• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Maher on Vaccines

SezMe

post-pre-born
SezMe
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
25,183
Location
Santa Barbara, CA
In this post, Maher makes the following claim:

Does the polio vaccine have the power to prevent children from getting polio, and did it indeed do just that in the 1950s? I believe it does, and it did. But polio had diminished by over 50 percent in the thirty years before the vaccine -- that's a pretty big fact in the polio story that you don't often hear and which merits debate.
Click to expand...

Well, he's right that I never heard that polio was decreasing prior to the development of the vaccine. I wouldn't know how to go about trying to check on this claim so do any of you know?

BTW, he makes some good points but overall I thought it was very, very poorly argued.
 
It depends on what you inlcude in the graphs. Most antivaxxers will only show the graph from 1950s where there is a general decline before the vaccine was introduced, but fail to show the incidence before this where the disease is clearly epidemic in nature, so there are peaks and troughs. it just happens that the vaccine was introduced when there was a downward trend.
 
Here you go..

http://www.post-polio.org/ir-usa.html

Also...

Randall Neustaedter, OMD
Dr. Bernard Greenberg, a biostatistics expert, was chairman of the Committee on Evaluation and Standards of the American Public Health Association during the 1950s. He testified at a panel discussion that was used as evidence for the congressional hearings on polio vaccine in 1962. During these hearings he elaborated on the problems associated with polio statistics and disputed claims for the vaccine's effectiveness. He attributed the dramatic decline in polio cases to a change in reporting practices by physicians. Less cases were identified as polio after the vaccination for very specific reasons.
Testimony...."Prior to 1954 any physician who reported paralytic poliomyelitis was doing his patient a service by way of subsidizing the cost of hospitalization and was being community-minded in reporting a communicable disease. The criterion of diagnosis at that time in most health departments followed the World Health Organization definition: "Spinal paralytic poliomyelitis: signs and symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis with the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart." Note that "two examinations at least 24 hours apart" was all that was required. Laboratory confirmation and presence of residual paralysis was not required. In 1955 the criteria were changed to conform more closely to the definition used in the 1954 field trials: residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days after onset of illness and again 50 to 70 days after onset.... This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer-lasting paralysis. Furthermore, diagnostic procedures have continued to be refined. Coxsackie virus infections and aseptic meningitis have been distinguished from paralytic poliomyelitis. Prior to 1954 large numbers of these cases undoubtedly were mislabeled as paralytic poliomyelitis. Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used.

From Intensive Immunization Programs, Hearings before the Committee on Interstate & Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, 87th Congress, 2nd Session on H.R. 10541, Wash DC: Us Government Printing Office, 1962; p. 96-97
Click to expand...

Edit : That explains the split in statistics.

http://books.google.com/books?id=_2..., whether or not any vaccine was used&f=false
 
Last edited:
How much influence would such control measures as closing schools and prohibiting public gatherings have on the statistics? I know that there were many such measures introduced in an attempt to control outbreaks that would have had some effect on the number of people exposed to the virus (my family was affected and was involved in such measures). Does anyone know how much that might have reduced the numbers of cases?
 
Think about the improvements in sewage systems during that time as well. They were fighting this disease (and others) on any fronts they were able.

An additional thought:
This guy only gets listened to by the skeptical community because he's a vocal atheist. Why should that make his completely insane opinions on medicine valuable? (Not saying he's wrong in this case, but generally speaking, the guy is a bit nuts.)
 
Last edited:
Thanks to back2basics and Capsid for the links. Useful reading. Niggle, your question is directly addressed in Capsid's link.
 
Wow. If that was Maher's attempt to show he's not anti-science when it comes to vaccines than it was an epic fail.
 
In the Netherlands in 1992-93, after 14 years with no endemic cases of polio there was an outbreak involving 71 persons. There were two deaths and 59 cases of paralysis. None of the patients had been vaccinated, most for religious reasons. No vaccinated person contracted the disease.
Click to expand...

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/immunise.htm

Measles in the USA:
Year: 1960
Polio: 441,703
Deaths:380

Year:1962
Polio: 481,530
Deaths: 408


Year: 1969
Polio: 25,826
Deaths: 41
 
Last edited:
I'm having a bit of trouble disseminating his "position" on the situation given that rambling nature of his article. So instead I'll just poke at the very first statistic he drops, which appears to be wrong.

"The British Medical Journal from August 25 says half the doctors and medical workers in the U.K. are not taking the flu shot"

I couldn't find such a statistic in any article published in the BMJ on August 25. I did however find one stating that willingness to accept a pre-pandemic H1N1 vaccine in Hong Kong hospital healthcare workers has recently risen to 47.9%.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full...=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&volume=339&resourcetype=HWCIT

Hong Kong is, of course, no longer under British rule. Also, why single out "doctors" and medical workers? Makes it sound a little more significant? No, just completely skews the perception. It could well be that all of the doctors are willing to have the vaccine, but other workers form the majority of those not wanting it.

A few lines above the mention of Hong Kong is this: "More than 75% of healthcare workers responding to a survey in Leicester, UK, indicated willingness to accept a pandemic vaccine." The only statistic I can see in the article directly relating to the UK.

My first introduction to Bill Maher's opinions was in Religulous, which was somewhat amusing. Now I begin to wonder if he's taken the position of atheism due to rational thought and skepticism, or just plain cynicism. His total misrepresentation of statistics (particularly your find on the polio stats there Eos of the Eons) leads me to think he sits more in the camp of cynicism, backed up by just plain old wrong data.
 
