Bill Maher: Drugs are poison.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Did anyone watch Bill Maher last Friday and see him go off on his anti-medication tirade? Until then, he was almost my ideological ideal, but this shocked the hell out of me. He could have given Tom Cruise a run for his money, except that Cruise speaks out mainly against psychotropics. Bill Maher seems to condemn everything that comes in a capsule or pill. The topic came up, IIRC, with the overdose death of Heath Leger. Through Maher's rant, I was waiting for him to say "in excess amounts" or "when used in a manner contrary to prescriber's instructions.", but any such qualifier or disclaimer was never given.

Of course drugs are poison, dipshit! That's why they tell you how much to take and why you're not supposed to take more than that, and also why you're supposed to tell the doctor or pharmacist about everything else you're taking.

[scout1222]

I'm curious to know how he feels about the illegal types of drugs. I had him pegged as a pro-marijuana type.

[Liberal]

Maher has moved increasingly leftward over the years.

[Wee Bairn]

Kevin Treudeau will be quoting excerpts from the rant on the jacket of his next book. Maher has always been pro marihuana, who knows, maybe now he's turning into Dennis Miller.

[Spoke]

Maher has moved increasingly leftward over the years.

This isn't "leftward." It's just nuts.

His guests seemed really taken aback by his rant, too.

And it was especially odd coming from someone who has been a vocal advocate of illegal drug use over the years. (The illegal stuff is more "natural," I guess?)

[ArizonaTeach]

This isn't "leftward." It's just nuts.Some of us don't see a difference. :D

I thought he was acting kind of strange when he ranted off about the writers' strike a month ago. I guess he's really, really determined not to be pigeonholed into anyone's expectations.

[Baldwin]

Maher is a crackpot when it comes to medications and health; whenever the subject has come up on his show, he's gone into a little rant about it. He doesn't believe that antibiotics or vaccines save lives; I think he also doesn't understand the difference between the two.

Odd how somebody can be so right and logical (i.e., agree with me) on a lot of issues, and be a total crackpot (that is, not agreeing with me) on this one subject.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Maher has a few nutty hobbyhorses. Prescription drugs is one. Meat is another (Maher is a member of PETA). Corn syrup is another. Basically, he tends to have some extreme views on health issues.

[kidchameleon]

Well, in a way he's right, they are poisons. But that's not to say poisons can't be useful in improving health.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

This isn't "leftward." It's just nuts.

His guests seemed really taken aback by his rant, too.

And it was especially odd coming from someone who has been a vocal advocate of illegal drug use over the years. (The illegal stuff is more "natural," I guess?)

Opposing the drug war or even advocating legalization is not necessarily the same as advocating use. Myself, I'm as pro-marijuana as the next guy but don't accept the idea that "natural" remedies (i.e. powerful chemical compounds occurring in uncertain doses in leaves and roots) are necessarily better than a controlled dose from a pill. That's not to say that an herbal product is never better than a manufactured pill, especially if we don't sufficiently understand how all the chemicals in the natural plant work together. I think cannabis might be a good example of that.

People forget that "natural" remedies are also drugs. The pharmacopeia is replete with "drugs" that come from plants, and if you use the corresponding raw plants, you're using the drugs whether you admit it or not. I note that the product "Sleep MD" claims to be drug free, but contains passionflower, Valerian root, and hops. That's like saying, "I'm not drinking alcohol--it's just a little brandy, bourbon, beer, and wine."

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Well, in a way he's right, they are poisons. But that's not to say poisons can't be useful in improving health.

This was what I thought he was starting out to say, more or less.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Maher has a few nutty hobbyhorses. Prescription drugs is one. Meat is another (Maher is a member of PETA). Corn syrup is another. Basically, he tends to have some extreme views on health issues.


PETA? God no.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Opposing the drug war or even advocating legalization is not necessarily the same as advocating use.
Maher is pretty up front about being a pothead himself. He makes a lot of jokes about it.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

I'm curious to know how he feels about the illegal types of drugs. I had him pegged as a pro-marijuana type.

To be fair to marijuana, that doesn't appear to be poison in the sense that a lethal dose has ever been determined. Unless there's some new data I'm unaware of, no one has ever died as a acute physiological result of ingesting cannabis, the way people have by overdosing on other drugs.

[Blaster Master]

This is not new for him. He's had this whole anti-medicine thing going for a LONG time. I did happen to see this particular rant though. It seems to me he's rather contradicting himself, he refers to any medicine by the pharmaceutical companies as poison in any amount, but then goes on to say they're useful in emergency situations. So which one is it?

No one is suggesting that people should take anti-biotics as a preventitive measure, you take them WHEN you get sick, which WILL happen from time to time, even if you're extremely healthy. Sure, I'd rather take herbs and exercise and eat well than take a bunch of medications, but isn't that pretty much what the health care industry says too?

