Bill Maher being politically incorrect.

[Bob]

I'm sure you've all seen this?

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

I think he's a got a point and completely understand where he's coming from.

[WestCoaster]

I'm sure you've all seen this?

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

I think he's a got a point and completely understand where he's coming from.

How presumptuous. How does he know good English protestants aren't naming their children Mohammad? It's a nice name after all.

[Bob]

Here he is defending his statements on CNN with Wolf Blitzer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI1S3DweZ_Q&feature=player_embedded

[pfezziwig]

He's been ridiculing Christians for his whole career and now is running to them for support against the invading Muslim hoards, maybe he's going to become a born again christian next month.

[wyly]

He's been ridiculing Christians for his whole career and now is running to them for support against the invading Muslim hoards, maybe he's going to become a born again christian next month.

he's still ridiculing christians, a christian theocracy is to be feared as much as a muslim theocracy...

his name issue is meaningless statistics...british have many many given names, muslims prefer mohammed it doesn't mean they have more kids...and then there are all the christian names that in totality that far outnumber mohammed; david, paul, peter, gabriel, mary, christian,christine and many more... and the hundreds of derivatives of all those names...

it's the same when considering numbers of followers of christianity in england, Islam may appear to be second to christianity but athiests are not counted and likely make up the biggest group...plus once settled in a western secular country young muslims also leave their faith and become athiests or agnostics..

[Wild Bill]

his name issue is meaningless statistics...british have many many given names, muslims prefer mohammed it doesn't mean they have more kids...and then there are all the christian names that in totality that far outnumber mohammed; david, paul, peter, gabriel, mary, christian,christine and many more... and the hundreds of derivatives of all those names...

it's the same when considering numbers of followers of christianity in england, Islam may appear to be second to christianity but athiests are not counted and likely make up the biggest group...plus once settled in a western secular country young muslims also leave their faith and become athiests or agnostics..

I think his point is a bit simpler than you've stated. Essentially, if you hear the name Mohammed more and more often it's a pretty fair indicator that the percentage of Muslims in your society is increasing.

If you want to go a bit deeper, Muslims tend to be more fundamentalist in their religion. Maher believes that fundamentalist religions of any stripe tend to be bad things!

After all, few atheists wage jihad on their neighbours.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I think his point is a bit simpler than you've stated. Essentially, if you hear the name Mohammed more and more often it's a pretty fair indicator that the percentage of Muslims in your society is increasing.

If you want to go a bit deeper, Muslims tend to be more fundamentalist in their religion. Maher believes that fundamentalist religions of any stripe tend to be bad things!

After all, few atheists wage jihad on their neighbours.

The guy should be looking in his own backyard.

[Wild Bill]

The guy should be looking in his own backyard.

And he does, TM. Often! That's why so many people like listening to him. Maher has always been good at cutting through all the BS around a subject.

In fact, I believe Maher to be better at looking in his own backyard than most of us Canadians! We constantly dodge criticism of our negatives by pointing the finger at Americans. Just start a discussion about problems in health care, for instance. You won't get 2 minutes before someone barks "Would you rather live in America? Poor people die there in ditches!" After that you won't have a hope in hell of getting back to recognizing our problems so that we can discuss solutions.

[Guest TrueMetis]

And he does, TM. Often! That's why so many people like listening to him. Maher has always been good at cutting through all the BS around a subject.

In fact, I believe Maher to be better at looking in his own backyard than most of us Canadians! We constantly dodge criticism of our negatives by pointing the finger at Americans. Just start a discussion about problems in health care, for instance. You won't get 2 minutes before someone barks "Would you rather live in America? Poor people die there in ditches!" After that you won't have a hope in hell of getting back to recognizing our problems so that we can discuss solutions.

Well his remarks on vaccines and whether aids is caused by a virus make me skeptical of his rationality.

Edited November 27, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Wild Bill]

Well his remarks on vaccines and whether aids is caused by a virus make me skeptical of his rationality.

