alternative medicine based on the theory that disease can be successfully treated or prevented without the use of drugs, by techniques such as control of diet, exercise, and massage.”

Bill Maher, despite his opposition to the flu shot, is NOT an anti-vaxxer.

However, Bill Maher is definitely a Naturopath. He’s even called himself one on his show. These are 2 different views that may have some overlap but are not the same.

Criticize Bill Maher for what he is, not for what he is not.

@MacIsBack
He’s a vaccine denialist—an anti-vaxxer—posing as a skeptic. He’s pulling the same schtick as climate change denialists who say, sure, it happens, but it’s not human caused or dangerous. It’s a ruse that works because people like you are fool enough to fall for it.

@ Chris #88

Sorry for the late reply in a now-old thread, and additional apologies if I wasn’t clear. Basically, I either had already assumed or agree with everything you said.

I wasn’t so much taking on the Pharma Shill gambit in relation to the actual Merck, as pointing out how the accusation doesn’t make sense given the limited things I know about pharma in general, even in a ‘worst case’ scenario, when it comes to products like the MMR.

That is, even the same division of a corporation made both the MMR and some product (X) with which they were doing arguably ‘bad’ things, the economics would be the same. My point in posting the link is that article’s the most damning critique of pharma I found at the most hard-ass legit PR watch-dog source in the U.S, and it doesn’t apply to MMR at all as far as I can tell. So any attempt to ‘poison the well’ of vaccines on the bases of the things pharmas actually do to boost profits (as detailed in the article) is totally ignorant or disingenuous, because those things are only ever applied to very different circumstances.

Lawrence #91 is absolutely right. If you’re going to claim a profit motive is involved in vaccine policy in any way, you have to prove there actually is a big profit – as the market for MMR has no significant growth potential.

I’ve never looked at an SEC filing, but I know enough about corporate accounting practices (Arthur Anderson, etc.) to know those things can be diddled with to some extent. But the question remains the same. Diddling takes a lot of work and costs a lot of money so there has to be a big reward. Show evidence of reward, or evidence of major diddling, on the product at hand before you cry ‘shill!’ or STFU and go home.

Maybe I’m just too tired, but I’m not getting the hospital vs. vaccine comparison. Wouldn’t the question be what Merck gets from the hospitalized patients, not what is reaped some abstract consolidated Big Pharma that doesn’t exist? And wouldn’t the answer be ‘next to nothing’ anyway, as hospitalized measles patients are just getting symptomatic care which mostly involves the cost of the room and the labor to keep an eye on them in a controlled environment? I don’t see the argument. (Sorry…) It seems you’re reaching for a too-stretched hypothetical in search of a simple refutation to an argument that doesn’t even belong on the table as it hasn’t even come close to making its bones in terms of here-and-now logic to be credible enough to consider seriously in the first place.

Still, the first thing I’d reply to someone who tried to pull the Big-Pharma-Shill gambit on Gorski/Novella/Offit etc. is ‘there is NO Big Pharma!’ The pharmas compete with each other, and they don’t cede high-profit markets to their competitors. In absence of a monopoly, if there’s no competition for something, that shows there’s no significant profit in it. Following from that, I’d go on to argue: If you want to have a potentiallyvalid case for ‘pharma shill’ you have to –
1) identify a specific company making a specific kind of product
2) demonstrate that the product’s profitability is significant to the overall financial health of the manufacturer. (Companies in general drop profitable lines all the time to devote the resources to searching for bigger profits.).
3) tie that specific product category, and the manufacturer to the alleged shill.
4) demonstrate the connection in (3) matters significantly in terms of (2).
5) demonstrate that whatever the alleged shill is receiving from the pharma is significant enough to his/her bottom line that they’d risk reputation and career for the gain.

More. The Pharma Shill gambit for the MMR has several necessary premises, which go beyond the notions that ‘vaccines cause harm’ and ‘pharmas profit from vaccines’.
1) Merck at least suspects the MMR causes undisclosed harm.
2) None of Merck’s competitors have enough economic incentive from exposing Merck (on the down-low) to trump the economic incentive to protect profits mutually via some conspiratorial cabal (that’s the sound of the entire floor of NYSE convulsed in laughter you’re hearing).
3) Gorski/Novella/Offit have enough effect via their blogs, an episode of Nova, and as sources for back-page science stories in the MSM to sway public opinion enough to conceal a major corporate scandal and massive government malfeasance even as two major TV stars call ‘foul!’
4) Either there’s no one better able to sway public opinion than Gorski/Novella/Offit, or the pharma is too stupid to hire them.
5) Gorski, Novella, and Offit need to be paid to take on Jenny McCarthy, rather than, say, paying Merck for the privilege of taking a whack a her autism BS just for joy (not to mention public health, or anything…)

If the failure to establish even one of the points raised above isn’t enough to make the Vaccine Shill gambit utterly fail when placed under even minimal scrutiny…
I’ve got more! 🙂
[For another post… later… maybe…]

Why must it be one or the other? Isn’t it possible that some vaccines are safe and effective while others are not? It seems to me that there is a credibility gap at both ends of the spectrum, perhaps because the subject has grown to be so contentious that partisans on both sides are being pushed farther and farther toward the extremes of their positions until their arguments become a reductio ad absurdum. I think that reasonable people can conclude that Jenny McCarthy’s crusade against childhood immunization was misguided and destructive and the discredited claim that these vaccines are implicated in causing autism false. It does not follow, however, that therefore all vaccines are safe nor does it follow that all vaccines are effective.

The essential argument, as I see it, of the pro-vaccine camp is that we should have implicit faith in big pharma. Thanks, but no. Ever hear of Vioxx (Rofecoxib)? Ever hear of Thalidomide? In the U.S. alone there are literally hundreds of drugs that were sold to the public bearing the FDA stamp of approval which were later pulled after they were determined not to be safe after all. Oops. That does not mean that all drugs or vaccines are dangerous but neither does the success of the polio or diphtheria vaccines mean that all vaccines are safe and effective.

To me, the fact that the current flu-season’s vaccine efficacy rate is in the low 20’s demonstrates that the skeptics are right. Would you get on a jet-liner that had only a 23% chance of not crashing? Those don’t sound like good enough odds to me to warrant injecting myself with something that has been rushed to market without adequate testing. Unfortunately, unlike patients in New York State, where I live, who retain the right to refuse medication, I, as a health-care worker, am compelled against my will to submit to a flu vaccine annually. (Yes, in the hospital where I work, I can choose to wear a mask for six months each year instead but many other New York state hospital workers do not enjoy even that right.) The flu vaccine is not without risk, including that of developing Guillain-Barre Syndrome, a crippling and potentially life-threatening condition. (And in my career I have seen several cases of flu-vaccine-implicated GBS.) There is no cost-benefit analysis that makes it sensible for a healthy adult (I am not speaking about children nor senior citizens or others most at risk of death from the flu) to get a flu vaccine with its risk of causing GBS and that has only a 23% chance of preventing him or her from getting what amounts to a bad cold.

The public-health arguments – herd immunity – at least at my hospital, would carry far more weight if everyone were required to get the flu vaccine, however, only staff are. Patients are not required to get it – since that would be a violation of the Patients’ Bill of Rights (which is part of New York State law), nor are visitors required to get it. Forcing healthcare workers but not patients or visitors to get the flu vaccine is a lot like closing a window only half way to keep out the cold.

There are probably certain segments of the population for whom the flu vaccine makes sense. There are others for whom it clearly does not. As I began by saying, it does have to be an either/or – either you’re for all vaccines or against all vaccines – debate. But I do think that any policy intended to protect patients needs to be rational and consistent. If hospital workers may be compelled to get the flu vaccine, so should all patients and all visitors. What good will it do you, if you’re a patient in a hospital sharing a room, if your nurse has had the flu vaccine but your roommate, two feet or less away, has not?

David Balashinsky, P.T.:

Would you get on a jet-liner that had only a 23% chance of not crashing?

Your analogy fails miserably. Try addressing the jet-liner equialent of the real situation:

Since you’re going to be on the jet-liner anyway, whether you like it or not (unless you die before the season starts), and you have little other control over its flight dynamics, would you like to have a 20% improvement of your chances against crashing?

David, your characterisation of Influenza as the equivalent of nothing but “a bad cold” tells me that you haven’t seen many cases, despite your claims to work in a hospital.

I am sad that a fellow health professional can so easily brush aside the thousands of deaths influenza causes every year. This season is especially bad, the vaccine is not as good as in previous years, and I predict the death toll will top 50,000 easily.

“A bad cold”? Think again.

The essential argument, as I see it, of the pro-vaccine camp is that we should have implicit faith in big pharma.

That is not the case. The essential argument is that for specific diseases, vaccines are able to reduce the incidence of both the diseases and their side effects (up to and including death), and they are able to do so safely (compared to the risks of catching the original diseases in a world without vaccines). This argument is backed by substantial evidence. There is also considerable regulation of the pharmaceutical companies which make these vaccines to ensure that the products they make are uncontaminated, as well as making sure they work. This is different for “little pharma” and supplement makers, which apparently are able to supply contaminated product that paralyze patients, or badly manufactured product which overdose people with Vitamin D.

Ever hear of Thalidomide?

Why, yes. Fun fact – it wasn’t sold in the US.

It does not follow, however, that therefore all vaccines are safe nor does it follow that all vaccines are effective.

Sure. There’s a vaccine for smallpox – 14-52 people out of a million had life threatening side effects and 1,000 out of a million had serious reactions. There’s a vaccine for anthrax – according to the CDC it could cause a serious reaction in less than 1 in 100,000 doses. There’s a vaccine for plague – per the CDC, it can cause “general malaise, headache, fever, mild lymphadenopathy, and erythema and induration at the injection site in about 10% of recipients. These reactions occur more commonly with repeated injections. Sterile abscesses occur rarely. Rare cases of sensitivity reactions manifested by urticarial and asthmatic phenomena have been reported.” The yellow fever vaccine can cause death in about 1 in 500,000. There’s a rabies vaccine for humans, which can be given prophylactically.

Given the relative risk/rewards for those, I’d think most people wouldn’t recommend them for general use, unless those diseases are common in the area.

I am sorry, I did not ask for your opinion. This is what I said: “Well, sure. Just tell us which ones are not safe and effective by providing supporting verifiable documentation to support your conclusions.”

Where is the supporting documentation? For safety, influenza vaccines have been made for decades, surely you can find PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers about the relative risks of the vaccine versus the disease.

As far as efficacy, can you explain why 0%, which you have chosen to accept by skipping the vaccine, is better than 23% efficacy. Is this some kind of new form of math?

And still, the issues around Vioxx have nothing to do with vaccines, so bringing it was was you “poisoning the well.” Just stick to the actual evidence on the subject being discussed, which is vaccines.

Oh, and by the way the CDC weekly flu reports that verified pediatric deaths are now up to fifty six. Do tell us how that equates to a bad cold.

Finally, I didn’t say that Talidomide was ever sold in the U.S. Please don’t put words in my mouth or condescend to me by correcting something I didn’t actually write.

You wrote

Ever hear of Thalidomide? In the U.S. alone there are literally hundreds of drugs that were sold to the public bearing the FDA stamp of approval which were later pulled after they were determined not to be safe after all. Oops.

I wrote

Why, yes. Fun fact – it [thalidomide] wasn’t sold in the US.

Offhand, I cannot see how I either put words in your mouth or corrected you. I used your example of thalidomide to show how FDA regulation does, at least sometimes, work to improve drug safety. I never once stated that your paragraph implied otherwise.

Chris: Let me explain how this works: I actually don’t need your permission to offer my opinion. For that matter, I didn’t ask for yours either.

As for the efficacy of this year’s vaccine, the 23% efficacy (and it’s always a crap-shoot) is not weighed against the 0% efficacy of no vaccine: it’s weighed against the attendant risks of the vaccine, which are not 0%. The risks may be small statistically but they are no less real, which is why one is required to sign a waiver and release before getting the vaccine. That’s what a cost-benefit analysis is. One doesn’t only consider the potential benefits of the vaccine against the potential benefits of not taking the vaccine but one considers also the potential risks of taking the vaccine as well as the potential risks of not taking the vaccine. That’s just basic science.

As for my allusion to Vioxx, over which you seem to obsessing, I mentioned that case because it is a paradigm of how a pharmaceutical agent can receive FDA approval and be marketed as safe by its manufacturer and only later be discovered to be unsafe. Whether it’s a medication or a vaccine is irrelevant to the point I was making. I’m not sure why you have such a hard time with that concept; maybe you can find someone else to explain it to you.

As for red herrings, I guess I have to repeat yet again (and this is the last time I’m going to do it) that I specifically couched my original argument in terms of the vaccine’s applicability to healthy adults, not children, so your insistence on setting up straw-man arguments by citing pediatric deaths from flu, as well as your penchant for putting words in my mouth, such as claiming that I said that Vioxx is a vaccine, when even a cursory reading of my original comment would show that I said nothing of the sort, strongly suggest to me that you’re much more interested in trying to score points instead of discussing this topic like an adult.

Have a nice day.

“: it’s weighed against the attendant risks of the vaccine, which are not 0%. The risks may be small statistically but they are no less real, which is why one is required to sign a waiver and release before getting the vaccine.”

Again you failed to provide any verifiable documentation.

Just provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that the risk to healthy adults of the vaccine is higher than actually getting influenza.

And still, the issues around Vioxx have nothing to do with vaccines, so bringing it was was you “poisoning the well.”

And doing it poorly, since rofecoxib still has “the FDA stamp of approval.” It’s unfortunate that nobody has taken it up since “the” patent expired in 2013.

While I enjoy listening to some of Maher’s anti-conservative screeds, ultimately he’s still a performer. He started out as a stand-up comic & actor, i.e. an entertainer, and he still is.
In this sense he’s really not fundamentally different than Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh, but since liberals like me (mostly) agree with his conclusions there’s a temptation to overlook the cray-cray & cherry pick the good stuff.
TV & print media, including supposedly neutral organizations like NPR & the Beeb, are interested in maximizing viewers – entertainment will trump truth every single time, so even those you agree with have to assessed critically.

My aunt had a very bad reaction to a crossbody seatbelt a few years ago that put her in the hospital. (Seriously — the seatbelt fractured her collarbone, which then punctured her lung.) But strangely, I’m going to keep wearing my seatbelt — and so is she.

So, Mr. Keller, we need to ignore all of the science and evidence about influenza vaccine because of your one story.

Why is that? How does it carry more weight than these.

I don’t think Chris is calling you a liar, by providing multiple PubMed citations which prove the safety and efficacy of seasonal influenza vaccines…versus your n=1 anecdote.

@Chris, to borrow from Damon Runyan (or at least what is attributed to him)

The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet.

I think Tom Keller would argue that since in today’s Super Bowl commercial, a Mercedes sports car showed up to help the tortoise beat the hare, we should bet on the tortoise in every race.

@Tom Keller, I’m sorry your uncle had to go in the hospital. It’s not much fun even when it’s not for disease.

I suggest you encourage him to file an incident report with VAERS.

But, Chris and I prefer to base our choices on a scientific assessment of the benefits and risks, not just that something bad happened to one person one time.

And, those assessments repeatedly show that adverse events serious enough to require hospitalization as a result of the flu shot are so rare that it is hard to accurately distinguish them from similar events occurring to random people day to day in the rest of the population.

And so, even though I had an adverse event from the Prevnar booster I got from my doctor last month (a sore shoulder for two or three days), I have been getting a flu shot every year for the last several years to help protect myself and others who are more vulnerable.

Chris: Did anyone but me actually look at your link? I looked at a few pages and many of the publications have nothing to do with influenza. In fact, of the 20 on the first page, only two have to do with broad safety studies. So there are not ‘over two thousand studies’ in that link.

squirrelelite: Thanks for the insult. Yep, I thinks tortoises is faster than hares because I seen it once!

sadmar: I “conveniently” didn’t list any symptoms because it’s none of your damn business! He got sick, he went to the hospital. That’s enough for you.

And my supporting evidence for flu vaccines being a guaranteed (what I actually said, not “significant” as you asserted) revenue is that the pharma companies continue to manufacture and push them on us. They wouldn’t do that without profit.

If you want to get a flu vaccine, it’s no skin off my nose. It’s well known that this site is in big pharma’s pocket, so just take anything that’s asserted with a grain of salt. That includes the comments.

It wasn’t “some” that didn’t match the search words. A full 90% weren’t about influenza vaccine safety, at least in a broad sense. And that’s on the first page, where the closest matches would be!

No. I have no idea how many of those vaccines caused reactions bad enough to require hospitalization. I just know of this one, and you’re not getting any documents on that.

My evidence for Scienceblogs being in pharma’s pocket? Seriously? This site has more drug company ads than my doctor’s office!

… or it could be winnowed down to just review papers.

^ You must also have an unusual doctor to have unsolicited junk mail left lying all over the place, as well.

“Don’t most doctors have posters, tongue depressors, etc. with drug company logos?”

Not my family doctor.

“Sorry, I thought most search engines sort by relevancy. My mistake.”

You don’t seem to understand how hard it is to program an unknown person’s intent, do you?

So, Mr. Keller, now that you know how to use the PubMed index, perhaps you can find the study that shows the vaccine puts people in the hospital more than the actual disease.

(key word generated ads are caused by the ad software scanning the article and putting up certain ads, they also are generated by web searches, like when I was looking for a new deep freezer, I kept seeing ads from various large kitchen appliances)

My doctor must get a lot of free stuff, I guess.

I’m sure none of the published studies would ever show any thing like that. They wouldn’t be allowed to be published. And, anyway, I can’t afford to buy those studies on PubMed. They cost from 40 dollars upward.

Let me get this straight in my mind. Tom Keller who wandered onto this blog tells us about his (unnamed) uncle who supposedly had a reaction from a seasonal influenza vaccine which resulted in hospitalization.

When sadmar asked for some additional information about the (unnamed) uncle’s symptoms and diagnosis, Tom Keller replies:

“sadmar: I “conveniently” didn’t list any symptoms because it’s none of your damn business! He got sick, he went to the hospital. That’s enough for you.”

Have I got it straight in my mind?

Don’t most doctors have posters, tongue depressors, etc. with drug company logos?

I haven’t seen so much as a memo pad in ages, but I infrequently visit private practices. Significant financial relationships now have to be disclosed under the Sunshine Act, FWIW, if one wants to take Medicare patients.

Tom Keller:

Since you haven’t told us what your uncle’s symptoms were, nobody except you is qualified to sort out which papers are relevant. I understand why you haven’t told us–it’s not your information to disclose–but without that, how can anyone answer “is this paper relevant?” The current set of possibly relevant papers is “those having anything to do with vaccination that discuss any side effect other than Guillain-Barre syndrome.”

Hmm, seems to me that Tom Keller does not comprehend how science blogs work. When you come to a science blog with your accusations and your anecdotal case study (n=1), of your uncle’s supposed reaction reactions to a seasonal influenza vaccine, you should be prepared to provide us with some details.

You’re worried about identity theft…because you have such an unusual name and other commenters on this blog will hunt you and your (unnamed) uncle down to loot your bank accounts and run up your credit cards? Really?

Emma, count your blessings. I know why the ads for yarn and ladies’ dresses show up, but why am I getting come-one for cholis, senior dating sites, and time shares in Abu Dhabi?

^ Rats, I knew I forgot something.

Fun fact: Yes, one does catch more flies with vinegar (although I’ve found balsamic to be a dud compared with apple cider).

@Narad, it depends upon the species of fly. Some are are exclusively drawn to sweet and nectar, other species you need rotting flesh. Botflies are obviously drawn in by sweat. I suspect horseflies are too, and pray you never get bit by a horsefly.

Guess you could call this a nit picking comment. **II******

lilady: I don’t know what your problem is, but please stop accusing me of lying.

Narad: Thank you. That study sounds like what I’m looking for. I’ll try to find it somewhere I don’t have to give out my email address.(I get enough junk mail and spam)

doug: Thank you for the info. My real concern is a lack of trust of the vaccine; for me and all of my relatives, I doubt any of us will take a flu vaccine in the future.

That’s your opinion. Surely you can understand that if you see a beloved family member get sick from a shot, that you might be leery of taking said shot yourself?

Yeah, I didn’t really understand what that meant.

Ooh, and what is the secret code up there in post #172?

Surely you can understand that if you see a beloved family member get sick from a shot, that you might be leery of taking said shot yourself?

Of course we can understand. That’s a completely normal human reaction. What people are trying to explain is that our normal human reactions are based on emotion and small sample sizes, and can lead us to making choices that seem to make sense from our guts and hearts but ultimately aren’t supported by more empirical facts. Which is why we need science.

I’ll try to find it somewhere I don’t have to give out my email address.(I get enough junk mail and spam)

Please review the part where I said “and yes, the first result from bugmenot-dot-com works fine.”

Yeah, I didn’t really understand what that meant.

Please tell me exactly what sort of problem connecting the two dots between “is available on Medscape and “bugmenot-dot-com” that you are having.

You’re the one who’s been complaining about paywalls and privacy.

“lilady: I don’t know what your problem is, but please stop accusing me of lying.”

Don’t you dare accuse me of calling you a liar Tom Keller. sadmar and a few other posters as well as me asked you for details of what you claim to be your uncle’s severe adverse reaction to an influenza vaccine, which required hospitalization.

You, in turn, refused to reply to our questions stating you were afraid of identity theft perpetuated on you and your “unknown uncle”. After that statement and the other uncalled for accusations you’ve made on this thread, I am now accusing you of lying. You’re full of yourself and full of it, troll.

(yes, I realize I may be giving way too much benefit of the doubt. call it a personality flaw.)

@sadmar Right, what I was thinking is in this case, emotion and extra weight to the sample of one is because it’s a “beloved uncle” not just “George, night shift manager of the supermarket on the other side of town.” If it were just human pattern matching for danger, wouldn’t the likely dozens of other people Tom Keller personally knows who have had flu shots (and, indeed, any flu shots he and his other family members may have had in previous years) lead to the conclusion that his uncle’s case was a fluke? I admit I am here giving the benefit of the doubt that his uncle’s illness was a bad reaction to the vaccine (given that adverse reaction do rarely occur) rather than assuming post hoc fallacy. Because the family decision to skip the flu shot is just as poor in the case where the vaccine was at fault as in the case where it wasn’t.*

Either way, I think my point that Tom Keller had a normal human reaction and your point that we’ve evolved to think that way are in violent agreement. 😉

*Unless all members of the Keller family have some heretofore unknown genetic anomaly that makes them particularly susceptible to hospitalization post-flu-vaccine, which seems vanishingly unlikely, so… yeah.

Hmmm, still do not see a reason to use anecdotes from some anonymous stranger on the internets in lieu of real medical advice from my family doctor.

