Head of CDC resigns after report says she purchased shares of a tobacco company while in office - Polidicks

[t]http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/5a71d89524d5056d1b8b45dd-1381/ap176850927651.jpg[/t] [quote]The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention just resigned. Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald, who had served as director since July 2017, had financial interests that recused her from much of her duties. Politico reported Tuesday that Fitzgerald purchased stock in Japan Tobacco while acting as director of the CDC. Fitzgerald had also bought shares of pharmaceutical companies Merck and Bayer and health insurer Humana. [B]The purchase of the tobacco shares especially raised concerns, because one of the goals of the CDC is to prevent smoking. [/B][/quote] [url=http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-dr-brenda-fitzgerald-resigns-2018-1]Business Insider article[/url] And the initial Politico report: [url=https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/30/cdc-director-tobacco-stocks-after-appointment-316245]Trump's top health official traded tobacco stock while leading anti-smoking efforts[/url]

lot of resignitions already this year

[QUOTE=Firetornado;53097228]lot of resignitions already this year[/QUOTE] one by one

i hope to god that the senate one day restores the filibuster for all appointees, this admin's dumpster fire of people might have been somewhat muted if that was the case.

I know this is repeated a lot during this administration but sweet Moses this is basically an Onion headline [editline]31st January 2018[/editline] Shit, the only thing more ironic I can think of would be if the head of the ATF got caught shouldering an arm brace

its like they cant even be corrupt correctly, all of them are forcing themselves out of the swamp

[QUOTE=Firetornado;53097293]its like they cant even be corrupt correctly, all of them are forcing themselves out of the swamp[/QUOTE] Stupid Watergate is having an area of effect on anyone nearby

Why isn't it a criminal offense to abuse your position of political power for personal financial gain, exactly? Why isn't it illegal to make decisions while in high governmental office that compromise your impartiality and dedication to your job duties? This shit happens way too much, I feel like our entire government is bought out by oligarchs and no one ever suffers for their malpractice except for the American people.

[QUOTE=Zombinie;53097334]Why isn't it a criminal offense to abuse your position of political power for personal financial gain, exactly? Why isn't it illegal to make decisions while in high governmental office that compromise your impartiality and dedication to your job duties? This shit happens way too much, I feel like our entire government is bought out by oligarchs and no one ever suffers for their malpractice except for the American people.[/QUOTE] Republicans basically

I hate this trend of saying that X politician bought a stock when the reality is that some financial manager bought it with their money, probably without their knowledge. Do you honestly think these politicians are sitting around trading individual stocks? Based on the Politico article, she continued to fight against Tobacco use and sold the stock within months of getting the job (She only owned the stock for ~2 months). This is a far cry from some "abuse" of power. As far as I can tell, she gained nothing by it and it had no effect on her work.

[QUOTE=seba079;53097265]Shit, the only thing more ironic I can think of would be if the head of the ATF got caught shouldering an arm brace[/QUOTE] Well a few years ago the ATF was caught selling guns on the black market, and more recently they were caught running an illegal cigarette smuggling ring and using the proceeds as a black budget.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53097364]I hate this trend of saying that X politician bought a stock when the reality is that some financial manager bought it with their money, probably without their knowledge. Do you honestly think these politicians are sitting around trading individual stocks? Based on the Politico article, she continued to fight against Tobacco use and sold the stock within months of getting the job (She only owned the stock for ~2 months). This is a far cry from some "abuse" of power. As far as I can tell, she gained nothing by it and it had no effect on her work.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/18/cdc-director-avoids-congressional-testimony-297284"]Her career in the CDC has been seven months of recusals for unresolved conflicts of interest.[/URL] [URL="http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/369214-cdc-director-to-miss-fourth-congressional-hearing-because-of-ethics-issues"]She had to repeatedly cancel testifying before Congress on official CDC business because of ethical conflicts.[/URL] [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/health/brenda-fitzgerald-cdc-coke.html"]Several years ago, she partnered with Coca-Cola on an anti-obesity program that encouraged people to exercise more instead of paying attention to what they eat, and let Coca-Cola set rules while paying for most of the program.[/URL] [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/12/11/new-cdc-head-faces-questions-about-financial-conflicts-of-interest/"]She also has been highly ineffective in responding to the opioid crisis because she has ethical conflicts regarding opioid addiction treatment.[/URL] [QUOTE]Brenda Fitzgerald, 71, who served as the Georgia public health commissioner until her appointment to the CDC post in July, said she has divested from many stock holdings. But [B]she and her husband are legally obligated to maintain other investments in cancer detection and health information technology, according to her ethics agreement, requiring Fitzgerald to pledge to avoid government business that might affect those interests.[/B] Fitzgerald provided The Post with a copy of her agreement. Last week, Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), the senior Democrat on the Senate committee that oversees CDC, wrote that Fitzgerald is raising questions about her ability to function effectively. “I am concerned that you cannot perform the role of CDC director while being largely recused from matters pertaining to cancer and opioids, two of the most pervasive and urgent health challenges we face as a country,” Murray wrote. By her reading of the ethics agreement, Murray wrote, Fitzgerald is unable to engage in “key matters relating to cancer,” the second leading cause of death in the United States. Murray said Fitzgerald may also be unable to respond to the opioid crisis “given your apparent conflict with regard to opioids” and specifically with state-based electronic databases used to track and monitor the use of opioids.[/QUOTE] The [I]appearance[/I] of conflict of interest is disruptive enough that ordinarily politicians go to great lengths to avoid them. But since Trump was inaugurated, that rule has seemingly reversed itself. [QUOTE=sgman91;53097364]it had no effect on her work.[/QUOTE] Except her conflicts [I]did[/I]. Fitzgerald has had a very low profile since being appointed. She claims to have been busy with "other priorities" when she wasn't giving press conferences or publicizing flu shots and all the other things she wasn't doing/couldn't do. Bonus: [URL="https://www.healthline.com/health-news/close-look-at-cdc-director-nominee"]During the Ebola crisis she was telling people that water kills Ebola so there's nothing to worry about.[/URL]

honestly who cares. tobacco is a smart and safe investment it's not like she was coming out and saying "ok kiddies enjoy your marlboros"

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53097571][URL="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/18/cdc-director-avoids-congressional-testimony-297284"]Her career in the CDC has been seven months of recusals for unresolved conflicts of interest.[/URL] [URL="http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/369214-cdc-director-to-miss-fourth-congressional-hearing-because-of-ethics-issues"]She had to repeatedly cancel testifying before Congress on official CDC business because of ethical conflicts.[/URL] [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/health/brenda-fitzgerald-cdc-coke.html"]Several years ago, she partnered with Coca-Cola on an anti-obesity program that encouraged people to exercise more instead of paying attention to what they eat, and let Coca-Cola set rules while paying for most of the program.[/URL] [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/12/11/new-cdc-head-faces-questions-about-financial-conflicts-of-interest/"]She also has been highly ineffective in responding to the opioid crisis because she has ethical conflicts regarding opioid addiction treatment.[/URL] The [I]appearance[/I] of conflict of interest is disruptive enough that ordinarily politicians go to great lengths to avoid them. But since Trump was inaugurated, that rule has seemingly reversed itself. Except her conflicts [I]did[/I]. Fitzgerald has had a very low profile since being appointed. She claims to have been busy with "other priorities" when she wasn't giving press conferences or publicizing flu shots and all the other things she wasn't doing/couldn't do. Bonus: [URL="https://www.healthline.com/health-news/close-look-at-cdc-director-nominee"]During the Ebola crisis she was telling people that water kills Ebola so there's nothing to worry about.[/URL][/QUOTE] Can you clarify how any of this is relevant to these Tobacco and/or other stocks in question? The article in the OP directly states that the choice to buy those were made by a fiscal manager, not by the CDC head, and that they were sold within a few months.

[QUOTE=butre;53097654]honestly who cares. tobacco is a smart and safe investment it's not like she was coming out and saying "ok kiddies enjoy your marlboros"[/QUOTE] It's not whether or not it's a safe investment; it's the message that is sent when the head of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention owns shares in a tobacco company, and tobacco is known to be attributed to lung disease.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53097692]Can you clarify how any of this is relevant to these Tobacco and/or other stocks in question?[/QUOTE] She's an idiot and buying tobacco stocks isn't her first rodeo?

[QUOTE=ThatSwordGuy;53097696]It's not whether or not it's a safe investment; it's the message that is sent when the head of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention owns shares in a tobacco company, and tobacco is known to be attributed to lung disease.[/QUOTE] so is pollution from cars and coal plants and pretty much everything else that's publicly traded, should she not be allowed to have any safe stocks? at all?

[QUOTE=butre;53097729]so is pollution from cars and coal plants and pretty much everything else that's publicly traded, should she not be allowed to have any safe stocks? at all?[/QUOTE] Say you're an anti-kick-babies-in-the-face official and kick-babies-in-the-face companies just so happen to be safe stock, so you buy up their shares. See a problem here? Plus, smoking is causing direct harm to the human body, cars don't. And coal doesn't really fall into the CDC's lap. That's more of the EPA's deal.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;53097700]She's an idiot and buying tobacco stocks isn't her first rodeo?[/QUOTE] Nothing posted in all those links by elixwhitetail are really similar at all. The "ethical conflicts" consist of financial assets that she had before getting the job, but that are extremely difficult to get rid of. So she agreed to sign conflict of interest waivers for anything that that might conflict with those, until she was able to divest. She didn't try to hide anything. She didn't try to use them to her advantage. Etc. On the Coke thing... What do you want? She set up an exercise program for kids, but didn't have any government funding. So she got the funding from Coke ($1 million of the total $1.2 million for the program). Would you rather the program not exist at all? Because that is the alternative. On the Opioids: he presented it in an extremely deceptive way. It isn't that she has chosen to not respond to the opioid conflict specifically. It's that those conflict of interest waivers have prevented her from responding. She isn't allowed to. That isn't evidence, at all, that she is somehow working to further her financial interests. You can argue that she isn't competent. You can argue that she shouldn't have been appointed because of her financial conflicts of interest that she wasn't able to divest from. Etc. But I don't really see any evidence of corruption.

[QUOTE=Eva-1337;53097743]Say you're an anti-kick-babies-in-the-face official and kick-babies-in-the-face companies just so happen to be safe stock, so you buy up their shares. See a problem here? Plus, smoking is causing direct harm to the human body, cars don't. And coal doesn't really fall into the CDC's lap. That's more of the EPA's deal.[/QUOTE] this is more anti kick babies in the face official that buys stock in timberland tbh

[QUOTE=seba079;53097265]I know this is repeated a lot during this administration but sweet Moses this is basically an Onion headline [editline]31st January 2018[/editline] Shit, the only thing more ironic I can think of would be if the head of the ATF got caught shouldering an arm brace[/QUOTE] head of DEA caught boofing LSD

smoking only causes direct harm to people who choose to smoke anyway, and all smokers know the health risks. don't want copd? easy, don't smoke

[QUOTE=butre;53097654]honestly who cares. tobacco is a smart and safe investment it's not like she was coming out and saying "ok kiddies enjoy your marlboros"[/QUOTE] but if Marlboro was doing something harmful you wouldn't exactly want a shareholder to be the one bringing them to task over it? it's principally a flagrant conflict of interest, doesn't matter if anything actually happened

[QUOTE=butre;53097782]smoking only causes direct harm to people who choose to smoke anyway, and all smokers know the health risks[/QUOTE] [URL]https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm[/URL] I can't believe this is your argument. Wow.

[QUOTE=butre;53097782]smoking only causes direct harm to people who choose to smoke anyway, and all smokers know the health risks. don't want copd? easy, don't smoke[/QUOTE] Have you ever heard of secondhand smoke?

Letting prisoners guard the prison and giving them the keys is a fantastic idea, because the prisoners know exactly how the prison works, so they will be really efficient at guarding it.

[QUOTE=srobins;53097850]Have you ever heard of secondhand smoke?[/QUOTE] No, that'd be inconvenient.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53097765]You can argue that she isn't competent. You can argue that she shouldn't have been appointed because of her financial conflicts of interest that she wasn't able to divest from. Etc. But I don't really see any evidence of corruption.[/QUOTE] I am not arguing that the tobacco stocks are flagrant evidence of corruption. My entire point is that she's got a list of conflicts of interest a mile long, and it meant that she has been ineffective at her job due to having to recuse herself from multiple major topics and fields that the CDC handles. In the post I replied to, you said [QUOTE]it had no effect on her work.[/QUOTE] I may not have put quite enough effort into making it clear that my reply was responding more specifically to this part of your post and not the "she didn't do this personally" aspect of the post, but I have presented multiple pieces of evidence that her conflicts interfered with her upholding the commitments of her position. In another political era, a person with that many conflicts of interest wouldn't have even made it through vetting. In this administration, it's increasingly the norm.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53097873]I am not arguing that the tobacco stocks are flagrant evidence of corruption. My entire point is that she's got a list of conflicts of interest a mile long, and it meant that she has been ineffective at her job due to having to recuse herself from multiple major topics and fields that the CDC handles. In the post I replied to, you said I may not have put quite enough effort into making it clear that my reply was responding more specifically to this part of your post and not the "she didn't do this personally" aspect of the post, but I have presented multiple pieces of evidence that her conflicts interfered with her upholding the commitments of her position. In another political era, a person with that many conflicts of interest wouldn't have even made it through vetting. In this administration, it's increasingly the norm.[/QUOTE] Thank you for the clarification, but I'm still not seeing how any of that showed these stocks to have an effect on her work. Remember we had already had two posts, before my initial post, claiming that this was an example of corruption, that she was using her political power for her own financial gain. Clearly her conflicts of interests from before getting the job have had an effect because of the waivers that she had to sign, I don't disagree.

Dude, you literally make me want to stab myself. Are you really this naive?