1. Comment #125473 by dazzjazz on February 11, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Well spoken, Bill, esp the line about how jesus would handle it. I just wish there was more from LKL.
Looking forward to the film.

Darren

Other Comments by dazzjazz

2. Comment #125474 by mbabbitt on February 11, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Bill Maher's a nice atheist face to have in the media, but the other day I heard him talking about his conspiracy theory about prescription drugs. He seemed to think we'd all be better off without modern medicine. Hopefully none of that nuttiness makes it into the movie, especially if it's widely viewed as an atheist manifesto of any kind.

Other Comments by mbabbitt

3. Comment #125475 by HourglassMemory on February 11, 2008 at 12:20 pm

I really hope his film loosens people up a little bit.
It's about time religion and faith got LAUGHED AT.
Perhaps this inspires other directors and screenwriters to write films that are critical of religion.
Perhaps one day, we'll have a major film that takes place during the Inquisition, and then gets an Oscar for best wardrobe or something.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

4. Comment #125496 by toddaa on February 11, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Bill Maher denies Germ Theory. Stop holding him up as a paragon of rationality. He's as bat shit insane as Tom Cruise.

Other Comments by toddaa

5. Comment #125498 by ChrisMcL on February 11, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Bill Maher is a deist, not an atheist. He has explicitly said that he is not an atheist and that he believes that there is a single god.

Still, I gotta love the the guy if only for the way that he goes after religion.

Other Comments by ChrisMcL

6. Comment #125500 by crich83 on February 11, 2008 at 1:15 pm

After his latest comments on medicine in fridays show, Im starting to question his assertion that he's a rationalist. I agree with him on religion, but he needs to stay away from medicine because he's beginning to sound like an irrational scientologist.

Other Comments by crich83

7. Comment #125503 by Gustaf Sjoblom on February 11, 2008 at 1:27 pm

I don't care much if someone calls himself a deist, it doesn't really matter.

I like him because he really knows how to make religion look exceptionally stupid, I think he does that better than any other comedian including others I normally find funnier such as Izzard, Black and Carlin.

Here he is very straigtforward and clear and gets the message across. Props to him for that.

Other Comments by Gustaf Sjoblom

8. Comment #125511 by sarah95 on February 11, 2008 at 1:53 pm

This little clip is now on my youtube account:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqo1a1CTf8w

for those of you who have trouble with QT.
enjoy!

Other Comments by sarah95

9. Comment #125521 by Teratornis on February 11, 2008 at 2:17 pm

I'd give a lot to overhear Bill Maher and Ann Coulter having phone sex.

Other Comments by Teratornis

10. Comment #125523 by Gymnopedie on February 11, 2008 at 2:18 pm

There is a grain of rationality to his criticism of prescription drugs, but he totally jumps off the deep end. Sure, people take way too many drugs and lack basic health education... but the drugs companies don't get together to scam every average Joe out of his pay check and poison his body.

On religion, though, he is pretty rational, although on the same show he went batshit on evidence based medicine he praised that complete and utter fucking nut case who practiced transcendental meditation to the Beetles and tricked people into a dangerous diet of water, berries, and nuts (or whatever the hell it was).

A very hit and miss guy, I think. His show is interesting every once in a while.

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

11. Comment #125544 by FreeThink25 on February 11, 2008 at 3:13 pm

but the other day I heard him talking about his conspiracy theory about prescription drugs. He seemed to think we'd all be better off without modern medicine.

Not quite the same. Modern medicine doesn't necessarily imply prescription drugs. If anyone doesn't think there's a problem with the current state of medicine, then they're not very informed. There's no money in healthy people who eat right and don't take prescription drugs. Go read The China Study by T. Colin Campbell..or anything by Dr. John McDougall. Most diseases of affluence can be turned off and reversed simply by diet and lifestyle (vegetarianism mainly). But these are cheap fixes and no one makes money off them. I think Bill Maher is right to draw attention to this. Prescription drugs reduce symptoms, but do not address causes of disease...that is his point. And when you consider the tremendous amount of money to be lost by doctors, big pharma, and the beef and poultry industries, it makes sense why people want to attack anyone who voices this theory.

