Jill Stein is anti-science meme
There's a meme going around that Jill Stein is "anti-science". She supports Bernie and will likely get some of his voters in the event that Clinton is the verified nominee.
Stein is not anti-science. The Green Platform includes a pro-homeopathy plank. I'm like: Whatevs. I'm "libertarian" enough to think that if people want to buy and take sugar pills then they should be able to. As long as they don't withhold medical attention from those who can't consent.
The Green party platform is pro-homeopathy. Yes, this is indeed just about the most ridiculous political position taken by any US political party. Jill Stein has in the past said that she doesn't support homeopathy. No surprise, given that she went to Harvard Medical. For what it's worth, every Green I've talked to about it agrees that homeopathy is not a real thing, so I don't even know where the supporters are.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Yardener For This Useful Post:
If people want to try that stuff, that's their business.
I do not think modern medicine has the answers to everything, and it is often wrong. People should have control over their own bodies.
The anti-science people are the ones working to prevent efforts to stop global warming.
I'm a physicist by training, and I'm anti-GMO like the Greens, not only because it has not been proven safe, but because people have a right to eat according to what they think is best, and especially because GMO crops contaminate organic crops for miles around.
I am pro-nuclear power, for plants constructed, sited, and operated safely, because it is really the only fuel source that can possibly stop global warming. The alternative clean energy sources just do not have enough capacity.
Yes, I am a Liberal.
Beware attacks trying to take down Bernie and Jill. Some of the oppos know we can get a lot of votes and want to neutralize us.
From Jill's AMA on Reddit:
Q: What is your campaign's official stance on vaccines and homeopathic medicine?
A: 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.