I have a slight disagreement with Bill Maher being called a germ-theory denialist. According to this http://www.winnipegsun.com/entertainment/tv/2009/10/28/11548266-sun.html he agrees that vaccines can be useful, but seems to disagree about vaccines being useful in first world countries (or perhaps drawing from his statements, for wealthy inhabitants of first world). This seems to go along with the his idea that germs only effect those in ill health. I do not know if he made a later comment expressing a different opinion and I do not know if he is lying, but I wished to bring this article to the attention of those who edit this page. I will take no action until others have weighed in on the matter. Reflections of Memory 20:11 6 February 2010
This quote is on his wikipedia article: ""What I've read about what they think I'm saying is not what I've said. I'm not a germ theory denier. I believe vaccinations can work. Polio is a good example. Do I think in certain situations that inoculating Third World children against malaria or diphtheria, or whatever, is right? Of course. In a situation like that, the benefits outweigh costs. But to me living in Los Angeles? To get a flu shot? No." Perhaps calling him a denier is unfair, though his stance is certainly unorthodox . --Danfly (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- If that's the case, his position has changed from a few years back: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/10/is_bill_maher_really_that_ignorant_part.php
- He has promoted the "generic toxins and bad diet cause most illness, and modern medicine is a Big Pharma conspiracy to keep you sick" bullshit. It wasn't so much "Germs don't cause disease." as "Germs can't cause disease in previously healthy individuals." Which would indeed lead to the above conclusion, that there's no point in inoculating people from the first world, but malnourished people in the developing world might need vaccines. It would still make him a moderate denialist in that he doesn't think germs are able to infect healthy people. --Quantheory (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Can someone play with this so that every sentence doesn't begin with "Maher"? moral 13:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Good point, but I was also hoping to read here about how Maher has stated his belief in astrology and numerology for decades, all the while calling himself a skeptic, and while there are plenty of sensible arguments against nuclear power and GMO's (not that I agree...) Maher isn't one to make them. I'm reminded of how Michael Shermer has pointed out that when it come to anti-science the left has plenty of 'splainin' to do, and Roger Ebert commented about many progressive's wacky beliefs , but then Ebert himself believed cell phones caused cancer. Even when Maher is on the right side of an issue, he seems unable to phrase a defense (such as in countering Dennis Prager's comments about intelligent design). Everyone should stop projecting the noble status of rationality onto Maher. He's as much a crank as the worst of 'em. — Unsigned, by: 188.8.131.52 / talk / contribs
Went to his show
He's still pretty good at stand up. His shows feel short though and had quite a few groan moments as he sets up jokes. Anybody ever go to see him? Zero (talk - contributions) 05:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Maher has finally gone off the deep end...
- Yep. Have we not put this in the article? I know it was in the WIGOs. Narky Sawtooth (Nyarnyar~) 07:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
" In his opinion, there is no such thing as a left-wing extremist. Apparently, the Party[wp] failed to find him. " LOL. But no, he does understand that there are left-wing extremists. http://www.whosay.com/status/BillMaher/1085722 TofuTyphoon (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
What exactly is Maher denying?
- It's not "edit war fodder"; it's a category that's been on the page for years for reasons that are made clear in the article text if you would only take a moment to read it before making demands & wasting everyone's time. ωεαşεζøίɗMethinks it is a Weasel 19:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Denialism is an awfully broad word.... Maybe put him in the category of things he is actually denying? Notably the benefit of vaccines? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Apparently RFK Jr. wasn't enough, he invited a crank who claims to be able to cure cancer and HIV. Quackwatch has a bit about him, so maybe we want to make an article? Or just add this to Maher's anti-science plunge? Aman 1:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Horseshoe theory in action
I've been watching clips from Maher's show on Youtube (I enjoy his comedic style) and I've noticed that he's been inviting more and more fringe individuals on his talk panel (Milo, Coulter, and recently Peterson). My point is his article should reflect this, especially seeing as this tendency appears to be worsening. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Agree. I think he's already fringe at this point. He's hopeless. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
No Longer Liberal?
@BluePink I understand all your category edits except the one removing "liberal." Maher still looks like a liberal to me. I don't think Maher has advocated for smaller government, or the idea that less-privileged classes should be ignored. He still is a kind of liberal.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)