And this....

He's as bat shit insane as Tom Cruise.

...is just foolish.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss his opinions on medicine until you're better read on the subject.

Other Comments by FreeThink25

12. Comment #125546 by Mango on February 11, 2008 at 3:14 pm

The entire interview is worth watching, if you are able to find it somewhere on the Web.

Other Comments by Mango

13. Comment #125550 by Steve Zara on February 11, 2008 at 3:20 pm

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss his opinions on medicine until you're better read on the subject.

I have a BSc in Biochemistry, and a PhD in Biology. I believe I have read enough.

Prescription drugs reduce symptoms, but do not address causes of disease...that is his point.

This is just nonsense. I just need to mention one word. Antibiotics. If it were not for such drugs, we would not have the luxury of considering primarily "diseases of affluence" in the Western World.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

14. Comment #125557 by toddaa on February 11, 2008 at 3:28 pm

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss his opinions on medicine until you're better read on the subject.

Right. He denies the efficacy of vaccinations because he denies Germ Theory and you're telling me I need to do research. He's just as batty as Tom Cruise railing against psychiatry. In short, he is anti-science.

It's one thing to be critical of the pharmaceutical industry and it's political power, but to deny the efficacy of science based medicine is irrational.

Other Comments by toddaa

15. Comment #125566 by Adam Morrison on February 11, 2008 at 3:43 pm

I haven't heard Maher's comments on medicine, so I can't judge that, but I liked his view of religion and will probably see the movie.

Hopefully this is a sign of secularism getting more attention. I know that more of my generation are atheists than most believe. Let's just hope people apply rational thought to everything, not just religion or faith.

Other Comments by Adam Morrison

16. Comment #125572 by BaronOchs on February 11, 2008 at 3:51 pm

sarah95 cheers as ever! I can't get quicktime to work on my PC.

Great shall be your reward in heaven!

. . .wait oh this is the other site scratch that . . .

Other Comments by BaronOchs

17. Comment #125576 by Gustaf Sjoblom on February 11, 2008 at 4:04 pm

" [...] to deny the efficacy of science based medicine is irrational."

Couldn't agree more. Turning away from real medicine and turning to pseudo-science is very dangerous. Its like cherrypicking the worst of religion and just go with it.

I must say that I as a non-american have no good picture what is really going on over there on these issues, but it really seems like you need to get things under control over there. :(


"Most diseases of affluence can be turned off and reversed simply by diet and lifestyle (vegetarianism mainly). But these are cheap fixes and no one makes money off them."

You are not really trying to blame the healthcare industry for Americas obesity are you? And I'm sure that you are not trying to say that they say that people shouldn't lose weight? If people don't know that its bad for you to eat fastfood and don't exercise then you have an educational problem.

Other Comments by Gustaf Sjoblom

18. Comment #125578 by FreeThink25 on February 11, 2008 at 4:06 pm

I didn't really have antibiotics in mind. And I don't think Maher did either. Infectious diseases are not really on the radar anymore when you're talking about disease-related death. It's the chronic ones...the ones of affluence...that are the focus. It's cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes.....

If Bill Maher specifically stated that antibiotics are bullshit, then I missed that, and would disagree. My point is that there are better alternatives than prescription drugs for the biggest causes of disease that I just listed.

Steve, I'm sure you're very well-read. In fact, I didn't ever say you weren't.

Other Comments by FreeThink25

19. Comment #125581 by GSP on February 11, 2008 at 4:18 pm

To say that antibiotics address the cause of disease is nonsense. And to have a PhD in such a subject is to say little more than you have been indoctrinated into the common "wisdom" of the discipline at the highest levels. It is sort of like a divinity degree; so you know a lot about god, does that make you right?

The fact that Western medicine has grown in the last few hundred years to see disease as something than can be cured is to reveal its irrationality as a discipline. Disease is something that cannot be cured, and modern medicine has utterly failed to reduce the number of diseases. It has had its victories in the elimination of certain diseases, but the number of disease has grown overall, not been reduced. And as the example of antibiotics has shown, evolution will always win out, given the opportunity.

