Home / General / Jill Stein: SUPERGENIUS

Jill Stein: SUPERGENIUS

Comments
/
/
/
707 Views

jillstein

Jill Stein did a Reddit awhile back. She was asked about vaccines. Her response:

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.

There’s no reason to refute any of this point by point. You all know how stupid this is. But hey, she only agrees with Donald Trump 41% of the time, so you all should vote for Stein this fall since the Sanders campaign could not dictate every point in the Democratic Party platform.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Malaclypse

    If there’s anything to be learned from the modern Republican party, it is that pandering to the worst kooks amongst your supporters always ends well.

    • Snarki, child of Loki

      ..and by ‘well’, we mean ‘hilariously’.

      • tsam

        It’s all fun and games until your party nominee for president is Donald Trump. Shit ain’t so goddamn funny now. Trump can be entertaining, in a Jersey Shore TV show sort of way, but the fact that he got this close to the office is disturbing.

  • JL

    Also, Jill Stein thinks Brexit is a fine thing and too bad about all that racism.

    In more positive news, 81% of Sanders voters now say they’re supporting Clinton for the general (which is a better number than existed at this time for the similar situation in 2008).

    • Redwood Rhiadra

      Bloomberg has *MUCH* different numbers. A quarter of the Democratic party is going to defect in November.

      • twbb

        75% is MUCH different than 81%?

      • njorl

        Are they really saying that 25% of registered Democrats will go to the polls and vote for someone other than Clinton? If so, I know to ignore Bloomberg polling from now on, because it is obviously sensationalized for the purpose of selling papers.

  • Murc

    I… what?

    Stein is… almost right in the quoted passage. It is, in fact, true that distrust of vaccines is driven largely by distrust of the medical-industrial complex.

    But the source of that distrust isn’t because of leftist economic views on the part of much of the populace. It’s driven by woo-woo pseudoscience, racism, Bircherism, and, on the left, the worst sort of hippie-dippie spiritualism. It’s driven by the people who think fluoride in the water is put there by the Jews, and the people who think that if you formula-feed an infant you’re guilty of child abuse.

    She must know that.

    This seems like a particularly ham-handed example of trying to cram every single issue that comes before you into the central theme of your campaign or ideology, and that just doesn’t work.

    • See JL. Stein is trying to make Brexit a rejection of austerity.

      Seriously, if you still like her after these two facts then you have bad views or no ability to analyze.

      I’m supremely glad that she’s only a fringy fringe candidate. If another person tells me “If only Jill Stien had a chance…” I’m gonna laugh bitterly.

      • djw

        That there are still dead-enders who think it would have been good for progressive politics if the clowns who repeatedly nominated Nader and Stein* had somehow managed to get federal funds for future campaigns is quite remarkable.

        * To be scrupulously fair, they refrained from nominating the 9/11 troofer once.

        • Yep.

          If 2000 didn’t teach ya (I mean, including Nader’s subsequent behaviour) so you still thought Nader was reasonable in 2004, then you’re to dumb to even bother with.

          This is what I fear with Corbyn. He’s not *yet* QUITE Nader or Stein, but OTOH, he’s actually in charge :(

      • Scott Lemieux

        Jill Stein — the woman who thinks that vulgar Marxism is insufficiently vulgar. I’m surprised she hasn’t unironically praised this interpretation of “Raspberry Beret” yet.

        That there are still dead-enders who think it would have been good for progressive politics if the clowns who repeatedly nominated Nader and Stein* had somehow managed to get federal funds for future campaigns is quite remarkable.

        Indeed.

        • slothrop1

          You need to listen to the Monkees. Hip cats, man.

      • CD

        It’s a perfect specimen of two bad arguments:

        (1) The indiscriminate use of the term “corporate” so that anything in which any business might be involved becomes ipso facto a plot against the masses… indeed one more facet of a single vast plot.

        (2) The matched assertion that anything not-corporate, no matter how horrible it is on the face, is Resistance to the single vast corporate plot.

        This lines up Brexit, Trumpism, and Doctor Jill Stein.

        The “trust” argument is circular, and cynical: stir up conspiracy theories, attract people who find them persuasive, and then use the credulity of your supporters as an argument for your politics. Moreover no thoughtful person “trusts” any government, anywhere – it’s a stupidly extreme criterion.

        • efgoldman

          This lines up Brexit, Trumpism, and Doctor Jill Stein.

          Is she an MD doctor?
          What is it about most MDs in politics?

          • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

            At least AFAIK she never created her own medical group to provide her certification.

        • JonH

          “stir up conspiracy theories, attract people who find them persuasive, and then use the credulity of your supporters as an argument for your politics”

          And sow distrust of information sources that dismiss or debunk the conspiracy theories, so your followers end up hearing only bullshit.

    • I can provide anecdotal evidence of at least six very liberal Democrats I know here in Portland who opposed the fluoridation initiative based on the belief that it was a crony capitalist giveaway. None of these people are hippies or involved in any kind of new-age spirituality, and they’re all pro-vaccine.

      Instinctive mistrust of corporations is absolutely a factor in certain left-wing positions on science and health issues.

      • A former colleague of mine, tenured faculty in the CHEMISTRY department for godsakes, supported the anti-fluoridation campaign in Worcester the last time fluoridation proponents managed to get the issue on the ballot. City water remains unfluoridated.

      • Murc

        I can provide anecdotal evidence of at least six very liberal Democrats I know here in Portland who opposed the fluoridation initiative based on the belief that it was a crony capitalist giveaway.

        Well, hold on though. Was it?

        I can see how a fluoridation initiative could be a crony capitalist giveaway. Because someone has to provide the fluoride, monitor it, make adjustments, etc. That sounds like a great chance for a public-private partnership and some nice honest graft.

        But the vast bulk of people would not oppose fluoridation on those grounds. They would be all “Chemicals in our bodies! The Illuminati! The Bilderberg group! Chickens with twelve heads! GET OUT OF MY TEETH.”

        • djw

          Bizarrely, a version of this that I once heard was that flouride was a form of industrial waste, and evil corporations wanted a cheap way of disposing of it.

          • cleter

            That’s not entirely untrue. Like a lot of crazy stories, there is a grain of truth in the batshittery. The city water company does not have somebody who spends all day opening bottles of pharmaceutical-grade fluoride that they get from your dentist and pouring them into the reservoir. The fluoride in drinking water is typically an industrial byproduct of phospate mining and fertilizer manufacturing. The “evil corporations wanted a cheap way of disposing of it” part, though, that’s pretty much bunk.

      • Davis

        So it’s gone from being a Communist plot to a corporate plot.

        • cleter

          That’s an interesting transition. There’s probably a doctoral dissertation in there somewhere.

      • efgoldman

        Instinctive mistrust of corporations is absolutely a factor in certain left-wing positions on science and health issues.

        I’ve been a certified bleeding-heart liberal since before most of you were born. Mega Mutual Fund & Brokerage Corporation (actually an LLC) was very, very good to me (an hourly drudge) – much, much more than any of the radio stations at which I worked – for almost 20 years before I retired.

      • burnspbesq

        Instinctive mistrust of corporations

        Do they also mistrust LLCs? Is limited liability actually the issue, or is “corporation’ just a shibboleth devoid of meaning, a substitute for thought?

    • JL

      Hmm. Do people really distrust the medical-industrial complex because of (their own) racism?

      Speaking purely from a left perspective, when I encounter these people, the distrust comes from suspicion of big corporations (hence the harping on about Big Pharma), from historical racism (people of color familiar with the history of issues like forced sterilization), from contemporary bad experiences (trans people who got fed up with transphobic doctors and are now trying to play doctor to themselves), and sometimes, like you said, from hippie-dippie spiritualism and a strange and unfortunate belief that “natural” is always better. No particular order there except that suspicion of big corporations is probably on top.

      At Occupy Boston the street medics partnered with a local community health center to run two flu vaccines clinics. Most people were appreciative, and dozens, both Occupy people and passers-by, got flu vaccines. But there was a small but loud subset that complained about how it was a sellout to the Big Pharma Medical Industrial Complex something something capitalism.*

      I know less about the relevant rightist strains of thought. I would totally believe there’s some Bircherism there.

      *Mostly-anarchist-or-socialist street medics and socialized primary care providers teaming up to give free vaccines to mostly poor and working-class people: the epitome of capitalism, I guess.

