Jill Stein on vaccines: People have ‘real questions’
31 replies, posted
[vid]https://cdn.streamable.com/video/mp4/k9rh.mp4[/vid]
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/29/jill-stein-on-vaccines-people-have-real-questions/[/url]
[quote]For a week, Jill Stein was everywhere that the Democratic National Convention was not. The Green Party's likely candidate for president made drop-ins to a four-day Socialist Convergence at the Quaker meeting hall, rallied "Bernie or Bust" protesters outside the gates of Philadelphia's sports complex and sat for interview after interview.
When she sat with The Washington Post's Sarah Parnass and Alice Li, Stein explained her stance on something that had flared up during a Reddit AMA. Did she think vaccines were harmful?
"I think there’s no question that vaccines have been absolutely critical in ridding us of the scourge of many diseases — smallpox, polio, etc. So vaccines are an invaluable medication," Stein said. "Like any medication, they also should be — what shall we say? -- approved by a regulatory board that people can trust. And I think right now, that is the problem. That people do not trust a Food and Drug Administration, or even the CDC for that matter, where corporate influence and the pharmaceutical industry has a lot of influence."
Stein's warning about corporate influence in the vaccine approval process is often voiced by "anti-vaxxers." In reality, most members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee work at academic or medical institutions, not drug companies. But for Stein, the fact that people saw corporate and lobbying influence running rampant meant that some skepticism was warranted.[/quote]
I feel like this is a diplomatic "toe-the-line" feel-good statement to not push away anti-vaxxers too much, for the sake of her campaign. As a doctor and a scientist, Jill Stein's response to the vaccine question should unquestionably be "Vaccines work" with no padding or political wish-wash.
This made me lose a great deal of respect for her.
I thought about supporting her, but if she is antivax, then no way
[QUOTE=da space core;50797134]I thought about supporting her, but if she is antivax, then no way[/QUOTE]
She's just anti-corporation, and addressing the fact that a lot of people are paranoid of the FDA and the medical industry in general.
[QUOTE=da space core;50797134]I thought about supporting her, but if she is antivax, then no way[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=smurfy;50797109]"I think there’s no question that vaccines have been absolutely critical in ridding us of the scourge of many diseases — smallpox, polio, etc. So vaccines are an invaluable medication," Stein said. "Like any medication, they also should be — what shall we say? -- approved by a regulatory board that people can trust. And I think right now, that is the problem. That people do not trust a Food and Drug Administration, or even the CDC for that matter, where corporate influence and the pharmaceutical industry has a lot of influence."[/QUOTE]
This doesn't sound very anti-vaxx to me
Yeah, I think this makes complete sense. If anything the flaw is that it's a platitude. She's obviously not an anti-vaxxer, "I think there’s no question that vaccines have been absolutely critical in ridding us of the scourge of many diseases — smallpox, polio, etc. So vaccines are an invaluable medication,"
And it acknowledges how many members of the vaccine committee aren't part of drug companies, but she aims to alleviate the distrust in the industry and questions over lobbying influence. How can you be against that?
[QUOTE=da space core;50797134]I thought about supporting her, but if she is antivax, then no way[/QUOTE]
She actually made a very smart statement that there are concerns over vaccines, but they're not the source of all evil. Read before you jump to assertions.
There will always be real questions about anything, but I have to agree with her that it's paramount that people feel that the approval system is transparent and understandable enough. Conveying research is hard in the first place, but when it comes to their kids, people [I]really[/I] need assurance.
Just telling people that a vaccine works and is safe wasn't enough to not completely erode trust (with very real consequences in the number of people who get vaccinated) in Gardasil here in Denmark. The institution really needs to be completely impervious to criticism (okay, nothing ever is, but close to), and respond to citizens' concerns. I have trust in our institutions, and I don't have an answer for how this could be improved, but I think it's very important that we actually do something about it. Vaccines are too important for us to ignore these doubts, even if the concerns are mostly or entirely irrational.
This has always been her position. She isn't anti-vax, she's anti big pharma.
If you think this is a reason to call her a poor candidate then we should have all laughed Bernie out of town for thinking GMOs are evil and that Nuclear energy must be restricted.
Nothing to see here, like people are saying she's just acknowledging that while vaccines have been a massively important tool to improve our overall health people don't really trust the regulatory bodies because of how much influence corporations have over them. Honestly seems like a totally fair position.
[QUOTE=DoctorSalt;50797172]Yeah, I think this makes complete sense. If anything the flaw is that it's a platitude. She's obviously not an anti-vaxxer, "I think there’s no question that vaccines have been absolutely critical in ridding us of the scourge of many diseases — smallpox, polio, etc. So vaccines are an invaluable medication,"
And it acknowledges how many members of the vaccine committee aren't part of drug companies, but she aims to alleviate the distrust in the industry and questions over lobbying influence. How can you be against that?[/QUOTE]
Here's an overlying issue with corporate influence in federal regulations
If you don't get a technical expert from the field to [I]assist in[/I] regulating your technology (medicine, food, ect), then who do you get?
Researchers are at national labs and universities and aren't interested in regulation.
Industry professionals don't want to take the pay cut that comes with going from industry to government work.
Anyone else wouldn't know the technical ins and outs and would either under regulate the industry (food) or over regulate it (nuclear) because people don't know where an appropriate cutoff line is.
It is a legitimate issue but I haven't found any decent solutions. If you want another body other than the FDA regulating medicine, how do you prevent the same level of corporate influence from happening?
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50797264]Here's an overlying issue with corporate influence in federal regulations
If you don't get a technical expert from the field to [I]assist in[/I] regulating your technology (medicine, food, ect), then who do you get?
Researchers are at national labs and universities and aren't interested in regulation.
Industry professionals don't want to take the pay cut that comes with going from industry to government work.
Anyone else wouldn't know the technical ins and outs and would either under regulate the industry (food) or over regulate it (nuclear) because people don't know where an appropriate cutoff line is.
It is a legitimate issue but I haven't found any decent solutions. If you want another body other than the FDA regulating medicine, how do you prevent the same level of corporate influence from happening?[/QUOTE]
If the majority of the population sees it as an issue, raise taxes to pay for industry workers. Otherwise, keep the current system. Simple economics
She actually fits right in with me, get vaccines but still question where they come from.
Part of the reason I was a little skeptical of vaccines at first, was the corporation factor. Of coarse I always check my clinics to make sure they are reputable, which is something everyone should do.
People calling Jill Stein an anti-vaxxer is akin to calling Johnson anti-government, third party candidates are [I]always[/I] going to get shit on by people who don't fucking read and don't pay attention. That's my number one problem with most people, it drives me up the wall because alleviating ignorance [I]is so goddamn simple, all you have to do is read/listen.[/I]
I'm not voting for Stein and I disagree with her one some serious stuff but I'll defend the greens from the same shit that happens to us libertarians.
if the amount which we're allowed to question the vaccines being advocated for is 0%, without becoming an antivaxx nutjob, that's a problem
[QUOTE=Barcock;50799523]if the amount which we're allowed to question the vaccines being advocated for is 0%, without becoming an antivaxx nutjob, that's a problem[/QUOTE]100% agree with you.
I've been called an anti-vaxxer simply because I questioned if they rushed that one vaccine to treat swine flu or whatever the fuck it was. There were some pretty alarming side-effects, in rare cases permanent stuff like neuronal death and shit like that, and I wondered out-loud if it was prematurely pushed out to assuage fears and people [I]lost their shit.[/I] To this day there are two people who refuse to talk to me because they're convinced I'm "anti-science."
Poor US, a choice of two neoliberal career politicians or two third party lunatics
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50799715]Poor US, a choice of two neoliberal career politicians or two third party lunatics[/QUOTE]
how are hillary and trump neoliberals at all
wait this post doesn't even make sense
what the fuck
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;50799738]how are hillary and trump neoliberals at all
wait this post doesn't even make sense
what the fuck[/QUOTE]
They're both very much neoliberals, although Trump less so than Hillary, but Trump comes with a shed load of other baggage.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;50797131]I feel like this is a diplomatic "toe-the-line" feel-good statement to not push away anti-vaxxers too much, for the sake of her campaign. As a doctor and a scientist, Jill Stein's response to the vaccine question should unquestionably be "Vaccines work" with no padding or political wish-wash.
This made me lose a great deal of respect for her.[/QUOTE]
Serves her right for pandering to the anti-vaxxer crowd. She's a doctor, for fuck's sake.
Last time we discussed this on another thread, I basically thought "either she's playing dumb, or she's an anti-vaxxer and doesn't want to come clean about it". Like you said, she's a doctor so the answer should be quite straightforward.
These mixed signals make her lose a lot of credibility.
[editline]30th July 2016[/editline]
The whole "vaccines are okay, but the FDA is bad, guise" message is quite vague.
And here I thought Green party was just nutty in my country.
Apparently, Green party is just nutty everywhere.
[QUOTE=CroGamer002;50799947]And here I thought Green party was just nutty in my country.
Apparently, Green party is just nutty everywhere.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't seem anti-vax more anti-big pharma without regulation.
She acknowledges that vaccinations work incredibly well but that in the past they have been contaminated or ineffective and pushed for profit rather than as a means of vaccination.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50797145]She's just anti-corporation, and addressing the fact that a lot of people are paranoid of the FDA and the medical industry in general.[/QUOTE]
Considering that she would support something bigger than the FDA should make us all dismiss her as anything but a fringe candidate.
Bigger the praise in the beginning, bigger the but.
I'm sorry but if she was truly just being anti-big pharma or more for oversight she could have made that point without singling out vaccines. Same shit (and in even worse scenarios) happens in all areas of pharmaceutical industry.
She might not be an anti-vaxxer herself, but as it stands what she said is just mild pandering to that crowd and they should not be pandered to.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50799715]Poor US, a choice of two neoliberal career politicians or two third party lunatics[/QUOTE]
Somebody didn't watch the video, and formed an opinion based on just the title ^^^
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;50800185]Somebody didn't watch the video, and formed an opinion based on just the title ^^^[/QUOTE]
She's mad in more ways than just this
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50800222]She's mad in more ways than just this[/QUOTE]
I keep seeing shit like this, but no explanation, no sources, its fucking annoying
[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;50801672]I keep seeing shit like this, but no explanation, no sources, its fucking annoying[/QUOTE]
Maybe they just don't want to admit they were wrong about her? A few days ago, there were people left and right exclaiming how she was an anti-vaxxer, an idiot, unelectable, etc. Now that her statement has actually been clarified, and now that everybody can see she's actually a very intelligent, well-informed person who is also not an anti-vaxxer, the people who claimed otherwise just don't want to admit that they were wrong about her. That's the bottom line here: people can't admit that they were wrong is all.
Stein is not a bad candidate. She is not an anti-vaxxer. The people who claimed she was were wrong. That's just how it is.
[QUOTE=da space core;50797134]I thought about supporting her, but if she is antivax, then no way[/QUOTE]
[quote]...I think there’s no question that vaccines have been absolutely critical in ridding us of the scourge of many diseases...[/quote]
You could actually read the article and see that she isn't saying this.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;50802265]You could actually read the article and see that she isn't saying this.[/QUOTE]
Nice cherrypicking, bud.
Her hole speech is, in a nutshell, "vaccines are nice and all, but what about the FDA guise?!!?!". It's fair to say that it sounds ambiguous on her part.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.