Sorry for taking so long to respond Oniya, haven't been around enough. The reason I called her platform anti vax was statements like these:
"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 donít know if all of them have been addressed."
Though not directly antivax perse, it is an argument quite often used by antivaxers. As a medical doctor she knows better than saying things like: "the toxic substances like mercury which used to be rampant in vaccines" when this is blatantly not true. Thiomersal is only used in trace amounts, and only in very few vaccines. And this has always been the case.
Though her statements are not directly anti-vax, they are intended to appeal to the antivaxxers who in fairness are a large part of her voter base.
Similar concerns came to me in this: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2016/09/jill-stein-calls-for-new-911-investigation-doubling-down-on-conspiracy-nonsense/
Yes the article is biased against her, but the facts of her statement are correct.
Or this: http://www.sciencealert.com/us-presidential-candidate-jill-stein-thinks-wi-fi-is-a-threat-to-children-s-health
And then her insistence that her government can forgive billions upon billions in student debts by quantitive easing, without being able to explain how easing works. She once stated: "All people need to know is that it is a magic trick" Which next to being blatantly false, as it is not a magic trick but a complex and economically risky list of measures, is also weird as she is basically saying: "We are going to forgive student debt, but we're not going to explain how. We'll do a magic trick"
Though Stein and even Johnson are marginally better than the human version of B.P. Richfield
, neither make a seriously valid option for the presidency.
Sadly, despite all her flaws, and obvious servitude to corporate interest, that leaves Mrs Rodham-Clinton as the only viable candidate.