Really? You should dig up a book by Kary Mullis called "Surfing Through the Mindfield". Mullis is a Nobel prize winner. He was the guy who figured out how to decode DNA, leading to innumerable spinoffs of CSI shows.

His book is a collection of personal history anecdotes and his eclectic way of looking at the world. He is a true genius and a model of a Renaissance Man.

Mullis was asked to speak at a convention sponsored by a large drug company that among other products produced some of the early anti-Aids drugs. Like any other reputable scientist, the first thing he did was to try to research the original papers that proved Aids was caused by the HIV virus. He was surprised that he couldn't find any! Lots of papers that simply stated the premise but zilch as far as anything to back it up. Somehow, the idea had simply been accepted and no one dared challenge it.

Sort of like man-made Global warming, I guess. When he attempted to talk about this in his speech he caused an uproar and was finally asked to stop. As a scientist he was quite offended and afterwards investigated the matter more thoroughly. He now believes that the idea that AIDS comes from a virus was adopted as a political decision to make it look like the American government was doing something, at a time when no one really knew what was going on but everyone was exceedingly angry at the loss of life and the apparent helplessness of the 'system' to find a cure.

I'm not saying he's right but if a Nobel prize winner like Mullis can doubt then there's no shame in others taking the same stance.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I'm not saying he's right but if a Nobel prize winner like Mullis can doubt then there's no shame in others taking the same stance.

The problem with that is if HIV wasn't a virus none of the treatments for it would work as they are all based around it being a virus.

In any event HIV was isolated twice independently it took all of 3 minutes of Googling to find that out.

My link

[Wild Bill]

The problem with that is if HIV wasn't a virus none of the treatments for it would work as they are all based around it being a virus.

In any event HIV was isolated twice independently it took all of 3 minutes of Googling to find that out.

My link

Hey, Mullis is the Nobel prize winner, not me!

I just think that you would enjoy the book, especially the chapter about AIDS. He explains his beliefs far better than I could. He doesn't deny HIV exists, so isolating it doesn't affect his premise. He just claims to be unable to find any documentation proving it to be the CAUSE of AIDS!

[Guest TrueMetis]

Hey, Mullis is the Nobel prize winner, not me!

I just think that you would enjoy the book, especially the chapter about AIDS. He explains his beliefs far better than I could. He doesn't deny HIV exists, so isolating it doesn't affect his premise. He just claims to be unable to find any documentation proving it to be the CAUSE of AIDS!

From the link.

Gallo was awarded his second Lasker Award in 1986 for "determining that the retrovirus now known as HIV-1 is the cause of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).” He is the only recipient of two Lasker Awards.[12]

And the wiki article lists the four articles he published in science.

* Popovic M, Sarngadharan MG, Read E, Gallo RC. (1984) Detection, isolation, and continuous production of cytopathic retroviruses (HTLV-III) from patients with AIDS and pre-AIDS.

Science 224(4648): 497-500 (4 May). PMID 6200935

* Gallo RC, Salahuddin SZ, Popovic M, Shearer GM, Kaplan M, Haynes BF, Palker TJ, Redfield R, Oleske J, Safai B, et al. (1984) Frequent detection and isolation of cytopathic retroviruses (HTLV-III) from patients with AIDS and at risk for AIDS.

Science 224(4648): 500-3 (4 May). PMID 6200936

* Schüpbach J, Popovic M, Gilden RV, Gonda MA, Sarngadharan MG, Gallo RC. (1984) Serological analysis of a subgroup of human T-lymphotropic retroviruses (HTLV-III) associated with AIDS.

Science 224(4648): 503-5 (4 May). PMID 6200937

* Sarngadharan MG, Popovic M, Bruch L, Schüpbach J, Gallo RC. (1984) Antibodies reactive with human T-lymphotropic retroviruses (HTLV-III) in the serum of patients with AIDS.

Science 224(4648): 506-8 (4 May). PMID 6324345

Edited November 27, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Wild Bill]

From the link.

And the wiki article lists the four articles he published in science.

Mullis doesn't deny that many papers have been published. He just doesn't respect the scientific methodology involved. His point is not that there aren't footnotes and cites. He believes that they are all based on incorrect premises and since the originals have just been citing each other! He has personal experience of how strong the politics of the situation have been on the funding and the career opportunities of the scientists involved.

So you can make a list of cites a mile long and Mullis would just say "Of course there are! Show me the original documented and reproduceable research, like any other premise in science! BS just spins more BS!"

There are still doctors around who think ulcers are caused by stress, you know! That's like believing the world is flat, or in Intelligent Design. The idea that having an idea trumpeted by a preponderance of the cites or sources thereby being true is not scientific at all. Just because 5 million flies say it tastes good is no reason to have it for supper yourself!

I'm not qualified to defend Mullis' premise. He's the Nobel prizewinner, not me. Again, I just wanted to point out that YOUR premise about AIDS is not accepted as absolute fact by everyone in the scientific community! There are qualified people who disagree. Hey, doesn't it seem strange that in 30 years there's been no cure? If HIV is not the real cause that fact makes perfect sense. All the research won't work if it's based on a wrong premise. We seem to have made great progress in helping the body withstand the damage of AIDS and thus add a few years to a victim's lifespan but actually finding a cure? We seem no further ahead than we were at the start of the problem.

Mullis has a lot of other stuff in his book. It's a great read! He's obviously brilliant and loves to tweak academic noses. I'm sure that you'd enjoy his book for more than just his views on the source of AIDS.

Edited November 30, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Guest TrueMetis]

Mullis doesn't deny that many papers have been published. He just doesn't respect the scientific methodology involved. His point is not that there aren't footnotes and cites. He believes that they are all based on incorrect premises and since the originals have just been citing each other! He has personal experience of how strong the politics of the situation have been on the funding and the career opportunities of the scientists involved.

So you can make a list of cites a mile long and Mullis would just say "Of course there are! Show me the original documented and reproduceable research, like any other premise in science! BS just spins more BS!"

Alright enough of this either you or him are shifting the goalposts and I'm tired of it.

You went from this.

He just claims to be unable to find any documentation proving it to be the CAUSE of AIDS!

To this.

So you can make a list of cites a mile long and Mullis would just say "Of course there are! Show me the original documented and reproduceable research, like any other premise in science! BS just spins more BS!"

And even this is BS because I gave you the original papers and if he really wanted to he could talk to the guy who discovered it. So this is totally dishonest.

I'm not qualified to defend Mullis' premise. He's the Nobel prizewinner, not me. Again, I just wanted to point out that YOUR premise about AIDS is not accepted as absolute fact by everyone in the scientific community! There are qualified people who disagree. Hey, doesn't it seem strange that in 30 years there's been no cure? If HIV is not the real cause that fact makes perfect sense. All the research won't work if it's based on a wrong premise. We seem to have made great progress in helping the body withstand the damage of AIDS and thus add a few years to a victim's lifespan but actually finding a cure? We seem no further ahead than we were at the start of the problem.

It not my premise it's basic fact, the HIV virus can be seen to cause AIDS this is not deniable if you want to remain informed or honest.

It is not strange that no cure has been found, by your logic the common cold must not actually exist because in a hundred years we haven't figured out a cure. A basic understanding of HIV would tell you that HIV mutates rapidly, every person with HIV has a unique form of it because after only a few days in the body if mutates rapidly becoming different from the source.

We have made great strides in treatments we don't add a "few years to a victim's lifespan" now someone with HIV may never develop aids and even if they do they could live just as long as someone without it. You also don't seem to realize treatments themselves prove HIV causes AIDS because if it didn't the treatments wouldn't work.

Mullis has a lot of other stuff in his book. It's a great read! He's obviously brilliant and loves to tweak academic noses. I'm sure that you'd enjoy his book for more than just his views on the source of AIDS.

He apparently denies AIDS, does deny climate change, believes in astrology, believes he met an alien, and created and tested many psychoactive drugs. This guy has nothing for me.