Jill Stein
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-06-2016, 08:07 AM
Jill Stein
In the Gary Johnson thread there was (one of several) tangents on Jill Stein. I'mFred asked me a question and I promised to respond later. I didn't want to further confuse an already confused thread so just started a new one.

Anyway, in that thread, I referred to Stein as a "wackadoo" because of her views on things like vaccines, homeopathy, GMOs, etc. I was asked to provide some links on that. I had read this about her and the Green party a while ago, but went back to find the original links. I can't find the things I originally read but did find some information. And, some of the comments from Stein herself are a bit more nuanced than what I indicated in the previous thread. I don't believe I had read her comments directly before and, now that I have, I may have overstated her positions yesterday. But, I'm still not impressed.

Regarding homeopathy, it is part of the official Green platform, which means as the candidate for that party she, by default, supports it. She did a reddit chat and was asked about vaccines and homeopathy.

I don't know if we have an "official" stance, but I can tell you my personal stance at this point. According to the most recent review of vaccination policies across the globe, mandatory vaccination that doesn't allow for medical exemptions is practically unheard of. In most countries, people trust their regulatory agencies and have very high rates of vaccination through voluntary programs. In the US, however, regulatory agencies are routinely packed with corporate lobbyists and CEOs. So the foxes are guarding the chicken coop as usual in the US. So who wouldn't be skeptical? I think dropping vaccinations rates that can and must be fixed in order to get at the vaccination issue: the widespread distrust of the medical-indsutrial complex.
Vaccines in general have made a huge contribution to public health. Reducing or eliminating devastating diseases like small pox and polio. In Canada, where I happen to have some numbers, hundreds of annual death from measles and whooping cough were eliminated after vaccines were introduced. Still, vaccines should be treated like any medical procedure--each one needs to be tested and regulated by parties that do not have a financial interest in them. In an age when industry lobbyists and CEOs are routinely appointed to key regulatory positions through the notorious revolving door, its no wonder many Americans don't trust the FDA to be an unbiased source of sound advice. A Monsanto lobbyists and CEO like Michael Taylor, former high-ranking DEA official, should not decide what food is safe for you to eat. Same goes for vaccines and pharmaceuticals. We need to take the corporate influence out of government so people will trust our health authorities, and the rest of the government for that matter. End the revolving door. Appoint qualified professionals without a financial interest in the product being regulated. Create public funding of elections to stop the buying of elections by corporations and the super-rich.
For homeopathy, just because something is untested doesn't mean it's safe. By the same token, being "tested" and "reviewed" by agencies tied to big pharma and the chemical industry is also problematic. There's a lot of snake-oil in this system. We need research and licensing boards that are protected from conflicts of interest. They should not be limited by arbitrary definitions of what is "natural" or not.


While this is not vaccine denial, it's still very concerning. First, at what point did any state or federal agency ever propose deny medical exemptions to vaccines? The answer: never. It never happened. No one has proposed it and no one has passed it. So, her opening statement is a pure red herring and aimed at distraction and nothing more. And, on what basis does she suggest we "drop vaccine rates"? What is the risk of the current rate? Can she tell us and is there proof? I'm pretty sure there is proof that the current rate is both scientifically validated and proven to save lives. It's great that she admits that vaccines have done good but she also raises the suggestion that there is something nefarious going on for a profit motive.

She's a Harvard educated doctor. Her words on vaccines carry some weight and she should fucking well no better. That is just a step beyond the bullshit that Dr. Oz pushes. No, it's not quite "vaccines cause autism!" bullshit but it raises enough unfounded doubt that she should really be ashamed of herself.

Regarding homeopathy, her "just because something isn't tested doesn't mean it's safe" comment is staggering. And, just because the pharmaceutical industry has warts doesn't mean that homeopathy has any basis in scientific fact. Her answer again is a complete dodge.

One GMOs, here is her party platform.

"Lead on a global treaty to halt climate change. End destructive energy extraction: fracking, tar sands, offshore drilling, oil trains, mountaintop removal, and uranium mines. Protect our public lands, water supplies, biological diversity, parks, and pollinators. Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe. Protect the rights of future generations."

But they are proven safe. This is anti-science fear mongering dressed up in a reasonable suit and tie.

Look, all politicians are inherently somewhat scummy and they all pander. And, Trump and Hillary say and do things considerably worse than this. But, I find her comments concerning and someone who is willing to pander to an anti-science extremist group is going to have a hard time getting my vote.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like BnW's post
12-06-2016, 10:14 AM
RE: Jill Stein
Yeah, the Greens have never interested me, in large part because they have this attitude that natural is good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
12-06-2016, 10:23 AM
RE: Jill Stein
I don't think you're position is unreasonable.

She does know better.

When I decided to support her I read exactly what you posted and decided I could live with it.

I do wish she would restate a clear pro-science position.

Her position that there is also corruption in the FDA and big-pharma is valid, too, but shouldn't be used in this context because it's an obvious pander to the pseudoscience left.

Again and again, I see this mentioned as a blockade against people turning their support to her. She needs to just go with the truth and push it.

Pander or not, for me it's not a deal breaker. If she said straight out we're going to ban GMO's and stop vaccinating kids until we understand the causes of the upsurge in autism that would be a deal breaker but her pander kept me adequately acquiesced.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2016, 12:05 PM
RE: Jill Stein
(12-06-2016 10:14 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Yeah, the Greens have never interested me, in large part because they have this attitude that natural is good.

True...

Untreated sewage is "natural" -- but I wouldn't want a plateful for dinner.......
....

and yeah -- the Greenies have always been too tree-huggerish, bordering on lunacy - for my tastes...

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2016, 05:17 PM
RE: Jill Stein
(12-06-2016 10:23 AM)ImFred Wrote:  I don't think you're position is unreasonable.

She does know better.

When I decided to support her I read exactly what you posted and decided I could live with it.

I do wish she would restate a clear pro-science position.

Her position that there is also corruption in the FDA and big-pharma is valid, too, but shouldn't be used in this context because it's an obvious pander to the pseudoscience left.

Again and again, I see this mentioned as a blockade against people turning their support to her. She needs to just go with the truth and push it.

Pander or not, for me it's not a deal breaker. If she said straight out we're going to ban GMO's and stop vaccinating kids until we understand the causes of the upsurge in autism that would be a deal breaker but her pander kept me adequately acquiesced.

That's fair enough. I'm certainly not going to fault you for throwing your support behind someone who is probably the least offensive candidate in the race. There are no perfect candidates. Every candidate will have a position that you (the royal "you", not you personally") doesn't agree with and isn't based on evidence but on emotion. That's really human nature. I'm sure I have my own logical blindspots (Actually, I have two: I believe in the baseball jinx and dog heaven).

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2016, 05:41 PM
RE: Jill Stein
Quote:Actually, I have two: I believe in the baseball jinx and dog heaven

I promise you, we could be great friends irl.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2016, 07:42 PM
RE: Jill Stein
(12-06-2016 10:23 AM)ImFred Wrote:  I don't think you're position is unreasonable.

She does know better.

When I decided to support her I read exactly what you posted and decided I could live with it.

I do wish she would restate a clear pro-science position.

Her position that there is also corruption in the FDA and big-pharma is valid, too, but shouldn't be used in this context because it's an obvious pander to the pseudoscience left.

Again and again, I see this mentioned as a blockade against people turning their support to her. She needs to just go with the truth and push it.

Pander or not, for me it's not a deal breaker. If she said straight out we're going to ban GMO's and stop vaccinating kids until we understand the causes of the upsurge in autism that would be a deal breaker but her pander kept me adequately acquiesced.

I pretty much agree with this.

I don't love the idea of *supporting* homeopathy, but if people choose to "treat" themselves with it, I'm fine with their choice (unless it affects children that need serious medical attention or something).

I agree with getting people out of the FDA that have monetary stakes in pharmaceuticals and/or pesticides.

And also I agree with her tree-hugger stance Tongue

She's a candidate that I don't necessarily agree with on *everything* but at I least feel comfortable enough to support her and to encourage others to, too.

Atheism is the only way to truly be free from sin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Colourcraze's post
12-06-2016, 07:53 PM
RE: Jill Stein
(12-06-2016 12:05 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(12-06-2016 10:14 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Yeah, the Greens have never interested me, in large part because they have this attitude that natural is good.

True...

Untreated sewage is "natural" -- but I wouldn't want a plateful for dinner.......
....

and yeah -- the Greenies have always been too tree-huggerish, bordering on lunacy - for my tastes...

The word natural has lost all meaning. My sister sold all natural pills. Supposedly filled with natural vitamins. I asked her what pill bush they had been picked off. I saw a rabbit running across her yard, and explained to her, a vegetarian, that that was natural food, not having been processed time and time again. I never could get her definition of natural.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Born Again Pagan's post
13-06-2016, 10:14 AM
RE: Jill Stein
Jill Stein's stance on science reminds me of anything science-based I read on Huffington Post. They get answers to questions like evolution and climate change right, but then they go off the deep end when you bring up any type of pharmaceutical conspiracy theory.

I stopped reading the site when they cited a Harvard study about water fluoridation and proceeded to say a bunch of stuff the study didn't say.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
13-06-2016, 10:49 AM
RE: Jill Stein
What site? Huffington Post?

Also "Jill Stein's stance on science"

Huh?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: