What Kind of Journalism is This?
..."foxes are guarding the chicken coop" when it came to vaccines, and that regulatory boards are "routinely packed with corporate lobbyists and CEOs."
"Like any medication, [vaccines] also should be – what shall we say? – approved by a regulatory board that people can trust."
"We make guinea pigs out of whole populations and then we discover how many die. And this is like the paradigm for how public health works in this country and it's outrageous, you know."
This article tries to paint Dr. Jill Stein as some kind of crackpot anti-vaxxer, but the only direct quotes it offers, like those above, utterly fail to support this contention.
Expressing skepticism about the corporate-controlled mechanisms of public health is a very, very long way from saying that kids shouldn't be vaccinated. Expressing concern about very young kids spending too many hours in front of computer screens, instead of running around the schoolyard, is not necessarily a disparagement of the wonders of the Internet. When we know beyond any doubt that the medical system is being subjected to unprecedented corporate influence, suggesting extra vigilance is not paranoia.
I've watched many hours of Jill Stein's presentations and interviews. I've never heard her say anything that wasn't rational and based on well-accepted facts. Her platform is based on concerns that are simply not open to question any more, though they might have been labeled 'conspiracy theories' a few years ago.
Basically, Dr. Stein wants to slash the vast US military budget - clearly a sensible move, given that it has long exceeded that of all other countries combined - and put the money to work creating a 'green new deal' that would rebuild the decimated US middle class while weaning the US off of fossil fuels. On the evolutionary scale, that puts her about 100 million years ahead of war-mongering Wall Street employee Shillary, or fear-mongering fascist Trump - in fact, a very long way ahead of most candidates for most leadership posts in most countries around the world.
Cherry-picking and misinterpreting a few chance comments is not only shoddy journalism, it's a low sort of character assassination - in this case targeting a person who clearly doesn't deserve it. If you want to disagree with a candidate, do it on the issues, and leave the gossip-mongering to Fox News. I thought the Register was better than this.