He actually seems to say very little about vaccines themselves in that article.

Many of the things he says on other topics in that article seem quite reasonable. But not what he says about vaccines.

In addition, my audience is bright, they wouldn't refuse a flu shot because they heard me talk about it, but if they looked into the subject a little more, how is that a bad thing? If they went to the CDC Web site and saw what's in the vaccine -- the formaldehyde, the insect repellent, the mercury -- shouldn't they at least get to have the information for themselves?
. . .
And it's precisely because I am a Darwinist that I fear the overuse of antibiotics, since that is what has allowed nasty killer bugs like MRSA to adapt so effectively that they are often resistant to any antibiotic we can throw at it. There are consequences to vaccines and antibiotics. Some people want to study that, and some, it seems, want to call off the debate.

Instead of setting up this straw man of me not understanding germs or viruses, let's have a real debate about how much we should use vaccines and antibiotics. Of course it's good that we have them in our arsenal, but isn't the real skeptic the one who asks if these powerful but toxic methods do harm to what actually is a a very good defensive system, the one you were born with?
Click to expand...

He conflates vaccines with antibiotics and worries about how they are supposedly "toxic" and contain "the formaldehyde, the insect repellent, the mercury." :rolleyes:

I there a word for an irrational fear of "toxins"? "Toxiphobia" perhaps? So much woo seems to focus on "toxins" and ways to "detox." I don't believe that our environment is nearly as "toxic" as these people make it out to be. Yes, there are some of course, but most of the really dangerous ones like asbestos, lead and methyl mercury have been identified already.
 
SezMe said:
Thanks to back2basics and Capsid for the links. Useful reading. Niggle, your question is directly addressed in Capsid's link.
Click to expand...

Thanks; I did read the linked page. It talked about improved sanitation, but that's not what I was talking about. I was referring to improved recognition of symptoms and subsequent isolation procedures, especially isolation of communities in which outbreaks occurred.

My aunt contracted polio at the age of nine; I'm not sure what year that was, but it would have been the early to mid fifties. Believe me, my family is really big on immunization. My father had talked about how the town had shut down the schools, closed the town pool, cancelled all public gatherings, etc., etc., etc. In talking to my aunt about it (I'm helping her with her memoirs), she corroborated those stories and added a few I didn't know, including one that was confirmed by accident when I was researching my grandfather's involvement with his ham radio club in town. It turns out that the club was responsible for keeping the town in contact with the outside world during the self-imposed quarantine.

I was wondering if those kind of drastic measures would have helped reduce the spread of the outbreaks, pre-vaccine. I have no idea how widespread such measures were, but I'll be asking around to see if my father or aunt knows (my father is quite a few years older than my aunt, I think at least 8 years, so he was more aware of what the "grownups" were doing than she was).

If there's any chance of such things helping, they could be used in the planning for a pandemic flu outbreak. I know there aren't so many ham radio operators these days, but the rampant use of the internet, cell phones, etc., would make that unnecessary.
 
The funny thing about polio is that it became more prevelant after increased sanitation. Before improved sewage and water systems most infants were exposed to polio virus while still protected by maternal immunity. But after modern improvements that exposure was delayed when it was more severe.

Anyway, I suspect Orac will have something to say about Maher's latest rant on Respectful Insolence. But in the mean time, down load this special edition of the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe about the H1N1 Pandemic: http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2009-11-15.mp3
 
Maher's a putz. I tend to take anything anyone on the board of PETA says with a metric tonne of salt.
 
Capsid said:
Her you go.

http://www.apologia.com/vaccines/vac_effective.html
Click to expand...

Nice link, although it boggles my mind how someone so fact-based and science-y can be a hardcore YEC... Seems a bit hypocritical to me, preaching that anti-vaxxers lie and misrepresent data, and in the next article he does the same with evolution. The human mind is truly a wonderful thing...

ETA: Oh, the guy also denies global warming. How on earth did he get it right with the vaccines?
 
Last edited:
jasonpatterson said:
An additional thought:
This guy only gets listened to by the skeptical community because he's a vocal atheist. Why should that make his completely insane opinions on medicine valuable? (Not saying he's wrong in this case, but generally speaking, the guy is a bit nuts.)
Click to expand...

Well, I certainly don't listen to him. Not even when he's talking religion, because in my opinion he is a bigot in this regard as well. Judging from output like Religulous his take seems to be that all religions are created equally ridiculous, except that some religions are more equal than others. (i.e. the ones he secretly likes are better than the ones he didn't grow up in.)

Therefore, he does certainly not speak for me just because I'm atheist.

Stephen Fry speaks for me, on most issues.
 
whatthebutlersaw said:
Well, I certainly don't listen to him. Not even when he's talking religion, because in my opinion he is a bigot in this regard as well. Judging from output like Religulous his take seems to be that all religions are created equally ridiculous, except that some religions are more equal than others. (i.e. the ones he secretly likes are better than the ones he didn't grow up in.)

Therefore, he does certainly not speak for me just because I'm atheist.

Stephen Fry speaks for me, on most issues.
Click to expand...

Actually Maher claims he's not an atheist. He believes in god but not in religion. Sounds like a semantic game to me.

He is a contrarian anti-authoritarian. Some of the positions he takes may coincide with a skeptical position, but that is just serendipity.They're not based on reason.

On health matters he's just out to lunch.
 
You're saying he's more like that kid in class that noted that the teachers liked it when the clever kids questioned what they said, so in a bid to seem more clever started talking back all the time without discernment? And then got surprised when it didn't work, but just got everyone annoyed with them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom