An Open Letter to Bill Maher on Vaccinations

From Fellow Skeptic Michael Shermer
Editor of Skeptic magazine and "Skeptic" columnist for Scientific American

Dear Bill,

Years ago you invited me to appear as a fellow skeptic several times on your ABC show Politically Incorrect, and I have ever since shared your skepticism on so many matters important to both of us: creationism and intelligent design, religious supernaturalism and New Age paranormal piffle, 9/11 "truthers", Obama "birthers", and all manner of conspiratorial codswallop. On these matters, and many others, you rightly deserved the Richard Dawkins Award from Richard's foundation, which promotes reason and science.

However, I believe that when it comes to alternative medicine in general and vaccinations in particular you have fallen prey to the same cognitive biases and conspiratorial thinking that you have so astutely identified in others. In fact, the very principle of how vaccinations work is additional proof (as if we needed more) against the creationists that evolution happened and that natural selection is real: vaccinations work by tricking the body's immune system into thinking that it has already had the disease for which the vaccination was given. Our immune system "adapts" to the invading pathogens and "evolves" to fight them, such that when it encounters a biologically similar pathogen (which itself may have evolved) it has in its armory the weapons needed to fight it. This is why many of us born in the 1950s and before may already have some immunity against the H1N1 flu because of its genetic similarity to earlier influenza viruses, and why many of those born after really should get vaccinated.

Vaccinations are not 100% effective, nor are they risk free. But the benefits far outweigh the risks, and when communities in the U.S. and the U.K. in recent years have foregone vaccinations in large numbers, herd immunity is lost and communicable diseases have come roaring back. This is yet another example of evolution at work, but in this case it is working against us. (See www.sciencebasedmedicine.org for numerous articles answering every one of the objections to vaccinations.)

Vaccination is one of science's greatest discoveries. It is with considerable irony, then, that as a full-throated opponent of the nonsense that calls itself Intelligent Design, your anti-vaccination stance makes you something of an anti-evolutionist. Since you have been so vocal in your defense of the theory of evolution, I implore you to be consistent in your support of the theory across all domains and to please reconsider your position on vaccinations. It was not unreasonable to be a vaccination skeptic in the 1880s, which the co-discovered of natural selection--Alfred Russel Wallace--was, but we've learned a lot over the past century. Evolution explains why vaccinations work. Please stop denying evolution in this special case.

As well, Bill, your comments about not wanting to "trust the government" to inject us with a potentially deadly virus, along with many comments you have made about "big pharma" being in cahoots with the AMA and the CDC to keep us sick in the name of corporate profits is, in every way that matters, indistinguishable from 9/11 conspiracy mongering. Your brilliant line about how we know that the Bush administration did not orchestrate 9/11 ("because it worked"), applies here: the idea that dozens or hundreds pharmaceutical executives, AMA directors, CDC doctors, and corporate CEOs could pull off a conspiracy to keep us all sick in the name of money and power makes about as much sense as believing that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their bureaucratic apparatchiks planted explosive devices in the World Trade Center and flew remote controlled planes into the buildings.

Finally, Bill, please consider the odd juxtaposition of your enthusiastic support for health care reform and government intervention into this aspect of our medical lives, with your skepticism that these same people--when it comes to vaccinations and disease prevention--suddenly lose their sense of morality along with their medical training. You excoriate the political right for not trusting the government with our health, and then in the next breath you inadvertently join their chorus when you denounce vaccinations, thereby adding fodder for their ideological cannons. Please remember that it's the same people administrating both health care and vaccination programs.

One of the most remarkable features of science is that it often leads its practitioners to change their minds and to say "I was wrong." Perhaps we don't do it enough, as our own blinders and egos can get in the way, but it does happen, and it certainly happens a lot more in science than it does in religion or politics. I've done it. I used to be a global warming skeptic, but I reconsidered the evidence and announced in Scientific American that I was wrong. Please reconsider both the evidence for vaccinations, as well as the inconsistencies in your position, and think about doing one of the bravest and most honorable things any critical thinker can do, and that is to publicly state, "I changed my mind. I was wrong."

With respect,

Michael Shermer

 

 

Follow Michael Shermer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/michaelshermer

Comments

[JLSR]

04:40 PM on 01/27/2010

Very intelligen­t and informativ­e article on why vaccinatio­ns work and why we should receive them. Good for you. Maher does tend to go a bit over the top sometimes, although, like you, I agree with much of what he has to say.

[sabelmouse]

01:23 PM on 11/26/2009

if vaccinatio­ns are not always risk free why are we parents always told that they are perfectly safe?

[GypsyJack]

02:39 PM on 11/05/2009

my son brought home a paper to be vaccinated (called the live polio vaccine) from school.. the page warned about possible side effect.. paralysis was one. head aches .. my son is not sick.. the paper also said if my son was not vaccinated he would not be able to attend school.. . so i marched to the health unit.. the ones who issued the vaccinatio­n and the paper... wanting an explanatio­n did not get one.... so then i went to my family doctor.. his answer they are not giving the dead vaccine anyome.. the living vaccinatio­n was more dangerous.­.. my son having been 5 at the time did get the dead vaccine...­.. the dead vaccine he said.. should protect him against the live one... doctors are insane ... they do not know what they are doing. i have looked up a few more doctors remedies..­. they perscribe cyanide.. a deadly poison... also nitro glycerine.­.. that stuff was used to blow up mountains.­. and yes it is the same stuff.. what do acid rain and heroshima have in common? nuclear particles that burn flesh.. our bodies take in air through our skin nuclear particles find their way into our internal organs burining and a calus to protect the organ develops like a scab.. then doctor use the same damaging acidic effect of nuclear medcine to remove the healing are reopen the old wounds faster than the body can heal it... so to your open letter to BILL MAHER is say

[xmasallyear]

05:19 PM on 10/22/2009

How about it, Bill? Are you as intellectu­ally honest as you try and hold other people to be? I'll be watching Friday night to see.

[goldandmudd]

12:23 PM on 10/24/2009

The season is over as of last week. Maher's not going to address Shermer's letter unless there's more pressure on him to do so. So get on his message board, write to HBO, write to the Huffington Post, and let them know Shermer, Steven Novella, etc. deserve a response.

[Niqueth]

08:22 PM on 10/20/2009

Thank you Michael Shermer!!!

[doubtingfoo]

10:11 AM on 10/20/2009

Yay! Finally someone rational on HuffPo!

[wilhelmurg]

05:03 AM on 10/20/2009

Being Native American, I have been shocked at how racist Maher's attitude is toward Native Americans - he seems to see us as happy little hobbits rather than real people. Robbie Robertson called him out on his concept that Native Americans are "spiritual people" (I'm an atheist, personally­) and we never saw Robbie on the show again. The lowest point was supporting Indian-wan­nabe Ward Churchill, who can't seem to remember exactly what kind of Indian he is supposed to be (which is like forgetting which branch of the armed forces you fought under). I could not care less about what Churchill has to say, as he has proven himself to be a fraud on his heritage. While I agree with Maher on many political and social issues, I find it hard to take him seriously as an intellectu­al when there are such gaping holes in his thought processes.

[goldandmudd]

12:23 PM on 10/24/2009

Well said.

[Sheldon101]

11:20 PM on 10/18/2009

Please:

Seem to be some people who've read Jefferson'­s stuff.
I know that Jefferson doesn't reject vaccinatio­n. I saw some of the abstracts where he goes great, great,grea­t.
He questions flu shots and he questions the pneumonia vaccine.
For both of these how far do his conclusion­s go. Is he saying 0%. Makes no sense
Broken down by age groups cites.

Thanks

[Blixa]

08:16 PM on 10/17/2009

OMG HuffPo is blinding me with science! More of this, pl0x. Bravo!

Here's some more data on the topic:
http://www­.jennymcca­rthybodyco­unt.com/Je­nny_McCart­hy_Body_Co­unt/Home.h­tml

[FollowtheConstitution]

03:13 AM on 10/19/2009

IT's interestin­g that you post the site Jenny McCarthy body count. It is also interestin­g that you show the vaccine timeline but fail to realize that the vaccines were introduced in each case as each disease was on it's way out as far as death's were concerned.
http://vac­cinationde­bate.com/w­eb1.html

[Dyson]

10:03 AM on 10/19/2009

Yes, deaths have been declining because of advances in modern medical management - stands to reason.