Now, that's not to say there isn't some validity to his argument, in that drugs are a poison, but only because there seems to be a tendency to over-medicate. His comparison of little bits of chlorine in drinking water to drinking bottles of chlorine is completely assinine. IIRC, eating too much beta-carotine turns your skin an orangish hue; does this mean we should avoid it because it does bad things in large amounts? Or how about iron, it's entirely possible to get sick from having too much iron in your diet but, clearly, iron is essential.

I appreciate the whole holistic, naturalistic approach, but this is a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water. If you want to espouse your views, fine, but you're just making your panel members and your audience uncomfortable, because they all think you're a whack job when you bring it up, but few of them come prepared to defend their positions on that. If you want to make it an issue, inform your panelists beforehand and have a reasoned, informed, and supported debate about it. A bunch of random unsupportable assertions just makes you look like an idiot.

[Baldwin]

The rant started when Maher was talking with his panel (or Bob Costas, anyway) about steroid and Human Growth Hormone abuse in pro sports. Maher declared that anybody who eats meat in America is already ingesting HGH, and then started talking about Heath Ledger, and said that all prescription drugs are poison.

One of his guests (a conservative columnist for the New York Times, I forget his name) said, 'Well, a handful of antibiotics might kill me, but the right amount could save my life." Maher responded "You're wrong!" and went from there. It was a bit bizarre. He's even argued on the show with an expert from the CDC, who tried to set him straight on some basic medical points.

ETA: I was just thinking about how my mother almost died from rheumatic fever as a child, and her mother almost died from polio. People used to live in fear of those or a dozen other diseases that might steal their child away at any time; I don't know just how Maher accounts for their near-disappearance in the industrialized world.

[Blaster Master]

To be fair to marijuana, that doesn't appear to be poison in the sense that a lethal dose has ever been determined. Unless there's some new data I'm unaware of, no one has ever died as a acute physiological result of ingesting cannabis, the way people have by overdosing on other drugs.

IIRC, (no cite, but I believe I read it on NORML's website) there is (or was, at the time) exactly one case of someone ODing on THC, but it occurred from actually using it in a more purified form, and it took magnitudes more than would normally be needed to get high, and certainly long after the point where all the impurities in the smoke would have given the user a nasty headache.

Either way, it's interesting that Marijuana is just fine, but anti-biotics will kill you. I dunno how he manages to justify that to himself.

[Blaster Master]

ETA: I was just thinking about how my mother almost died from rheumatic fever as a child, and her mother almost died from polio. People used to live in fear of those or a dozen other diseases that might steal their child away at any time; I don't know just how Maher accounts for their near-disappearance in the industrialized world.

IIRC, a lot of the anti-vaccine, anti-medication culture accounts for it with improved hygiene and cleanliness. I certainly agree that it's a factor, as I'm sure most doctors would, but to completely ignore the correlation, time and again, of a major epidemic, a vaccine, and it being quickly contained is just silly. What sort of major thing happened with regard to cleaniness that could account for polio? It's not they invented soap, or anything.

I think it's really just the logical extreme of the idea that there's a bunch of people in the medical industry to make money, not to save lives, and so it logically follows that some of the medications and procedures are either under tested, ineffective, or over used. Sadly, it looks like some people have decided that the entire industry is corrupt, and that EVERY procedure or medication is bad for you.

Didn't someone mention Kevin Trudeau up thread? I'd REALLY be interested to know what Bill thinks of him, because AFAICT, they seem to share pretty similar beliefs about the medical industry.

[Marley23]

I guess he's really, really determined not to be pigeonholed into anyone's expectations.
He is, to the degree that it's irritating. I stopped watching his show years ago because I felt like he was more interested in being a contrarian than in making sense, even though he was pretty funny sometimes.

[Guinastasia]

Maher has moved increasingly leftward over the years.


What does this particular position have to do with being "leftward"? Seriously, Lib, I'm not being snarky.

[Liberal]

What does this particular position have to do with being "leftward"? Seriously, Lib, I'm not being snarky.Okay, I'll try not to be snarky too. What I've been trying to explain to you is that you don't follow the flow of threads before shooting from the hip sometimes. Here, for example. My post was #3, and it was responding to #2, which talked about Maher's views on prohibition laws. He used to be much more conservative (he supported Bob Dole in 1996) — thus, the observation that he has moved leftward.

[Jackmannii]

Bill Maher has a lot of nutty ideas about medicine and health.

In addition to the drug/vaccine goofiness, Bill doesn't believe in the germ theory of disease.

Got that? Everything medical science has learned from Pasteur through present times is wrong, Bill knows better. A quote on the subject of microbes and vaccination (http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/03/is-bill-maher-really-that-ignorant_07.html):

"I don't believe in vaccination either. That's a... well, that's a... what? That's another theory that I think is flawed, that we go by the Louis Pasteur theory, even though Louis Pasteur renounced it on his own deathbed and said that Beauchamp(s) was right: it's not the invading germs, it's the terrain. It's not the mosquitoes, it's the swamp that they are breeding in."

Oh, the swamp that is Bill's brain. In case you think his views are especially bizarre, I have actually run into Beauchamp believers on other forums. And of course obsessive antivaxers are all over the place.

[WhyNot]

IIRC, a lot of the anti-vaccine, anti-medication culture accounts for it with improved hygiene and cleanliness.
This is a main point, and the other being a belief in "disease cycles" - that is, that there are rises and falls in disease rates, vaccinations or no, and that pertussis, polio, et al were declining or going to decline right when mass vaccinations began, and that current outbreaks among the immunized shows that the disease cycle may be moving into a period of growth again and vaccinations won't stop that.

Another point you often hear is that most of the vaccine preventable illness - measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox and whooping cough in particular - are just not that severe or life threatening in most cases, and letting your child acquire them naturally confers stronger and more long term immunity than vaccines.

Almost all the staunch anti-vac people I know have shared the number of the doctor in town who will offer selective vaccination (which is actually against state law - here it's either everything or nothing, based only on your religion), and everyone gets polio, regardless of their political stance. That one scares even the granola crunchers.

I'm NOT going to defend the anti-vac position, so don't ask. I'm just telling you what's out there in the anti-vaccination crowd. For a better and more thorough explanation, check out Aviva Romm's Vaccinations: A Thoughtful Parent's Guide (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=1aH-hwag6qAC&dq=aviva+romm's+vaccinations&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=YguDH7WPUT&sig=9wLHsmGG1Ez5P6ZHCmiCc-DmQMQ#PPA24,M1). It presents BOTH sides of the debate in what I think is a fairly balanced and thoughtful manner, with cites and everything. It's a good insight into the anti-vac brain without being so over the top as to make you throw the book away in disgust without reading it. (I think.)

[gonzomax]

There was a story that just came out saying more people are dying from prescription drugs than street drugs now. He was fired up about that.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/47945.php Plus Ledgers death apparently was due to a combo of prescription drugs.

[Revtim]

He went off against vaccines once and Dave Foley pointed out the success of the polio vaccine. He had no response, IIRC.

Like Baldwin, I agree with a lot of what he says (and hence he is right on those issues ;)) and that makes it a bit of a surprise when he goes flying off to bizarro world.

[miss elizabeth]

Okay, I'll try not to be snarky too. What I've been trying to explain to you is that you don't follow the flow of threads before shooting from the hip sometimes. Here, for example. My post was #3, and it was responding to #2, which talked about Maher's views on prohibition laws. He used to be much more conservative (he supported Bob Dole in 1996) — thus, the observation that he has moved leftward.
How the hell is anyone supposed to know you are responding to post #2 instead of the OP? It's not like you quoted it or anything. Why don't you follow the flow of how people actually post, and not blame Guin because she isn't a mind reader?

By the way, condescending isn't really better than snarky. :rolleyes:

[Jackmannii]

This is a main point, and the other being a belief in "disease cycles" - that is, that there are rises and falls in disease rates, vaccinations or no, and that pertussis, polio, et al were declining or going to decline right when mass vaccinations beganWow, how convenient. :rolleyes:

If you want facts without false "balance" ("well, some say vaccination is useful, and others say it is useless and DANGEROUS"), go to cdc.gov or check out a comprehensive list of sites offering useful evidence-based views and advice on immunization such as this one. (http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/gl/vaccines1.htm)

Getting back to Bill Maher, since he is full to the brim of quacky health ideas, I started to wonder if he was a Ron Paul supporter (Paul is a hero to alties, thanks to his opposition to mandatory vaccination, the FDA etc.). Sure enough, Ron Paul is apparently Bill Maher's hero (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYDt7kC3Z0) too.

[Liberal]

How the hell is anyone supposed to know you are responding to post #2 instead of the OP?Because it was post #3, and it followed from post #2.

By the way, condescending isn't really better than snarky.The irony. It burns.

[Liberal]

Sure enough, Ron Paul is apparently Bill Maher's hero (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYDt7kC3Z0) too.He's moved leftward (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpC29P3kc0A) on that, too. He's an Obama boy now.

[Liberal]

It's not like you quoted it or anything. Why don't you follow the flow of how people actually post, and not blame Guin because she isn't a mind reader?Missed that part of your post. There are lots of examples of threads are just flowing conversations. Here's one (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=455399) in which there are no quote tags as of the first five posts, but people are conversing. It's not like I did something weird or anything, so why are you bristling so much? Even Guin said it was no big deal, and she meant no snark. What was it that made you say to yourself, "I'd better plop my ass into the middle of that conversation and stir shit up since they're being civil to each other."?