      • Origami Isopod

        Speaking purely from a left perspective, when I encounter these people, the distrust comes from suspicion of big corporations (hence the harping on about Big Pharma), from historical racism (people of color familiar with the history of issues like forced sterilization), from contemporary bad experiences (trans people who got fed up with transphobic doctors and are now trying to play doctor to themselves), and sometimes, like you said, from hippie-dippie spiritualism and a strange and unfortunate belief that “natural” is always better. No particular order there except that suspicion of big corporations is probably on top.

        Sure, but like you say, that’s a left perspective. Most people who buy into woo-woo are more-mainstream liberals, or they’re conservatives. It’s less about reasonable mistrust of oppressive hierarchies and more about purity taboos. For the conservatives, there’s also theological whackjobbery, like vaccines implanting “the mark of the Beast” into people, but I think that’s related to purity taboos as well.

        ETA: I don’t really see how one’s own racism would drive someone into the arms of woo. I’ve never heard the conspiracy theory about Jews putting fluoride in the water before; when I google, I’m seeing references to one that the Nazis put it in the water to pacify Jews during WWII, which is equally half-baked. To the extent there’s any connection between racism and woo, it’s probably just crank magnetism.

    • ASV

      It is, in fact, true that distrust of vaccines is driven largely by distrust of the medical-industrial complex.

      As it happens I’ve done some research on this, and “largely” is not correct here.

      • Origami Isopod

        +1. The medical-industrial complex existed before Andrew Wakefield became infamous, and was not well liked, but anti-vax was not a thing at the time.

    • efgoldman

      It’s driven by the people who think fluoride in the water is put there by the Jews

      It’s true. I did it. I’m guilty. [Where’s Snidely when I need him?]

    • the people who think fluoride in the water is put there by the Jews

      Not just any Jews, but the Nazi Jews, who first used fluoride to keep themselves mindless and docile in their own concentration camps.
      On the moon.

    • cpinva

      “It’s driven by the people who think fluoride in the water is put there by the Jews”

      gee, I thought it was the godless commies that did that. the things I learn on here!

      “This seems like a particularly ham-handed example of trying to cram every single issue that comes before you into the central theme of your campaign or ideology, and that just doesn’t work.”

      if they even have a definable ideology. to me, the Green Party ideology is a mish mash of issues, some that kind of make sense, and others that, well……………..don’t.

      • efgoldman

        I thought it was the godless commies that did that.

        Take it from me, one can be a Jew and a godless commie at the same time. I had a whole family of us ’em.

  • E.Garth

    ?!?!?!?!?! Jill Stein agrees with Donald Trump on 41% of the issues?
    The first time I took that online test I stuck with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for my answers and got 4% agreement with the orange rage-monster. When I went back through and tried to do as much nuance as possible I got 14% agreement with the ferret-wearing shitgibbon. If Jill Stein has 41% agreement with the Voldemort-wannabee then she has drunk far too much of the ‘neo-liberal kool-aid’ for me!
    Defeat Trump, Vote Hillary!

    • Those percentages are pretty weird. It told me I agreed 92% with Clinton, but if I actually looked at the list there were dozens of individual items we disagreed on. Same was true of the other candidates.

    • nixnutz

      Yeah, when we compared notes it seems that the selection of questions is somewhat random. I got 24% agreement with Trump but some of those were reasonable positions; US should stay in the UN, anti-discrimination laws should cover gender identity, SS age shouldn’t be raised, we shouldn’t attack North Korea, ending Cuban embargo was good. Some were things I don’t believe he believes; raise federal minimum wage, raise taxes on stock sales, labor unions are positive, super-PACs shouldn’t be able to donate, and some were scored as agreement but aren’t really. For instance on “should US continue to support Israel” I said “We should give equal support to Israel and Palestine,” he said “Yes,” if I were scoring I’d say I agree with Bernie and not Hillary or Trump. Also I said eminent domain was OK “but only for public projects and never for private projects,” which counts as yes, but I’m certain we don’t agree on tearing down neighborhoods to build luxury condos.

      • Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

        This. I’m as anti-Trump as anyone I know, but the test said I agreed with him about as much as Stein did. Then I looked at our points of agreement, and I decided that I shouldn’t feel guilty that I agree with him on questions such as “Should we mount a military attack on North Korea?” (No, we should not.)

        • djw

          There was a thread about that quiz and people were posting their results. It seemed about half the people were getting ~40% Trump agreement, and the other half 10% or less, with very little in between, and no obvious notable political cleavage (based on hazy recollections of commenter’s political views) between the groups. I’m not sure what to make of that, beyond the obvious “some of these online quizzes aren’t very good”

          • Pseudonym

            The relative rankings of agreement are relatively useful; the absolute percentages are absolutely useless.

      • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

        Seriously, how can anyone measure the degree to which they agree with Trump’s “positions” when they change depending upon the audience and Trump’s mood at that instant?

        The man is a manipulator and BS artist who cares very little about what he’s saying beyond what effect it has upon the people he’s saying it to, and his aim is always to benefit himself at that moment.

        Mitt was at least “etch-a-sketch”. Trump rejects the entire idea of developing even a semi-coherent framework.

        • njorl

          Seriously, how can anyone measure the degree to which they agree with Trump’s “positions” when they change depending upon the audience and Trump’s mood at that instant?

          There have been many occasions where Trump’s “policy” changed within a sentence, or whatever it is Trump uses in lieu of sentences.

  • Oh god, “US Uncut”. “US Unhinged” is a more appropriate name for those clowns.

    • DW

      As an uncircumcised American, I’d like to point out that we’re not all like that.

      • keta

        #notallforeskins

    • That site is an utter abomination. On the other hand, I think it is the actual model for Salon, circa 2016.

  • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

    Uhhhhh…I’m not seeing a lot of “foxes” on this list:
    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/committee/members.html

    If she’s talking about the FDA, the “foxes guarding the henhouse” argument is a little more allowable, except she’s giving FDA a lot more power over vaccine promulgation than ACIP, which is just incorrect.

    Last I checked, most of the recent vaccine skepticism was driven by the Wakefield “MMR –> Autism” argument (and how’s that working out for you, Dr. Wakefield?). And, you know, ignorance about “herd immunity.” As a physician, this was a teachable moment, and instead she’s pandering to the ignorance of some phantom base of voters, and spinning their homicidal ignorance as good old-fashioned skepticism. She absolutely knows better, and she absolutely should be ashamed.

    • eclare

      I really hate the whole notion that if someone has ever worked in a regulated industry they must be disqualified from working for the regulators. Yes, there is of course room for cronyism and regulatory capture, but at the same time subject matter expertise is typically developed in the private sector. Having regulators who have not the slightest clue how the business they regulate actually works is a recipe for bad regulation. Having a wide variety of view points and experience at an agency is a good thing. The key is striking the right balance.

      • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

        Good point – from what I’ve seen (prior career working for in-house counsel), it’s much more of a collegial give-and-take than people typically imagine.

        • Davis

          You mean it’s more nuanced than good vs evil?

          • Hogan

            ITYM good vs. corporate.

      • Hogan

        And she picked a pretty weak example.

        • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

          Behold the power the word “Monsanto” holds over a certain segment of the population….

          • searcher

            It’s also always weird trying to sort out Monsanto as an archetype for the Evil Corporation vs Monsanto as a metonym for GMO.

      • prplmnkydw

        That balance is probably pretty hard, no?

        But besides, aren’t we all basically in agreement that capitalism and our medical system don’t mix well?

        • Pseudonym

          Compared to what? Single-payer/hybrid systems in other countries? No. Pre-vaccine health care? Yes. But at least pioneer surgery in Kentucky wasn’t tainted by corporations. (That’s not to defend, say, Theranos.)

    • Surely any chance that this woman has even a shred of intellectual integrity went out the window when she started stanning for homeopathy. Not to mention conflating things like evidence-based medicine and peer-reviewed, reproducible research with being bought and sold by Big Pharma.

  • Reminder number 100 trillion that having the letters M.D. after one’s name doesn’t guarantee the highest level of SMRTs. (And she could have been a brilliant doctor, but she’s shit as a politician.)

    • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

      Reason #[googolplex] why having the vast majority of med students be early twentysomethings may not be a great idea: in my various pre-medical careers, I got enough exposure to cancer research, public health and health policy to know the versions of those things that med students typically learn are, at best, charitably described as a Reader’s Digest version, so it was highly likely that *every* subject I was taught was the same sliver of a vast pie. But most of my peers seem to assume that once you absorb “Medicaid = poor people, Medicare = rich people”, you’re like Neo in the Matrix: blink once or twice, widen your eyes and say, “I kneaux Health Policy.”

  • Ronan

    I guess this is as relevant a thread as any to link to this

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-weathers-stormy-month-loses-only-2-points-versus-hillary-clinton-1466946000

    (WSJ, so if you cant get access just put the title “donald-trump-weathers-stormy-month-loses-only-2-points-versus-hillary-clinton” in google search and you can get it)

    It shows the Presidential race narrowing to 1 pt (to Clinton) when Stein and Johnson are included.

    I dont really know what to make of it…..(eta: ie any thoughts0

    • N__B

      Make of it that the WSJ is a propaganda rag.

      • Ronan

        Polling done by Frank Luntz (is he the one with alleged biases towards Republicans?)

        • djw

          It’s a fine and respectable polling outfit (538 gives them an A-) but so is ABC (A+). There’s no reason to discount the poll, but (see below) there’s good reason to ignore this and all other “pick the poll that helps me tell the story I want to tell” exercises that pass for journalism.

          • Denverite

            I would be deeply skeptical of any poll with third-party candidates until at least after the conventions. There’s still a ton of “I’m a Democrat but am still butthurt over Sanders losing” and “I’m a Republican but jesus christ does anyone else not see that he’s Mussolini” sentiment out there that is showing up as votes for Johnson and Stein. Most of that probably comes back into the folds by the fall. My guess is that Johnson doesn’t break three percent and Stein doesn’t break two percent in the general election.

            • djw

              Yes, and this dynamic occurs with 3rd party polling even in normal elections, without a monster like Trump and the butthurt Berniebro factor.

    • Denverite

      You should make of it what you would of a poll in which the Libertarian candidate is polling at ten percent.

      • brad

        While I agree it’d be shocking to see Johnson end up at that level, 5%+ seems quite possible. Republicans who can’t vote for either Trump or Clinton have to end up somewhere. And it’d be an added bonus from the Trump campaign clusterfuck if a right tilted 3rd party became an established siphon on the Republican candidate.

        • Hogan

          Republicans who can’t vote for either Trump or Clinton have to end up somewhere.

          Well, no, they don’t. Not voting is an option, as is leaving the top line blank.

          • brad

            True. But… well, unjustifiable assumption on my part, but still, that comes close to not voting at all, and conservatives seem especially prone to the “if you don’t vote you can’t complain” reduction. Not mention there are some younger voters on the right who could find that platform appealing.
            I’m not calling any of those segments significant, but along with the natural libertarian kook base I think there’s that kind of upside for Johnson when they’re all added up.

            • efgoldman

              I think there’s that kind of upside for Johnson when they’re all added up.

              What Obama state EVs does Johnson put in play? I can more easily see him costing Combover Caligula.

              • brad

                I don’t know if he can prove that significant, my gut says western states like Nevada and Colorado will be his best states, and they are in play and important, but Stein will probably do better there than she will overall for similar reasons to Johnson.
                It’s frustrating that the only polling of many states is either very old or just non-existent yet.

                But eta, I never meant to imply Johnson would cost the Dems that way, quite the reverse. If it is close he could be very important in terms of siphoning off small but meaningful numbers of otherwise Repub voters.

        • djw

          I’d place a yuuuge bet on the under for Johnson at 5%. The LP’s time high is a shade north of 1%! Johnson, presumably a more serious candidate than their usual fare, but he couldn’t quite get to 1%. It wouldn’t blow my mind if he ended up doubling the previous record, given the Trump factor. But 5% is just wildly improbable. I wouldn’t say impossible, given the uncertainty of the Trump factor, but I’d be extremely comfortable with at least 15-1 odds against it.

          • brad

            Probably accurate that I’m overestimating there, but both my own anecdotal experience and the seemingly demonstrable fact that many Berniebros are essentially Paulistas make me think that with the right campaign Johnson could do surprisingly well with younger (male) voters. I’ve been surprised by some of the people I know who are put off by Trump’s misogyny and racism, but are equally prone to bringing up Benghazi. And I can’t help but be reminded of my own youthful vote for Nader in 96.

    • djw

      Here’s something I would have thought would be fairly obvious at this late date:

      It’s dumb to look at one poll in isolation, when you have many polls from many competent and professional polling firms. An average of serious polls shows Clinton’s lead expanding from 3.5 to 6.8 during the same period of time.

      There were two polls today, one showing a 5 point lead, 1 with Stein and Johnson, the other showing a 12 point Clinton lead, 10 with Stein and Johnson. If you want to write a “why isn’t Clinton doing better?” story you focus on the NBC/WSJ poll and ignore ABC. If you want to write a “Clinton starting to pull away” story you do the opposite. It’s a common but dumb way to to assess a the state of a campaign, and should be ignored.

      • Ronan

        But that’s what I was wondering. I’d never seen one with third parties included, and I was wondering (1) were third parties realistically going to lower Clinton’s vote that much (2) what to make of the polling itself. I see a lot of problems with posing the question with third parties (ie the framing leading responders to a prefered answer) but I dont know enough about the mechanics of polling, so was curious as to whether there were issues with that methodologically.
        I assume I can ignore the poll though. (eta I see your answer above not to neccesarily discount the poll)

        • Ronan

          Just to add, I came to it from Luntz’s twitter feed so was willing to give it more credence (as he was pushing it heavily enough)

          • efgoldman

            I came to it from Luntz’s twitter feed so was willing to give it more credence

            Luntz? The guy who invents Republiklown focus groups? Who invented the list of “right words” for the Newtnik? That Luntz? I wouldn’t trust him if he said today is Sunday.

            • rachelmap

              Grrr. I saw him on BBC HARDtalk a few days ago. Did you know that the reason Hillary doesn’t say hateful things like Donald does is that she is totally scripted and never goes off-message from her teleprompter? I did not know that. Oh, and she needs to admit that she made a mistakes and has learned from them to win the support of reasonable conservatives. Oh, and politics has become toxic. =_=;

            • JonH

              Also, Luntz, the Oxford classmate of Boris Johnson who assisted Boris in winning the Oxford Union presidency.

        • djw

          I imagine at this point polling with the third party candidates is more misleading than not. It’s pretty consistent that they poll better than they’ll actually perform, and that effect is probably even greater this year given the high negatives of both candidates.

          I sincerely doubt support for either of them will remain high enough to impact the final outcome, but as long as Trump’s negatives remain higher and more intense than Clinton’s, the 3rd party cnadidates will probably hurt Trump more.

  • Captain Oblivious

    She’s a practicing physician, no? Yank her fkn license.

    • AMK

      Wikipedia says that she was a practicing physician and an “instructor” at Harvard Med School (her alma mater) until 2006.

      Aside from maybe Howard Dean, are there any doctors in politics who aren’t lunatics or political simpletons? (Look at Ben Carson and all the MDs in the Tea Party caucus). It seems like spending decades studying and practicing in a complex but very narrow technical area does not in fact prepare a person with the kind of broad-based knowledge and critical thinking skills you need to make public policy.

      • kateislate

        Our health minister up here Canada-way is a doc. She’s new, so there is no way to tell how she is going to turn out, but it hasn’t gone terribly so far.

      • scott_theotherone

        I’ve got two kids who’ve had serious health issues, causing us to spend a lot of time with a lot of different doctors, and my completely anecdotal experience is that in addition to your point, society has taught us for decades that doctors are nigh upon infallible. So it’s not just that they’re lacking “the kind of broad-based knowledge and critical thinking skills you need to make public policy,” but that they’re also outstanding examples of Dunning-Kruger.

      • Pseudonym

        My grandfather’s congresscritter, Raul Ruiz, seems decent enough.

      • Scott Lemieux

        Frist!

        • Pseudonym

          The Pauls Ron and Rand, Tom Coburn, John Barrasso, Paul Broun, it’s quite a group.

      • Warren Terra

        I don’t think I’ve ever heard anything nice said about Seattle’s longtime congressperson Jim McDermott MD, who’s supposed to be doctrinaire, dumb as a sack of hammers, and (perhaps most importantly) utterly ineffective. But at least he’s all that stuff on the left rather than the right …

        • Bruce B.

          He’s a reliable vote for the party line. This puts him way ahead of many. He’s also been good on constituent service to several folks I know, including my late dad.

  • thebewilderness

    So that whole thing where the companies instead of the public have to pay for the testing and approval agency process of their drugs because reasons didn’t work out so well? You astonish me, Jill.

  • Ken

    I know you said there’s no need to refute it point-by-point, but I just wanted to note the piquancy of the phrase “snake oil” in the midst of a discussion of homeopathy – but not, somehow, directed at it.

    • Cheerful

      I agree that more bitter laughter should be directed to the homeopathy part of this. Strangely though, it is bigger in France than I would have thought possible. People apparently take it seriously, and my french mother in law’s home book of homeopathy is well thumbed and often used.

      • lcindc

        You have no idea. My entire family back in France are total believers. I don’t argue with them because, well, when they’re really sick, they still have the good sense to go see a real doctor, but they know, absolutely know, that the only reason they’re not sick more often is the magical homeopathic pills they take every day.

      • Chester Allman

        That was my impression of France as well. When I lived there for a short spell in 1996, it seemed that every single pharmacy featured a big “homeopathy” sign out front. At the time I didn’t really know what that was – just assumed it was a standard association with medical care in France.

    • rea

      I’m just glad the Supreme Court decided in favor of homeopathic marriage.

  • prplmnkydw

    Wait, Erik, don’t you entirely agree with her comments about regulations and regulators and regulatory capture?

    And doesn’t she still totally endorse vaccines? I dont like her, but I fail to see the problem here…

    • Pseudonym

      The problems with regulatory capture don’t really apply to vaccines though. On the other hand, the problem of corporate influence on regulation really does apply to the homeopathic and supplement industry, but for some “odd” reason she doesn’t focus on that.

      • Pseudonym

        And casting doubt on vaccines for the purpose of political theater has, shall we say, problematic side effects.

      • Colin Day

        So this is not the apex of regulation?


        DSHEA

        Hint: No.

  • John Revolta

    The problem is that here at LGM all vaccines and indeed all medical procedures are good good good, no doubt about that, bar none, yes indeedy deed, case closed, ipso fatso.

    Ya heretic.

    • Pseudonym

      I know Erik at least is in the pocket of Big Kentucky Surgery.

      • Warren Terra

        Please: Big Kentucky ™ Surgery.

        A court has ruled that the University of that state has successfully trademarked the name of the aforementioned state, and as such I think it’s only appropriate that we indicate this whenever we refer to said state by name, as “Kentucky ™”.

    • I went on vacation just so I could visit a country where I could be bled and blistered.

      • Pseudonym

        Have you tried wearing sunscreen?

  • tonycpsu

    Well well well, what have we here…

    Before

    • tonycpsu

      … and after

      Looks like Dr. Stein wants to memory hole her Brexit support.

  • MacK

    My younger brother is profoundly autistic – late onset, at 4½, perfectly normal until then. I also had two first cousins die of Leigh Disease (it took years.)

    I have seen the charlatans that pop out of the woodwork when parents are desperate and scared. One doctor showed up to say it was the fluoride and that my brother could only drink and be bathed in specially purified water – but he had an MD! It was 18 months of absolute hell keeping an autistic boy away from every source of water except those ****ing blue barrels. Right now Ms. Stein is the subject profanities that are not repeatable in rude company….

    Later, as first one cousin died slowly and agonisingly, and then the next – many of these types approached my aunt. I remember the one with the glove of some martyr, who for IR£20,000 would have it placed on the child….In a few instances my father called the Commissioner of the Police, who he knew – with consequences for the charlatans – because when they heard what this creeps had tried, the emotional blackmail to try to extract money.

    • I just read the description of Leigh’s disease. Horrifying. I am so sorry for your entire family. That must have been agonizing to go through. A dear friend lost a baby to Tay Sachs (and the baby’s cousin) and I have seen what these slow deaths do to families. I’m just so sorry to hear about it. CAn’t even imagine what your family went through with your brother.

  • A Rising Ape

    Thanks, but I’ll be voting for Stein purely out of good, healthy spite for all the sanctimonious vomit directed at me by Hillary supporters, much simpler.

    • Because of course you are.

It is main inner container footer text