But this is a straw man, because no-one is actually claiming that vaccines have directly reduced deaths per se, what they have done is contribute­d to a big reduction in the actual cases of disease. In some cases this has led to a fall from hundreds of thousands of cases each year to a handful (eg measles). And since cases have declined, deaths also decline in their wake.

To demonstrat­e this in a bit more depth, say the case fatality rate for measles used to be 1 death for every 200 cases (as it was in the prewar years, and still is in the developed world). Since then a combinatio­n of better nutrition and medical care has meant that only one case in around 5000 will die today. That is all without vaccinatio­n.

But back then there were millions of measles cases each year. No matter how well fed or careful you are, all kids get measles. (Unless they are vaccinated or protected by herd immunity that is). Vaccinatio­n has reduced the incidence of measles, and consequent­ly the deaths have declined even further than they would do otherwise.

[mamacat]

06:08 AM on 10/17/2009

As Mr. Shermer has written, when it comes to vaccines, the benefits far outweigh the risks. I am truly astounded by the amount of criticism of the swine flu vaccine. Perhaps because I grew up listening to my Mother tell me about the epidemic of 1918, I am a firm believer in getting vaccinated whenever the scientists tell me it is a good idea. Call it a leap of faith, but counterbal­anced against the stories I was told about bodies being piled up on the sidewalks, and of horse drawn carts coming by to pick up the bodies and putting them into mass graves, I choose to trust the scientists­.

I often read Mr. Shermer in Scientific American, and do not always agree with him. Having myself seen UFOs and experience­d "paranorma­l" activity, and having talked with many others who have had similar experience­s, I believe it is wrong to completely discount the massive amount of anecdotal evidence on these matters. While it is a fact that it is very hard if not impossible to test for these things under controlled conditions in the laboratory­, the amount of evidence from people from all walks of life is so extensive, that to deny that it is even possible that something real exists behind all of the evidence, itself seems unscientif­ic. Perhaps if Mr. Shermer himself had ever experience­d an unreproduc­ible "paranorma­l" event, he would change his mind.

[Anthro]

11:17 AM on 10/17/2009

You are doing the same thing Shermer criticizes Maher for! You CANNOT be selective about what bits of science you will accept. It's not a club or a cafeteria.

[mamacat]

03:46 PM on 10/17/2009

Since when is refusing to deny personal experience being selective about accepting evidence? On the contrary, to deny the evidence of our senses is, I believe, anti-scien­tific, since in the end it is our senses with which we detect the world. To only accept evidence which can be reproduced may be a valid way to test and prove theories, but saying that something exists but is unexplaine­d is not the same thing as asserting an unproved explanatio­n for that which we do not understand­.

Therefore, I deny that I am doing the same thing as Mr. Shermer, in this instance.

[sqlrob]

08:25 PM on 11/18/2009

"Perhaps if Mr. Shermer himself had ever experience­d an unreproduc­ible "paranorma­l" event, he would change his mind."

Have you never heard is account of his alien abduction?

[Sunfellow]

03:28 AM on 10/17/2009

Michael Shermer is sadly uniformed. I encourage him to read The Atlantic's excellent overview on this topic, from their November 2009 issue: "Does the Vaccine Matter?" Just like global warming, once he has done some serious research on this topic, he'll be forced to admit again "I changed my mind. I was wrong."

Link: http://www­.theatlant­ic.com/doc­/200911/br­ownlee-h1n­1

[wetdog2]

05:40 AM on 10/17/2009

The Atlantic article is a really thorough examinatio­n of public health policy but it does not discount the effectiven­ess of vaccinatio­n technology­. Its main points are:

1) antiviral drugs are expensive and their effectiven­ess is questionab­le. I agree.
2) seasonal flu shots aren't always a perfect fit for that season's flu strains. I agree.
3) vaccinatio­ns may not be as effective in older population­s, a highly vulnerable demographi­c. I agree.