[Contrapuntal]

Does anyone seriously suggest that the disappearance of smallpox was a result of cycles? Or that it is a bad idea to vaccinate dogs for rabies? I am seriously baffled by such a position.

[WhyNot]

Does anyone seriously suggest that the disappearance of smallpox was a result of cycles?
Smallpox specifically? No, I don't think so. The ones Romm details with quotes from medical researchers and CDC and WHO statistics which show a decline irrespective of vaccinations are pertussis, measles, polio, rubella, scarlet fever, influenza and diphtheria - some of them are suggested to be in decline because of sanitation and nutrition, and other do to microorganisms waning in virulence. Did you follow the link? It's to Google book search, so it has some of the pages published there where these ideas are discussed.
Or that it is a bad idea to vaccinate dogs for rabies?
I have not heard that, but my personal experiences are not exhaustive (although they are sometimes exhausting.)
I am seriously baffled by such a position.
Okay.

[Jackmannii]

The ones Romm details with quotes from medical researchers and CDC and WHO statistics which show a decline irrespective of vaccinations are pertussis, measles, polio, rubella, scarlet fever, influenza and diphtheria - some of them are suggested to be in decline because of sanitation and nutrition, and other do to microorganisms waning in virulenceI'm NOT going to defend the anti-vac position, so don't ask.I will ask what your point is in detailing these bullshit claims in connection with "CDC and WHO statistics", when obviously the CDC and WHO
are in the forefront of health organizations backing vaccination, and base their views on solid research and statistical evidence.

I'm sure there are people who put credence in the "balanced" approach of Aviva Romm (who among other things has touted connections between the MMR vaccine and autism, claims debunked by much good research). After all, Ms. Romm is a Certified Professional Midwife and Herbalist, so she must know more about vaccines than the CDC and WHO. :rolleyes:

[Contrapuntal]

WhyNot, I'm mainly responding to Mahers presumed position that "vaccinations are bad." it seems to me that if I can show one example of vaccinations being good his whole position collapses.

Did you follow the link? It's to Google book search, so it has some of the pages published there where these ideas are discussed.That's a lot to read, and I will do so in more depth later, but two things stand out in the bit I read. She equates the "horrors of the disease epidemics prior to vaccines," with the "[overwhelming] number of heartbreaking stories of vaccine damaged kids," while providing no cite. Is it possible that these two are even remotely similar? That deaths pre-vaccine are the same as deaths caused by vaccines? That seems like a naked emotional appeal to me.

She also states that if (your) child is the one who has an adverse reaction, then the risk of such a reaction "is 100%," showing a complete misunderstanding of what "risk" means. Odds are calculated before an event happens, not after. Anything that has already happened has a probability of 1:1.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

The rant started when Maher was talking with his panel (or Bob Costas, anyway) about steroid and Human Growth Hormone abuse in pro sports. Maher declared that anybody who eats meat in America is already ingesting human growth hormone.


I am?? It's not working, I tell you.

[PoorYorick]

Does anyone seriously suggest that the disappearance of smallpox was a result of cycles? Or that it is a bad idea to vaccinate dogs for rabies? I am seriously baffled by such a position.
From my admittedly rusty memory of paleoepidemiology, there's a lot of possible reasons for cyclic disease prevalence and a lot of those reasons are far less benign than increased sanitation. Some diseases, for instance, are so virulent that they kill people before they have the chance to be a carrier, so what you might see are isolated flare ups. I don't know enough about small pox, pertussis, polio, or whatever to know about their epidemiology, but I'll take my chances with vaccinations.

[WhyNot]

I will ask what your point is...

I provided the information asked for in the thread by Baldwin and begun to be answered by Master Blaster, namely, what is it that the anti-vaccination crowd (of whom I am not one, BTW*) believes, and a link to a book detailing those beliefs (and debunking some of them).






*I am anti-MANDATORY vaccination, but I am not anti-vaccine. I am simply in favor of medical decisions being made by doctors and patients, not by legislation.

[Jackmannii]

One of the deceptions antivaxers use is to cherry-pick points on a disease incidence graph in order to claim that infectious diseases were already declining before vaccines were introduced and that vaccines shouldn't get the credit for their relative scarcity today.

For instance, if you look at this graph (http://aapredbook.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/2006/1/3.75/079_02) of measles incidence in the second half of the 20th century, you'll notice that measles cases spiked and waned in a cyclical manner in the 1950s, with one peak occurring in the late '50s followed by a drop to a low shortly before the measles vaccine was introduced. If you ignore the cyclical changes and focus only on what happened from the late '50s onward, you can claim that measles incidence was dropping and changes due to the vaccine were negligible (this is of course nonsensical given how radically measles declined after the vaccine came into use).

I have seen antivaxers use truncated graphs and tables in this manner to give false statistical backing to their claims.

