Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Jill Stein panders: anti-vax and homeopathy

Lexus
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 9:19:07 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
See here in her official reddit AMA: https://www.reddit.com...

Plain and simple pandering to homeopathy is seen here:
"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."


If you were thinking of supporting Jill Stein because of her 'progressive' values, I'd suggest thinking again!
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 9:30:54 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 9:19:07 PM, Lexus wrote:
See here in her official reddit AMA: https://www.reddit.com...

Plain and simple pandering to homeopathy is seen here:
"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."


If you were thinking of supporting Jill Stein because of her 'progressive' values, I'd suggest thinking again!

I do not see how the quoted text evinces pandering to homeopathy.
Lexus
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 9:43:20 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/18/2016 9:30:54 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 5/17/2016 9:19:07 PM, Lexus wrote:
See here in her official reddit AMA: https://www.reddit.com...

Plain and simple pandering to homeopathy is seen here:
"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."


If you were thinking of supporting Jill Stein because of her 'progressive' values, I'd suggest thinking again!

I do not see how the quoted text evinces pandering to homeopathy.

rly.
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 9:57:46 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/18/2016 9:43:20 PM, Lexus wrote:
At 5/18/2016 9:30:54 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 5/17/2016 9:19:07 PM, Lexus wrote:
See here in her official reddit AMA: https://www.reddit.com...

Plain and simple pandering to homeopathy is seen here:
"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."


If you were thinking of supporting Jill Stein because of her 'progressive' values, I'd suggest thinking again!

I do not see how the quoted text evinces pandering to homeopathy.

rly.

I see this:

For homeopathy, just because something is untested doesn't mean it's safe.

AFAIK homeopathy products do not go through clinical trials, and I believe that's what's she's referring to when she says untested. She also seems to express reservations as to the safety of homeopathy products. Following that, she discusses problems with evidence-based medicine related to conflicts of interest. I see the entire quote as criticizing both homeopathy and evidence based medicine. I do not see this as pandering to homeopathy.
Lexus
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 10:01:15 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/18/2016 9:57:46 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 5/18/2016 9:43:20 PM, Lexus wrote:
At 5/18/2016 9:30:54 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 5/17/2016 9:19:07 PM, Lexus wrote:
See here in her official reddit AMA: https://www.reddit.com...

Plain and simple pandering to homeopathy is seen here:
"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."


If you were thinking of supporting Jill Stein because of her 'progressive' values, I'd suggest thinking again!

I do not see how the quoted text evinces pandering to homeopathy.

rly.

I see this:

For homeopathy, just because something is untested doesn't mean it's safe.

AFAIK homeopathy products do not go through clinical trials, and I believe that's what's she's referring to when she says untested. She also seems to express reservations as to the safety of homeopathy products. Following that, she discusses problems with evidence-based medicine related to conflicts of interest. I see the entire quote as criticizing both homeopathy and evidence based medicine. I do not see this as pandering to homeopathy.

Yeah, I think that her totalising critique of organised medicine as if it was one thing is pretty much pandering to people that move beyond medicine, aka homeopathy. IDK though, I just have this vibe of pandering and not a legitimate opinion of hers, she is otherwise so good at her values, I can't imagine that she'd brush off the importance ... idk
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 10:39:11 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/18/2016 10:01:15 PM, Lexus wrote:
At 5/18/2016 9:57:46 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 5/18/2016 9:43:20 PM, Lexus wrote:
At 5/18/2016 9:30:54 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 5/17/2016 9:19:07 PM, Lexus wrote:
See here in her official reddit AMA: https://www.reddit.com...

Plain and simple pandering to homeopathy is seen here:
"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."


If you were thinking of supporting Jill Stein because of her 'progressive' values, I'd suggest thinking again!

I do not see how the quoted text evinces pandering to homeopathy.

rly.

I see this:

For homeopathy, just because something is untested doesn't mean it's safe.

AFAIK homeopathy products do not go through clinical trials, and I believe that's what's she's referring to when she says untested. She also seems to express reservations as to the safety of homeopathy products. Following that, she discusses problems with evidence-based medicine related to conflicts of interest. I see the entire quote as criticizing both homeopathy and evidence based medicine. I do not see this as pandering to homeopathy.

Yeah, I think that her totalising critique of organised medicine as if it was one thing is pretty much pandering to people that move beyond medicine, aka homeopathy. IDK though, I just have this vibe of pandering and not a legitimate opinion of hers, she is otherwise so good at her values, I can't imagine that she'd brush off the importance ... idk

Do you mean that by criticizing both she is, in a certain sense, elevating homeopathy to parity with evidence-based medicine? I think I can agree with that somewhat, but it seems incidental and I can't discern motivation. It's too far removed from what was said.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 10:55:00 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/18/2016 9:57:46 PM, Death23 wrote:

I see this:

For homeopathy, just because something is untested doesn't mean it's safe.

AFAIK homeopathy products do not go through clinical trials, and I believe that's what's she's referring to when she says untested. She also seems to express reservations as to the safety of homeopathy products. Following that, she discusses problems with evidence-based medicine related to conflicts of interest. I see the entire quote as criticizing both homeopathy and evidence based medicine. I do not see this as pandering to homeopathy.

Clinical trials aren't just to determine safety - they are also to determine efficacy.

Safety doesn't matter for homeopathy, because it is just water. What does matter is that they cannot pass a clinical test, because it is water and does not work. That's why homeopathists would not want clinical testing - because it would end their business.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2016 3:13:08 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Jill Stein is a joke, and I don't care about her.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King