Other Comments by GSP

20. Comment #125582 by Steve Zara on February 11, 2008 at 4:20 pm

Steve, I'm sure you're very well-read. In fact, I didn't ever say you weren't.

Well, the challenge for people who responded to you was there.

I didn't really have antibiotics in mind.

You did broadly mention "prescription drugs".

And I don't think Maher did either. Infectious diseases are not really on the radar anymore when you're talking about disease-related death.

They are. Many elderly people die of flu, against which why flu jabs are an important defence. (Maher disagrees, apparently)

It's cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes.....

My family has a tendency to develop cardiac disease - atrial fibrillation. Fortunately I don't suffer. However, this requires drugs to keep under control. It is not related to lifestyle. There are also many cancers that aren't lifestyle-related, such as childhood leukaemia, which can usually be treated effectively these days.

Maher may be not be against antibiotics, but he is anti-vaccination in general, which is, to be honest, nuts.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

21. Comment #125584 by Gymnopedie on February 11, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Maher also brings up an interesting point about the chlorination of our water supplies. I am unfamiliar with the subject, but I am curious as to how poisonous it is to our bodies and how effective the small doses are at killing bacteria and viruses in the water supply. I think reverse osmosis would be a much healthier alternative to dumping chemicals into the water supply, although far more expensive. Likewise, I am curious as to whether the fluorination of the water supply actually lowered the rates of tooth decay or it was the widespread oral hygiene movement that emerged at about the same.

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

22. Comment #125587 by Steve Zara on February 11, 2008 at 4:29 pm

To say that antibiotics address the cause of disease is nonsense.

If you have ever had a tooth abscess, like I have, you may end up with a prescription for very strong antibiotics. Trust me, you will be grateful.

Antibiotics work in many ways. Some disrupt the biochemical processes of bacterial growth. The penicillin-based ones ihibit the cross-linking of polymers in the cell walls. This weakens the structure of the walls, destroying it, and exposes the "naked" bacterium to hazards such as osmotic pressure.

The bacteria are the cause of the disease. The antibiotic kills the bacteria. Case closed, I would say.

And to have a PhD in such a subject is to say little more than you have been indoctrinated into the common "wisdom" of the discipline at the highest levels.

In science, it shows you are able to follow the strategies of science - to devise hypotheses, and experiments to test them. It shows you can perform those experiments, and analyse the data. It shows that you can discuss your ideas and your results verbally. It is hard, and many fail.

The fact that Western medicine has grown in the last few hundred years to see disease as something than can be cured is to reveal its irrationality as a discipline. Disease is something that cannot be cured, and modern medicine has utterly failed to reduce the number of diseases. It has had its victories in the elimination of certain diseases, but the number of disease has grown overall, not been reduced. And as the example of antibiotics has shown, evolution will always win out, given the opportunity.

I would be interested to know of what your agenda is here... what is your background? Before responding, I would be interested to know if it is worth it.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

23. Comment #125588 by crich83 on February 11, 2008 at 4:30 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdOjKiXIuYM&feature=related

Here is a video of Bill Maher talking about prescription medicine and antibiotics on his show this past friday. its about 2 minutes in after the steriods talk.

Other Comments by crich83

24. Comment #125591 by GSP on February 11, 2008 at 4:35 pm

I don't know that I necessarily have an agenda, and my background is a life-long critic of methods, ideologies, and practices, especially those that are culturally specific, that claim a monopoly on truth. My comments are generally in the interest of questioning supposed authorities on certain subjects. Nothing more.

Now I am interested. Do you, Steve (my middle name by the way, good name...), believe disease is something that can be cured?

Other Comments by GSP

25. Comment #125592 by Steve Zara on February 11, 2008 at 4:37 pm

I don't know that I necessarily have an agenda, and my background is a life-long critic of methods, ideologies, and practices, especially those that are culturally specific, that claim a monopoly on truth.

Well, I would claim that biochemists have a pretty significant monopoly on the truth of biochemistry. And a huge number of diseases and the methods of treating them are biochemical.

Now I am interested. Do you, Steve (my middle name by the way, good name...), believe disease is something that can be cured?

Some diseases can certainly be cured. I find that a very strange question. If you want specific examples of the biochemistry of certain diseases and how these problems can be fixed, I can tell you.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

26. Comment #125593 by B12 on February 11, 2008 at 4:38 pm

I'm new here and want to say hello to everyone.
If everyone enjoys the comedy of Bill Maher (aside from his crazy rants about medications), you would thoroughly enjoy a comedian named Bill Hicks. He's brilliant with his takes on religion, politics, and rationality.

Other Comments by B12

27. Comment #125597 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Maher is not even funny, just comes across as a smart ass IMHO.

Other Comments by Bonzai

28. Comment #125598 by LorienRyan on February 11, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Thanks Sarah95 for the link.

If anything Bill Maher is encouraging free speech and debate on important issues.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

29. Comment #125599 by GSP on February 11, 2008 at 4:49 pm

As opposed to the reductionist education you undoubtedly received, I supposed I am asking if you believe disease as a phenomenon can be cured.

BTW, toddaa, I just watched the youtube video put up by crich83 and Maher does seem to believe in germs.

Other Comments by GSP

30. Comment #125600 by Steve Zara on February 11, 2008 at 4:49 pm

If anything Bill Maher is encouraging free speech and debate on important issues.

I happen to think some of his views are dangerous. People will die if people start to share his dislike of vaccinations, and an insufficient proportion of the population is immune to certain diseases.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

31. Comment #125601 by GSP on February 11, 2008 at 4:55 pm

I happen to think some of his views are dangerous.

It doesn't however, follow from this that we should disallow freedom of speech.

People will die if people start to share his dislike of vaccinations, and an insufficient proportion of the population is immune to certain diseases.

How many people die each year from the vaccinations? Or from prescription drugs? The sad part is, as far as I know, there has been no study done on this latter question (one could speculate about the politics involved in actually doing one) but the estimates range up to 100,000 Americans per year die from the use/misuse/improper application of prescription drugs.

Other Comments by GSP

32. Comment #125602 by ssdexecutor on February 11, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Wow, did he say in that youtube clip that he doesn't believe in dilution of a substance?

Other Comments by ssdexecutor

33. Comment #125603 by SPS on February 11, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Really good clip! He has a talent for articulation.
I don't know too much about his thoughts on medicine, drugs, and the like. I do recall him saying in one of his shows on the topic of drugs something to the effect that it shouldn't be up to the government to tell us what we can put in our bodies.
While prescription drugs clearly have a positive impact on many people's lives I doubt the motivation of any pharmaceutical company has much to do in the way of helping humanity than it does in turning the largest profit possible. In recent months I saw a news program featuring a marketing company hired by pharmaceutical companies to come up with catchy names for symptoms which their drugs would treat (e.d.(erectile dysfunction), r.l.s.(restless leg syndrome), etc), in order to get people to ask their doctors about them. There's nothing wrong with treating symptoms, but I doubt they would be eager to give up their cash cows unless they can jump on a patent for a cure(s) or something. Even then, I'm sure they'd be running the numbers before pursuing one choice over another.

Other Comments by SPS

34. Comment #125604 by Steve Zara on February 11, 2008 at 5:00 pm

I supposed I am asking if you believe disease as a phenomenon can be cured.

There is no such thing as "disease as a phenomenon". Disease can vary depending on a point of view. For example, decades ago, homosexuality was considered a disease of the mind.

What is your motive here? If I said "yes", what would you say? If said "no", what would you say?

It doesn't however, follow from this that we should disallow freedom of speech.

That was not the point I was making.

How many people die each year from the vaccinations? Or from prescription drugs?

We have a good idea from history what proportion of populations would die without vaccinations or prescription drugs. For example, we know the past childhood mortality rate from diseases such as measles.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

35. Comment #125605 by toddaa on February 11, 2008 at 5:04 pm

If Bill Maher specifically stated that antibiotics are bullshit, then I missed that, and would disagree. My point is that there are better alternatives than prescription drugs for the biggest causes of disease that I just listed.

Not to beat this into the ground, but Maher has denied the benefit of all vaccines and antibiotics. On last week's show, he said that disease is caused by toxins in our body. Not viruses, not bacteria, but toxins. That is the opinion of a man who denies the overwhelming evidence of Germ Theory. In short, his attitude towards medicine is the same as the attitude of a creationist in light of the overwhelming evidence of evolution. Denial of evidence based reason.

Bill Maher may say some good things about religion, but he is not an advocate for science and reason. We need to find a better spokesman.

Other Comments by toddaa

36. Comment #125606 by Steve Zara on February 11, 2008 at 5:04 pm

I do recall him saying in one of his shows on the topic of drugs something to the effect that it shouldn't be up to the government to tell us what we can put in our bodies.

But that is vital in terms of vaccinations, as one person's choice affects another.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

37. Comment #125607 by LorienRyan on February 11, 2008 at 5:05 pm

"I happen to think some of his views are dangerous."

Me too. I'm glad I was vaccinated as a child, no say in the matter, but nonetheless glad. For instance, my younger brother was not vaccinated for measels as I was and suffered terribly as a consequence, plus the potential long term effects it can have, luckily he's ok.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

38. Comment #125614 by GSP on February 11, 2008 at 5:26 pm

I am not sure how to answer this. This is the second time you have asked me. Since you seem to think there is some motive underlying why I am questioning you, I wonder what you think it is?

I mentioned "disease as a phenomenon." By that I meant that the fact that we are talking about it means we have some sort of concept of "disease." That is all. I am assuming that you and I have the same concept of disease, that is, when we think of the human body functioning optimally, we think of it functioning without disease. This seems to be the idea underlying modern medicine; to rid an otherwise optimally functioning human body of this trait and restore it to what the body would be like without it.

So I am asking if you believe that what we call disease can be cured, and not on a reductionist model. It is interesting that you brought up the example of homosexuality. Only a few years ago, the majority of scientists would swear up and down that homosexuality was a disease which did have a cure. However, no scientific test could determine whether we defined homosexuality as a disease or not. The shift came not from any sort of scientific method, but from a paradigmatic shift in our zeitgeist. I wonder if you think this same thing could not happen for other traits we label "disease."

Other Comments by GSP

39. Comment #125615 by Goldy on February 11, 2008 at 5:35 pm

Disease is something that cannot be cured, and modern medicine has utterly failed to reduce the number of diseases

Sorry, coming in late here, but ...eh? So, that's why we in the west still have leper colonies and why we still die young. Indeed, western life expectancy is still in the 30-40 age group, because we die of what others call preventable and curable diseases...
Oddly, it has been a while since polio crippled a child or adult (my aunt is the last person in my family - got it in the early 50s) - for the evils of vaccination, more people would be suffering. Look at Nigeria, especially those parts that saw vaccination as a Western plot to sterilise them (I think that was the belief there).
Smallpox is also rampant, isn't it? Or is it...?
Sorry, but this is a load of utter tosh. A larger bucketful of poo I have never read. Steve has been very patient, as always, but come on - look around you. Do you see a goodly proportion of people with rather interesting gaits or skin conditions? Coughing blood delicately into hankerchiefs and look at brochures of retreats in the Swiss Alps? To say something as inane as that I have highlighted above makes me think you never leave your house. Tell me you are only playingthe devil's advocate - no one can be that ill informed!

Other Comments by Goldy

40. Comment #125616 by SPS on February 11, 2008 at 5:36 pm

Good point, Steve. Though, now that I think about it, he may have been commenting about drugs of the more illegal sort.

Other Comments by SPS

41. Comment #125617 by ivellios on February 11, 2008 at 5:39 pm

I am continually amazed at the amount of people who cannot even do a cursory check about the arguments they are trying to win. A simple google search can lead you to a wealth of information that could easily answer any question you may have.

For example - A search for Polio Comeback brought me to this page. #1 in my search. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060912-polio.html

Page 2 has some interesting paragraphs.

A global UN vaccination campaign launched in 1988 to eradicate the disease has been 99 percent successful, reducing the number of worldwide polio cases from more than 350,000 in 1988 to less than 700 in 2003.