[mswas]

I watched this due to this thread. I tend to agree with Maher in essence but not in fanaticism. We overprescribe, but he needs to learn that every substance, including plants are chemicals, and that everything is about dosage. Too much Oxygen will kill you, or too much water, Wee for a Wii! It's all in the dosage, but we don't need most of the drugs we take, unfortunately we are a health illiterate society.

After all if it were not for an over-abundance of antibiotics we wouldn't have MRSA.

Maher showing his religious fanaticism was quite amusing.

[Jackmannii]

*I am anti-MANDATORY vaccination, but I am not anti-vaccine. I am simply in favor of medical decisions being made by doctors and patients, not by legislation.Thanks for clarifying your position.

Of course, the success of vaccination depends on nearly everyone participating and establishing herd immunity, so opposing mandatory vaccination effectively means gutting these programs.

The same principle applies for various other things mandated by law in the public interest. There are people who think it's fine if I pay my taxes, but believe they should be exempt.

Maybe you're not as factually out to lunch as some antivaxers, but your stance puts you squarely in their camp, I'm sorry to say.

[Nzinga, Seated]

What was it that made you say to yourself, "I'd better plop my ass into the middle of that conversation and stir shit up since they're being civil to each other."?

**plops ass in middle of your conversation**

That cracked me up for some reason. Funny.

I love Bill Maher. Something about his demeanor is hugely assholey, true...but I can't help admitting that I agree with him 99% of the time.

Even with the nutty drug rant (I noticed that the guests looked a bit uncomfy), I did have to agree we seem to jump to antibiotics a bit too quickly. That doesn't allow us to build up a healthy immune system, right? I mean, that was his point, wasn't it? I didn't follow too well.

Also, the fact that he is in PETA pinged my crazy meter. I did watch a documentary on PETA, and I gotta say, finally, they even had me wondering if maybe I should do some more research into the way we allow animals to be treated in this society. Some of those videos surprised me with its ability to open my mind a crack about animal cruelty. Unfortunately, ultimately I got the feeling the leader is just power hungry, crazy and completely overthe top.

But, back to Bill...maybe I agree with him 99.9% of the time. He still sounded crazy though.

[Sampiro]

Maher has always struck me as one of the most narcissistic self-absorbed and "I think it therefore it is" egomaniacs on television. This goes back to his Politically Incorrect days at least, when he would talk over anyone who disagreed with him regardless of how important a point they were making. I first loathed him when I saw him on LARRY KING going on some rant about how "And all people talk about is how Bill Maher is always at the Playboy Mansion and I'm some sort of horndog, but people don't know that I go home to my own house 30 nights a month" blah blah whine. I thought at the time "Uh, dude, most people spend 31 nights a month not giving a good goddam where you go, what you do, or who you do it with. I know you as the self important guy who thinks because he asks Werner Klemperer, Sandra Bernhardt, the kid from ET and the guy from the Howard Stern show what they think about pollution that he's being deep."

Then when his show was cancelled for his comments post 9-11 and he started whining "Help! I'm being oppressed!" I stopped watching him altogether.
I've no idea why the turd is such a favorite of Larry King's. He seems to be on there at least once a month (unless of course somebody associated with Anna Nicole died that week; if they ever find out Larry Birkhead killed Natalie Holloway then Larry will die from ejaculating blood followed by Nancy Grace bursting into flames, both on live TV).

[Marley23]

Even with the nutty drug rant (I noticed that the guests looked a bit uncomfy), I did have to agree we seem to jump to antibiotics a bit too quickly. That doesn't allow us to build up a healthy immune system, right? I mean, that was his point, wasn't it? I didn't follow too well.
I agree that people overuse antibiotics for things like a cold, and when people use Purel every 5 minutes, they are either wasting their money or breeding a race of supergems that will kill us all. ;)
But, you know, polio is pretty bad for your immune system too.

[mswas]

I agree that people overuse antibiotics for things like a cold, and when people use Purel every 5 minutes, they are either wasting their money or breeding a race of supergems that will kill us all. ;)
But, you know, polio is pretty bad for your immune system too.

I dunno about that. How can a bacteria become resistant to disinfectant? It's not quite the same as antibiotics which slow growth as opposed to take it apart on a chemical level. Purel can be said to hurt your natural enzymes in your skin, but I don't think the natural selection works in quite the same way.

[Sarahfeena]

I dunno about that. How can a bacteria become resistant to disinfectant? It's not quite the same as antibiotics which slow growth as opposed to take it apart on a chemical level. Purel can be said to hurt your natural enzymes in your skin, but I don't think the natural selection works in quite the same way.My.understanding.of the dangers of over-sanitizing with products like Purell isn't that it breeds super germs, it's that it may harm the development of children's immune systems, since they aren't exposed to normal levels of bacteria.

