New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Celeb Vaccine Wars: Peet Beats Maher

Comedian Bill Maher advises against vaccinations. But actress Amanda Peet--and Dr. Bill Frist--have it right: vaccines are good. Steve Mirsky comments

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

In the celebrity vaccine wars, I’m siding with actress Amanda Peet. And comedian Bill Maher, well, I like your show, but when it comes to vaccines you don’t know a punchline from a clothesline.

Maher recently tweeted to his Twitter followers “if u get a swine flu shot ur an idiot.” On his HBO program Real Time last week, Maher went head-to-head with former Senator Dr. Bill Frist, who patiently explained why vaccines were in fact good. But Maher wasn’t buying it. He advocates a healthy lifestyle over vaccines. But polio and smallpox outmatched many robust immune systems.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Actress Amanda Peet, meanwhile, has used her celebrity to encourage vaccinations, specifically in response to the alleged vaccine-autism connection, for which there’s no scientific evidence, but which has some parents afraid of childhood vaccinations. In a letter to a parenting magazine, Peet wrote: “It’s irresponsible to suggest that virtually the entire medical community, and the CDC, and the American Academy of Pediatrics are behind a massive cover-up about vaccine safety.” See you in the line for the flu shot.

—Steve Mirsky

To watch the Bill Maher–Bill Frist conversation, see Bill Maher gets schooled on vaccines by Bill Frist

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe