Jill Stein: People Have ‘Real Questions’ About Vaccines and ‘Do Not Trust’ CDC

Green Party Presidential Candidate Falsely Claims Confidence in Regulatory Agencies Like the CDC Is Low

Jill Stein says people have “real questions” about vaccines, but says they have been effective in battling disease. Stein, in a just-published interview with The Washington Post, titled, “Jill Stein on vaccines: People have ‘real questions,’” says, “there’s no question that vaccines have been absolutely critical in ridding us of the scourge of many diseases.”

Stein, a physician, told the Post, “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.”

But Stein, the Green Party’s presumptive nominee for President of the United States, sows seeds of doubt and distrust in the safety of vaccines by claiming the general public’s level of “strong confidence” in regulatory agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is “somewhere around four percent.”

“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.”

In fact, the most recent Gallup poll in which Americans were asked about how they think the FDA and CDC are doing – just after the 2014 Ebola crisis – found 50 percent of Americans thought the CDC is doing an “excellent” or “good” job, down from 60 percent in 2013. Ratings for the FDA were consistent at 45 percent.

And in January of 2015, Pew found 70 percent of Americans view the CDC favorably.

The Post generously reports, “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.”

Stein continued to sow seeds of doubt and distrust in her Washington Post interview.

“As a medical doctor, there was a time where I looked very closely at those issues, and not all those issues were completely resolved,” Stein said. “There were concerns among physicians about what the vaccination schedule meant, the toxic substances like mercury which used to be rampant in vaccines. There were real questions that needed to be addressed. I think some of them at least have been addressed. I don’t know if all of them have been addressed.”

She concluded, “it’s really important that the American public have confidence in our regulatory boards so that all of our medical treatments and medications actually are approved by people who do not have a vested interest in their promotion. In my experience, this is not a radical idea. This is basic common sense.”

But rather than investigate and offer proof that Americans trust the CDC, and rather than show, as the Post reports, “most members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee work at academic or medical institutions, not drug companies,” Stein opted to key into what she claims are “real questions” and spread fear and doubt.

In a Reddit AMA (“Ask Me Anything”) two months ago, Stein also seeded doubt and distrust, without offering proof.

“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?”

Feminist website Jezebel offered this sarcastic take on Stein’s interview with the Post.

“With one hand, then, Stein tell the Post and the public that there’s a ‘real, compelling need’ for vaccines, and with the other implies that there’s maybe something unsafe or sketchy about them. Very cool. Very responsible.”

The Hill notes, “Last year, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton weighed in on vaccine controversy, saying that ‘the science is clear.'”

On Twitter, some responses:

 

 

Image: Screenshot via Washington Post