[Malienation]

Saw it too. Maher's one of my favorites, but he's full of shit on this. Odd, too; he's always excoriating creationists and anti-global warming nutjobs for being anti-science, yet he's doing the same for the sake of his pet issue. BTW:

1. Vaccines don't "weaken the immune system by doing its job for you" (as is often claimed by anti-vacs), they strengthen the immune system by stimulating it in a way that doesn't make you sick. Many diseases do this too: chicken pox, for example, stimulates the immune system to fight it off, so you get better...forever. That's why you generally can't get chicken pox more than once. Vaccines stimulate this response, too...without actually making you sick.

2. A cleaner environment actually contributed to the polio epidemic of the 1940's and 1950's, as this Smithsonian (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/polio.html) article shows (see page 8 for the part on sanitation).

3. Speaking of a cleaner environment, there is some indication that our modern day fetish for cleanliness is causing some level of panic amongst our respective immune systems, because it's not given enough to do.

4. Yeah, Maher's guests looked uncomfortable alright. They seemed vaguely embarrassed to be there, like he was the crazy uncle at Thanksgiving going off about the Trilateral Commission, or something.

5. Maher is still relatively young and in good health. We'll see how he feels when he gets older, and comes up with something only drugs can cure.

6. Hmmmm, Larry King ejaculating blood and Nancy Grace bursting into flames, you say? I smell pay per view special!

[Sleeps With Butterflies]

Another big fan of Bill Maher's who was more than a little confused by his ranting.

He used to be a lot more reasonable about it. In fact, you could honestly see his point for a bit. He seemed to be saying that Americans eat a ton of crap (by choice and by things put in our food with/without our knowledge) and it is making us sick. He'd mention the lack of exercise and poor eating habits as contributers to poor health.

He'd also assign blame to the doctors who are quick to prescribe medication for most any complaint, and the drug companies for their advertising. He felt that doctors should do more to encourage healthy lifestyles instead of putting people on drugs right away, especially in the case of younger people. He also felt that the government should insist higher standards when it comes to our food.

All of those things I could get behind. This new rant? Not so much.

[Khadaji]

I think he is batshit crazy and expect to see more and more of a meltdown. We'll see I guess.

[chorpler]

Several people have made comments to the effect that okay, Maher has a point that all drugs are poison, but he's clearly gone too far. What exactly does that mean? I had a friend argue once that "All drugs are poisons," and I didn't really understand what he was trying to say either. Are drugs any more "poison" than anything else, since the right dosage of virtually anything can kill you?

[Jackmannii]

Several people have made comments to the effect that okay, Maher has a point that all drugs are poison, but he's clearly gone too far. What exactly does that mean? I had a friend argue once that "All drugs are poisons," and I didn't really understand what he was trying to say either. Are drugs any more "poison" than anything else, since the right dosage of virtually anything can kill you?The concept of "right dosage" and "the dose makes the poison" are foreign to lots of people who go on about "toxins".

This is why antivaxers love to cite a list of "toxins" in vaccines (available from the CDC, and including minute traces of such things as bacterial culture media and non-mercury preservatives), as though the mere presence of some compound in a vaccine makes it a toxin, no matter what the amount.

Remember, dihydrogen monoxide (http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/6245/7269/hold-your-wee-for-wii.phtml) is a toxin! Throw out your bottles of H2O before it's too late!!

[devilsknew]

I didn't see the show, but I'll speculate that his point was that just because something is prescribed by an authority figure in a white coat and is manufactured by Lilly, that it is not entirely safe. Prescription drugs are essentially poisons and they are being handed out for everything nowadays for practically anything with less and less concern of their efficacy and safety. Heath Ledger is a perfect example of overmedication and throwing meds at a problem, when there were probably better alternatives, and Heath died for it.

[Contrapuntal]

I didn't see the show, but I'll speculate that his point was that just because something is prescribed by an authority figure in a white coat and is manufactured by Lilly, that it is not entirely safe. Prescription drugs are essentially poisons and they are being handed out for everything nowadays for practically anything with less and less concern of their efficacy and safety. Heath Ledger is a perfect example of overmedication and throwing meds at a problem, when there were probably better alternatives, and Heath died for it.Heath Ledger died from ingesting a prescribed dose of medicine? Do you have a cite for that?

[devilsknew]

Heath Ledger died from ingesting a prescribed dose of medicine? Do you have a cite for that?
I didn't say that in my post. I don't know where you got that?

But Heath did die from lethal interactions between prescribed medicines.

[Jackmannii]

Heath Ledger died from ingesting a prescribed dose of medicine? Do you have a cite for that?The only suggestion to that effect is from Ledger's family. The official news release from the N.Y. medical examiner's office cited "acute intoxication" relating to "the abuse of prescription drugs", which included a fatal combination of two separate powerful painkillers and three drugs related to Valium, with no details as to how those drugs were obtained or who might have prescribed them.

[Contrapuntal]

I didn't say that in my post. I don't know where you got that?Here : Heath Ledger is a perfect example of overmedication and throwing meds at a problem, when there were probably better alternatives, and Heath died for it.