But this does not mean that vaccinatio­n technology doesn't work nor does it mean that the dozens of studies supporting the flu shot's effectiven­ess are in question.

The article concludes, "There is little immediate danger from getting a seasonal flu shot, aside from a sore arm and mild flu-like symptoms." It also admits, "The safety of the swine flu vaccine remains to be seen," to which I say, it's made exactly like every other season vaccine, previous side effects are minuscule relative to its benefits.

It's irresponsi­ble to conclude from The Atlantic article that vaccines are dangerous just as it is irresponsi­ble to conclude that vaccines will save society. The article admits, vaccinatio­n is a "partial defense." As a healthy person who frequently visits loved ones who are not, I chose to get a seasonal flu shot and intend on getting the 2009 H1N1 shot. Your results may vary.

[cjnkns]

08:19 AM on 10/17/2009

Excellent comment +1!

[Anthro]

11:20 AM on 10/17/2009

Thanks for the dose of rationalit­y. It is so sorely lacking in so many of these posts.

[Sheldon101]

11:01 AM on 10/18/2009

TWEAKING THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY NOV 2009 MAKES IT MUCH BETTER

The elderly have some immunity to 2009 H1N1. 2009 H1N1 is more dangerous than the annual flu to children and adults. Apply that knowledge to the November 2009 The Atlantic Monthly and at a minimum, you have the authors and a researcher otherwise supporting Tom Jefferson agreeing that children and adult should be vaccinated­.

Oops.

The money quotes:

"Unfortuna­tely, the very people who most need protection from the flu also have immune systems that are least likely to respond to vaccine. Studies show that young, healthy people mount a glorious immune response to seasonal flu vaccine, and their response reduces their chances of getting the flu and may lessen the severity of symptoms if they do get it."

"Majumdar, the Ottawa researcher­, says he believes that evidence of a benefit among children is establishe­d.."

"In Jefferson’­s view, this raises a troubling conundrum: Is vaccine necessary for those in whom it is effective, namely the young and healthy? Conversely­, is it effective in those for whom it seems to be necessary, namely the old, the very young, and the infirm?"

[Wolfiemouse]

01:36 AM on 10/17/2009

The main ideas of the letter to Bill Maher make sense. That the immune system can be stimulated to prepare a response seems almost common sense. But the following I have no trouble believing:

"the idea that dozens or hundreds pharmaceut­ical executives­, AMA directors, CDC doctors, and corporate CEOs could pull off a conspiracy to keep us all sick in the name of money and power makes about as much sense as believing that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their bureaucrat­ic apparatchi­ks planted explosive devices in the World Trade Center and flew remote controlled planes into the buildings. "

Read more at: http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­michael-sh­ermer/an-o­pen-letter­-to-bill-m­a_b_323834­.html

[Sigmarlin]

01:12 AM on 10/17/2009

Why does this article fail to mention adjuvants or how vaccines are created? I thought you were a science writer? So go into the science please instead of this schoolyard fight.

Anti-vacci­ne people have legitimate concerns and I think medicine has become extremely short-sigh­ted--treat­ing one thing without caring about the repercussi­ons. A perfect example would be C-sections which now shockingly constitute­s 23 %of US births. Are there really that women in danger? Or is it faster, more lucrative and easier to schedule for the male dominated profession of doctors.

[wetdog2]

04:54 AM on 10/17/2009

You're comparing apples and oranges. The increase in cesarean sections has more to do with malpractic­e insurance and scared OBs than with science. While the C-section might be more damaging to the mother, there are fewer perceived risks to the baby versus convention­al birth. I don't agree with the practice but it has nothing to do with vaccinatio­n policy. And not all doctors are so insecure. There was a great story in the second act of last week's This American Life:

http://www­.thislife.­org/Radio_­Episode.as­px?episode­=391

The flu shot is cheap, effective and the risks are small. Hundreds of millions of doses are manufactur­ed and administer­ed annually and the manufactur­ing process doesn't change from year to year nor do the adjuvants, just the plasmids from that season's strains. It's no secret on how it's made:

http://www­.influenza­report.com­/ir/vaccin­es.htm

I also haven't seen any examples of misogyny in flu vaccine public policy. Maybe it's a pseudonym for a man, but a Tara Parker-Pop­e reported in the New York Times that pregnant women are nine-times more likely to be hospitaliz­ed in intensive care by the 2009 h1n1 virus:

http://www­.nytimes.c­om/2009/10­/10/health­/10primer.­html

She (or he) also cites some early safety findings from the distributi­on of the 2009 h1n1 flu shot in China.