Tom – Well, think about how many people you know who have had annual flu shots and have been perfectly fine, well, maybe a sore arm. That is by far the most common result. It sucks what happened to your uncle, but he’s part of a tiny minority, which you can probably see yourself through considering your circle of acquaintances, or further by looking at some of those studies Narad mentioned for even larger groups. People are much more likely to be hospitalized or die after getting the flu than after getting a flu shot.

Thanks for that link, Narad. After hacking in (thanks, Emma) I finally got to read the study. I’m not a doctor, but it was pretty straightforward.

I don’t know which vaccine my uncle received. My best guess would be a high dose (he’s in his eighties) of the inactive virus. According to the study, this showed more side effects than placebo, i.e. the vaccine was causing them. Side effects included his symptoms. Thanks, again!

Nope, and you wont get any, lilady.

I’m done with you and your accusations. Please stop harassing me.

“I’m done with you and your accusations. Please stop harassing me.”

And, I’m done with you and your false accusations. I am not a liar and I am not harassing you…and no one on this thread is going to steal your identity or the identity of your uncle.

Learn how a science blog works or just leave.

By that I mean, anyone who has any disagreement at all is made unwelcome. Way to convince people.

Keller, you came here looking for a fight and you got one. Why are you acting so surprised?

Tom Keller, you need to know how science blogs work.

When you came here with your pugnacious attitude and your childish unsubstantiate accusation/remarks, you should expect that some commenters are going to ask for some details about which type of flu vaccine your uncle received, which you claim “put him in the hospital” Lacking that information, lacking the symptoms which supposedly were associated to a severe adverse event, and, lacking a physican’s diagnoses for your uncle’s symptoms, you resorted to personal attacks against multiple commenters, calling them liars and harassers who might also be cyber thiefs. That’s a spectacular display of school girl taunts.

None of us believe anything you have posted, because we’re quite used to drive-by cranks and trolls who pull those same stunts.

A fight you were looking for and a fight you got. If you cannot master the art of posting cogent arguments with a the bare minimum of proof, perhaps you should consider taking leave of the arguments which you, and you alone, started.

I have called no one a liar.

Blow it out your backside, Michael. Every year, numerous people die from the flu. During the 1918-1919 epidemic, more people did than died during World War 1, which lasted 4 1/2 years.
Here’s my story: I developed a bout of flu one year that lasted 3 weeks and caused me to lose 9 kg. I survived, but it took months for me to recover. Not everyone is that lucky.

Okay, I looked it up. 96 for the 2013-2014 flu season. Not a lot, considering there are 73.6 million children in the US.

I agree with everything you say, but I just wish you had a more composed tone and didn’t sound so petulant and bitter. If only for the reason that I REALLY want Bill Maher to get himself informed. I like his show a lot, and most of his views, but I hate these alt-med views of his, and I feel like he IS open to listening to real information. You have to realize that the anti-vax rhetoric is incredible persuasive and intuitive sounding to many people, and he has read a lot of stuff that has made him nod along. It takes an equally deliberate, intuitive and persuasive effort to rebut that stuff effectively if you actually want to change minds. I know it’s easy to just mock someone and call them an idiot (I’m guilty of it), but if you are a real scientific mind with a unique ability to correct the misinformation, you’ve gotta do better than this. He would read this and say you’re trying to just “shout him down” and in some ways he’s right.

if you are a real scientific mind with a unique ability to correct the misinformation, you’ve gotta do better than this

Brett, I wonder exactly what you’re getting at here. Is it that you don’t understand “the information,” which would allow you to “rebut that stuff effectively if you actually want to change [Maher’s] mind[]”?

I mean, I couldn’t care less about Maher’s “mind,” and if this venue were of any concern to it, then it wouldn’t be you trying to stand in for it, or pleading that one just try to talk to it in a fashion that you think will be acceptable to it.

Then again, I think Big Atheia is occupies a place on the conceptual ladder near Vinu Arumugham, so perhaps I’m out of touch with the relevant fraction of his sub-100 viewership.