What did you mean by "overmedication" if not "prescribed too much"? If I take an entire bottle of Oxycontin when I have been prescribed one a day, is that over medication? An overdose is by definition taking more than the prescribed dose. So, are you suggesting that he took the proper dose and died as a result? If not, he was not over medicated, he overdosed.

[devilsknew]

Simply, I'm saying he was overmedicated in the sense that these medications should not have been prescribed in the first place. The doctor threw meds at the problem. He had two powerful pankillers and three types of valium, for Pitysake!

[Anne Neville]

Simply, I'm saying he was overmedicated in the sense that these medications should not have been prescribed in the first place. The doctor threw meds at the problem. He had two powerful pankillers and three types of valium, for Pitysake!

We don't know that one doctor prescribed all those meds, though. Some people who abuse prescription drugs do go to more than one doctor to get several prescriptions of their drugs of choice. I, of course, don't know that that's what happened here, but it's certainly a plausible scenario.

[Contrapuntal]

We don't know that one doctor prescribed all those meds, though. Some people who abuse prescription drugs do go to more than one doctor to get several prescriptions of their drugs of choice. I, of course, don't know that that's what happened here, but it's certainly a plausible scenario.It's certainly more plausible than one doctor prescribing two powerful painkillers and three types of Valium.

I am curious as to how devilsknew is privy to what Ledger's medical condition was, and what drugs were prescribed under what protocol. Especially since he is asserting that Ledger's case is indicative of over medication in America, and not simply an overdose by a drug seeking individual.

[devilsknew]

Well, I guess the real question here is, who is more responsible for Heath's Death? The Pusher or the Junky?

If you were to follow the precedent and "logic" set by modern drug laws, it would seem the Doctor's and Pharmaceutical comapnies share the greatest blame and deserve long sentences.

[Jackmannii]

Prescription drugs are also obtainable by other means besides having your doctor prescribe them for you.

There are numerous unanswered questions in this case, which hasn't stopped the Anti-Big Pharma/Anti-Mainstream Medicine brigades from exploiting it for their own purposes.If you were to follow the precedent and "logic" set by modern drug laws, it would seem the Doctor's and Pharmaceutical comapnies share the greatest blame and deserve long sentences.And if you were to respect the logic of not going off half-cocked without evidence, you'd STFU.

[Trunk]

Maher goes scattershot on this subject, and I don't think his arguments are fully crystallized.

I tend to agree that Big Pharma comes up with drug/disease marketing campaigns and I think he should stay in this area. And, that goes way beyond "restless leg" commercials. I'm talking about FDA influence, buried studies about harmful side-effects, buried studies about lack of effectiveness. I'm talking about new information like the efficacy of cholestoral lowering, and the effects that would have on lipitor sales.

He also has validity when he argues that misuse of legal drugs is just as bad as misuse of illegal drugs -- even though it is the misuse of illegal drugs which is the typical stated reason that they're illegal (makes you drive your car funny, gives you a heart attack, etc.). I know that sounds like a big "duh", but a lot of people just agree that one is bad and one is good because we've deemed them "legal" and "illegal".

But, like I said, his arguments haven't crystallized, and he just starts throwing everything into his arguments. . .poisons and toxins and swamps and superbacteria and meat-eating.

His problem is that he doesn't distinguish between the crazy stuff and the good stuff. So, people "pit" him, and it's fun to pile on, but his good points get tossed out with his bad points, and that's his own doing.

His guests had no idea what he was talking about last week. One of them even said at some point, "this is getting weird" or something like that.

[Sarahfeena]

Well, I guess the real question here is, who is more responsible for Heath's Death? The Pusher or the Junky? That depends on whether the "pusher" followed his or her professional ethics in prescribing the drugs, doesn't it?

[Ocean Annie]

I am a Bill Maher fan. Oh well, he is a fanatic on some issues. His PETA affiliation turned me off, but I believe he is more of an environmentalist than an animal rights champion, so I forgive him. There has been increased public awareness about over prescribing antibiotics. He is critical of agricultural methods that use chemicals, hormones, and other drugs that he considers toxins. Bill Maher does wander into the eccentric with his extremes, but we all have idiosyncrasies. The unofficial endorsement of John Edwards places Maher far more lefty than righty.

[Malienation]

One thing Maher doesn't mention is that a fair amount of blame for the overuse of antibiotics lies at the feet of many countries in which it is possible to buy antibiotics over the counter. As a result, people take them for everything.

[devilsknew]

The money trail is pretty easy to follow... How many of you have Oil, Medical, and or Pharmaceuticals in your portfolio?

Pretty profitable to be behind the prescription drug veil of righteousness.