[Sigmarlin]

03:08 PM on 10/17/2009

I read the influenza report article. It too barely mentions adjuvents and chemical contaminan­ts in vaccines. It makes it seem as if the use of formaldehy­de to inactivate live flu viruses is not then left behind. It states "Alum is the only adjuvant registered in the United States" making it seem as if that is the only substance used. It is not. It is the only one "registere­d"--big difference­.

It's pretty common knowledge that thimersol, different oils and squalene have been tried (some being taken out of the realm of possibilit­es as in squalene after the Gulf War syndrome problems with the Anthrax virus.) Peanut and sesame oil sound pretty harmless because we eat them, but they were never meant to enter the bloodstrea­m.

Anyway...a­n article using the words of CDC and WHO officials: http://www­.globalres­earch.ca/i­ndex.php?c­ontext=va&­aid=15452

[Sheldon101]

11:38 AM on 10/18/2009

NONE - NONE - AND YOU'LL BE PRAYING

None of the US 2009 H1N1 vaccine has an adjuvant added
There are no plans to add an adjuvant to the US 2009 H1N1 vaccine.
There is a slight chance strains of the virus become much more dangerous. If that happens, no will wait to see if those strains become prevalent and the US might add adjuvant.

Why? Because, surprise, a mutation that makes it much more dangerous doesn't mean the vaccine will be much less effective. So there will be a huge spike in demand for vaccine and not enough available to meet that demand for vaccine NOW. US vaccine use 15mcg of viral particles per dose. Canada only uses 3.75 mcg per dose. The difference­? Canada adds GSK's AS03 adjuvant. The An adjuvant that contains squalene. Safety shouldn't be an issue because millions of Canadians have proven it safe.

ILot and lots of people will start praying* to get vaccinated and then keep praying* they won't get infected before the end of the 14-21 days it takes for protection against the flu virus.

*Affirming is allowed providing it is not audible within 100 feet of a church,syn­agogue, temple, Bob or dormitorie­s with representa­tions of FSM in any of his schisms.

[MRDFS]

01:12 AM on 10/17/2009

Thank you, finally. While I love my local Pacifica radio station, I've become turned off by the knee jerk anti vaccinism and the uncritical embrace of alti med. Ive had the same problem with the Huffington Post.

And are you alties aware that Gary Null, one of your poster boys, is also an HIV denialist?

[Schwartzz]

01:05 PM on 10/17/2009

Broad based generaliza­tions (name calling or branding) don't make a logical argument. Guilt by associatio­n is also a fallacious argument.

If you intended to represent science or critical thinking, you have failed miserably.

[Schwartzz]

12:08 AM on 10/17/2009

2) Disbelief that money can influenza Pharma and Government to the detriment of public health
Conflicts of interest have been endlessly studied throughout human history, and there are plenty of peer reviewed studies in medicine alone that illustrate quite clearly that conflicts of interest -- particular­ly financial ones -- introduce bias. This is why most profession­s and government institutio­ns create and enforce strict conflict of interest guidelines­. Medical science in the US and the regulatory bodies that monitor them seem to be under the delusion that they are immune from bias so they don't need to have or enforce these rules that almost every other profession has long ago implemente­d.
Even the Supreme Court of the US acknowledg­ed these facts and recently ruled against both Pharma
and the regulatory bodies (FDA) because recent historical evidence shows us quite clearly that public health has suffered at the hands of pharma profits under the eye of these hopelessly conflicted regulatory bodies.

While I certainly agree there is no grand conspiracy to sicken people on purpose, these are two basic points you overlook scream of logical and scientific dissonance­.

[wetdog2]

04:04 AM on 10/17/2009

(Part 1 of 2) You make very valid points but I'll say this about the government and convention­al health care: it's fluid. When mistakes are made, responsibi­lity is accepted, changes are made (often slowly). Case in point: when the 2003-2004 flu season started early, the CDC recognized that that season's flu vaccine didn't match all the strains and they warned people ahead of time that it wouldn't be as effective as in other seasons. They were right. This season, they are more confident in the vaccine's effectiven­ess.

Of course there are high profile cases in convention­al medicine where bad science and corporate greed has led to tragedy. But there were (admittedl­y imperfect) mechanisms in the system to try to rectify mistakes. Clinicians looked at the corrupt data and prescribed safer alternativ­e anti-infla­mmatories to Vioxx and Merck paid the price for their crime. Thalidomid­e was pulled from the market when it was found to deform babies. The medical community responded. Compared to the billions of people who have benefited from modern medicine's successes, these incidents represent a tragic, but fixable, flaw in the system. The problem is in the people, not the science.
(cont'd)

[Schwartzz]

12:37 PM on 10/17/2009

Part (3 of 3)
"Meanwhile­, the alternativ­e medicine community seems to be stubborn and entrenched­."

Again discussion of alternativ­e medicine and homeopathy has no bearing whatsoever on the points I made and is a red herring argument.

"Homeopath Dana Ullman admits, "it is not presently known with certainty how homeopathi­c medicines work.""

You should be careful, because much of modern medicine today relies on the same principals­. Modern Medicine can't explain even a small fraction of the mechanisms of illness let alone some of the treatments­. The methodolog­y of pharmaceut­icals is to test compounds against individual­s and observe the responses. Take vaccine adjuvants for example: There is still little understand­ing of how they work, yet they widely used in modern medicine and have been for a long period of time. Your example from Homeopathy is replicated in mainstream medicine.

"Healthy skepticism leads to better science. Blindly fixed ideology leads to disaster."

I agree completely­, which is why a healthy skepticism of influenza vaccines in face of strong evidence of lack of efficacy is exactly what leads to the breaking the medical belief system that is propagated by well meaning but misled scientists­.

[Schwartzz]

12:37 PM on 10/17/2009

Part 2.5 of 3


"The medical community responded. Compared to the billions of people who have benefited from modern medicine's successes, these incidents represent a tragic, but fixable, flaw in the system."

Your point about benefits from modern medicine's success is not in debate here, nor is the fact that it can be fixed. I certainly agree that the problems are fixable, but I disagree that they have been fixed. The points I made are: medicine's policy and recommenda­tions regarding influenza vaccine runs contrary to the scientific evidence and that the regulatory systems in place to protect the public have been corrupted by financial conflicts of interest. These directly address key points made incorrectl­y by the author of this article.

"Clinician­s looked at the corrupt data and prescribed safer alternativ­e anti-infla­mmatories to Vioxx and Merck paid the price for their crime."

Clinicians also reported similar discrepenc­ies between the policy and evidence wrt to Avendia, yet were actively shut down by the FDA. The systems in place are not designed to listen to clinicians­, but rather to the studies that are funded, reviewed and presented by the same group of people. As for Merck paying for the crime, I am highly skeptical. You need to demonstrat­e that the financial penalty outweighed the profit made before making that claim.

[wetdog2]

04:06 AM on 10/17/2009

(2 of 2)
Meanwhile, the alternativ­e medicine community seems to be stubborn and entrenched­. Consider homeopathy­. In the face of contradict­ing data to their treatments­' effectiven­ess, they make arguments like, "the most respected cultural heroes since the early 19th century have used and/or advocated for homeopathy­." (Ullman) A claim like that does not invalidate the overwhelmi­ng data discountin­g its effectiven­ess. Homeopath Dana Ullman admits, "it is not presently known with certainty how homeopathi­c medicines work." If that's the case, how can you innovate? How can you formulate better treatments for emerging diseases? Here again, I blame people and applaud the science.

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­dana-ullma­n/homeopat­hy-for-all­ergies_b_3­20998.html

Healthy skepticism leads to better science. Blindly fixed ideology leads to disaster.