And

But rumors about the side effects of the polio vaccine may also be amplifying the outbreaks...Some communities believe the polio vaccine makes children impotent and sterile. Press reports in Urduâ€"the language of many South Asian Muslimsâ€"have helped propagate the myths. In some areas of Moradabad, vaccination teams have even been attacked for trying to administer immunizations.

In Nigeria Muslim leaders suspended vaccination campaigns in 2003 because of rumors that the vaccine was laced with HIV and infertility drugs.

Which leads to

The latest estimates by the UN's World Health Organization (WHO) place the number of polio cases in India this year at 249, compared to just 35 in 2005.



To me that is a direct correlation between disease and vaccinations. And also the effect that a few people can have on the administering of said vaccinations.


It also seems that the benefit of same vaccinations outweigh the potential dangers that may or may not exist. Especially with the assumed # of people dying to be around 100,000 in the US when compared with the potential of 350,000 children under 5 contracting polio.

The same fears/rumors about autism and vaccines ALMOST made me not vaccinate my own children. Until I actually looked up some info and realized it was hogwash.

BTW the polio story links to a brilliant one about measles.

To shorten it

The World Health Organization estimates that some 450,000 people worldwide, mostly children, die from measles each year.

Another measles outbreakâ€"the largest in the U.S. in ten yearsâ€"occurred last year, when a 17-year-old Indiana girl contracted the disease on a trip to Romania.

After her return, the girl, who was not vaccinated for the disease, attended a church function with many others who were also unvaccinated.

Sixteen parishioners were infected, and they in turn infected others with whom they had contact.

Thirty-four people eventually got the measles, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Indiana outbreak struck another group of Americans at special risk from the measlesâ€"those who refuse to be vaccinated.

Some people shun vaccination because they believe that vaccines preserved with thimerosal, a mercury compound, can pose health risks such as autism.

The Washington, D.C.-based Institute of Medicine reports that no link has been established between thimerosal and autism and that the ingredient is being phased out of most childhood vaccines.


And to say that medicine cannot reduce the number of diseases is obvious and misleading. There will always be undeveloped countries in the world and rogue communities that will harbor these pathogens to be unleashed on some future unsuspecting people.

Other Comments by ivellios

42. Comment #125618 by Steve Zara on February 11, 2008 at 5:41 pm

I am not sure how to answer this. This is the second time you have asked me. Since you seem to think there is some motive underlying why I am questioning you, I wonder what you think it is?

Well, are you out to show that disease is just a point of view? Or that current scientific theories of medicine are false? Or that drugs are nothing but money-making schemes by Big Pharma?

If I were approached by someone who said "modern ideas of evolution are wrong", I would want to know if they were a creationist, or someone with a serious scientific point.

I am assuming that you and I have the same concept of disease, that is, when we think of the human body functioning optimally, we think of it functioning without disease. This seems to be the idea underlying modern medicine; to rid an otherwise optimally functioning human body of this trait and restore it to what the body would be like without it.

Optimal for what purpose?

Only a few years ago, the majority of scientists would swear up and down that homosexuality was a disease which did have a cure.

Not a few years ago, at least not in the UK or USA. We are talking decades.

The shift came not from any sort of scientific method, but from a paradigmatic shift in our zeitgeist.

No, it came largely from scientific method, especially the study of sexual orientation by Kinsey.

I wonder if you think this same thing could not happen for other traits we label "disease."

It depends on the trait.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

43. Comment #125619 by Goldy on February 11, 2008 at 5:42 pm

How many people die each year from the vaccinations? Or from prescription drugs? The sad part is, as far as I know, there has been no study done on this latter question (one could speculate about the politics involved in actually doing one) but the estimates range up to 100,000 Americans per year die from the use/misuse/improper application of prescription drugs.

I added my emphasis. Doesn't make the drugs wrong, does it. Sasme can be said of cars, socks, pans, needles, barbie dolls...

Other Comments by Goldy

44. Comment #125620 by GSP on February 11, 2008 at 5:43 pm

Goldy,

I meant it net terms. The number of diseases we have had in the West, since the invention of modern medicine, but more specifically, civilization, has increased rather than decreased, despite medicine's best efforts.

As for those other diseases you mentioned, we did not find a cure for them, we merely found ways to isolate those that had them to the point that the disease basically died out (this is of course a culture-specific statement, as this diseases still exist in other parts of the world).

As far as vaccination goes, this is not curing the disease, this is merely stopping it from never taking hold. I am not sure I would call this a cure. When I think of cure, I think of some sort of disease which takes hold in a body, from which we can then stop it from spreading or getting worse, put it into remission, and then have it never again appear in the same body.

Other Comments by GSP

45. Comment #125621 by Goldy on February 11, 2008 at 5:52 pm

but more specifically, civilization, has increased rather than decreased, despite medicine's best efforts.

Eh? Maybe in definitions - we no longer see malaria as a disease (or the feeling of not being at ease) from breathing bad air (mal aria). We don't think devils are the cause of headaches or seizures.
We are finding the cause of all these diseases. They have not increased - we have isolated them. Medicine's best efforts have made our lives longer and healthier - we as people do our damnest to shorten our lives by being stupid with our bodies (my opinion only).
As for not finding a cure for them - we can cure leprosy. Look it up. A kid at secondary school showed me his leprosy scars - but he was cured. He had it and now he doesn't.

As far as vaccination goes, this is not curing the disease, this is merely stopping it from never taking hold

I think you meant ever, not never. As the saying goes, prevention is better than a cure. Surely that is curing it too...if only by making sure it never takes hold. Maybe not a cure as you see it, but if it dwindles away to nothing, then it is a cure, a cure not of the body but of the species.

this is of course a culture-specific statement, as this diseases still exist in other parts of the world

Yes - poor people where there is no healthcare, no funding to provide said healthcare, odd religious beliefs that seem to suggest a shortcut to their heaven...

Other Comments by Goldy

46. Comment #125622 by Gymnopedie on February 11, 2008 at 5:52 pm

We have a freedom to control what we put into our bodies to a certain extent. When it starts to harm other people, that is where personal freedom ends. One example mentioned above is vaccination. Another good example is public smoking. I certainly have the right to not have to inhale another person's toxins, even though they have the right to consume it. This issue isn't quite cut and dry like Freedom of Speech is.

I wonder what exactly Maher advocates in place of science based medicine... homeopothy? Ionized magnets? Shamans? Prayer? Whoops, probably not the last one.

I think this entire conversation here brings up an important point: being anti-religion doesn't at all mean you are an advocate of science or reason. So many people I talk to interchange the words atheist and rationalist as if they mean the same thing.

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

47. Comment #125623 by GSP on February 11, 2008 at 5:52 pm

Optimal for what purpose?

This is not a teleological question. I find it hard to believe you will not agree with me as to what it means to be a functioning body without a disease.

No, it came largely from scientific method, especially the study of sexual orientation by Kinsey.

As I am sure we both know, Kinsey was notoriously biased and unscientific in his research. Surely you are not suggesting that unscientific studies can be used as a scientific basis for knowledge.

Other Comments by GSP

48. Comment #125624 by Steve Zara on February 11, 2008 at 5:53 pm

I meant it net terms. The number of diseases we have had in the West, since the invention of modern medicine, but more specifically, civilization, has increased rather than decreased, despite medicine's best efforts.

"Number of diseases" is hardly a sensible measure of anything. It equates smallpox with athlete's foot.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

49. Comment #125625 by CruciFiction on February 11, 2008 at 5:54 pm

Bill said more on this program before the segment above:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NEUNJrJ5I8A

Other Comments by CruciFiction

50. Comment #125626 by Steve Zara on February 11, 2008 at 5:55 pm

I think this entire conversation here brings up an important point: being anti-religion doesn't at all mean you are an advocate of science or reason. So many people I talk to interchange the words atheist and rationalist as if they mean the same thing.

Absolutely. Being anti-religion (or even just non-religious) does not imply you are an advocate of anything.

Other Comments by Steve Zara