[Vinyl Turnip]

My 401(k) killed Heath Ledger? Oh, Mr. devilsknew---how you do go on! <fans self coquettishly>

[Sarahfeena]

The money trail is pretty easy to follow... How many of you have Oil, Medical, and or Pharmaceuticals in your portfolio?

Pretty profitable to be behind the prescription drug veil of righteousness. Yeah, profits sure are my first concern, considering that cancer drugs saved my father's life. And goodness knows if my grandmother would have lived to be 88 years old without her diabetes pills. And then there's the time my daughter had a bad infection and it went away in 3 days with some antibiotics. And the painkillers I was prescribed sure helped me out when I was immobilized with back pain. And it certainly was nice not to have to worry about contracting polio, small pox, measles, mumps, or rubella thanks to the vaccinces I was lucky enough to get as a kid. And was I ever glad to have baby formula to feed my kids when I couldn't produce enough milk to fill them up.

Oh, yeah...those pharma companies & their investors are evil all right.

[devilsknew]

Yeah, profits sure are my first concern, considering that cancer drugs saved my father's life. And goodness knows if my grandmother would have lived to be 88 years old without her diabetes pills. And then there's the time my daughter had a bad infection and it went away in 3 days with some antibiotics. And the painkillers I was prescribed sure helped me out when I was immobilized with back pain. And it certainly was nice not to have to worry about contracting polio, small pox, measles, mumps, or rubella thanks to the vaccinces I was lucky enough to get as a kid. And was I ever glad to have baby formula to feed my kids when I couldn't produce enough milk to fill them up.

Oh, yeah...those pharma companies & their investors are evil all right.
Oh, I got nothing against the life saving meds that some pharmaceutical manufacturers make and I'm not even against them turning a profit. I'm just against obscene profits, price fixing, and the general unethical nature of Big Pharma in the name of capitalism. They are marketing (aka pushing) their drugs for profit. It doesn't sit well with me and I think people are being overmedicated because of it.

I just saw last week some pharmaceutical company was fined by the FDA or something because they were trying to fix the market and taking doctors on lavish "drug conference" junkets to ensure that they marketed and prescribed their drugs.

Drug companies say that they must charge high prices to cover their huge investments in research and development (R&D) and to ensure a steady stream of innovative medicines. Laurence Kotlikoff, a professor of economics at the College of Arts and Sciences and a consultant to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, supports high prices for prescription drugs for this reason. “The reality is that this is a highly risky business,” he says, “and it’s very expensive for drug companies to bring a product to market.” In a recent Boston Globe op-ed piece, Kotlikoff argues that “to develop each of the high-priced drugs that we buy, the pharmaceutical companies pay, on average, almost $1 billion. Like it or not, the drug companies need to recoup these costs, and we need to let them. If we don’t, we’ll be doing a grave disservice to ourselves in limiting the prospects of new cures for painful and often life-threatening diseases.”

A growing number of Americans are questioning that rationale, though, and Angell is leading the charge. Her book reveals that drug companies spend far less on R&D than they would have us believe. “Research and development is a relatively small part of the budgets of the big drug companies,” she says. “They spend over twice as much on marketing and administration, and they actually make more in profits than they spend on R&D.” In 2002 the top ten drug companies spent 14 percent of sales on R&D, but 31 percent on marketing and administration.

“You can’t call an industry risky when it has consistently been the most profitable in the United States for over two decades,” she says, noting that last year big pharma fell from first place to third. “As long as they have those immense profits left at the end of the year, they are doing better than fine.”

The enormous profits drug companies make on blockbuster drugs are supposed to encourage innovation. But Angell says big pharma is hardly innovative. “The Food and Drug Administration classifies new drugs according to whether they are likely to offer anything better than drugs already on the market,” she explains. “In the past six years, of the 487 drugs that entered the market, 379 — 78 percent — were considered no better than older drugs. And most of those were not even new compounds, just old ones in new combinations or formulations.”
From Bostonia (http://www.bu.edu/alumni/bostonia/2004/fall/perspectives/prescription/index.html)

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Heath Ledger is a perfect example of overmedication and throwing meds at a problem, when there were probably better alternatives, and Heath died for it.

Not necessarily. If he had multiple prescribers and didn't disclose to each what the others had authorized for him, or if he took more than the prescribed amounts, then how does that make him a victim of institutionalized over-prescribing?

Doctors and pharmacists do have a responsibility to consider the effects of combined medications, but they can't do that unless the patient tells them what they're taking. There's no national computer database of patients' prescriptions that anyone can check before giving you some pills.

[devilsknew]

I heard his symptoms were sleeplessness, anxiety, and depression. I think he was having a manic break and should have been treated appropriately. Instead he got "the Hollywood Treatment" and was prescribed something habit forming. That's overmedication in both a qualitative and quantitive sense.

[devilsknew]

Which is more likely?

Did Heath get that first taste from a Doctor and Pharmacy?

...or was it from a Kingpin and Dealer?