CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald Resigns

[bcking 3,157]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/31/health/cdc-director-fitzgerald-resigns-bn/index.html

 

She invested in tobacco companies AFTER accepting the position. If you're truly fighting to reduce tobacco use and exposure, I'm not sure how you could see the companies as good financial investments. 

 

Though it's not clear to me how directly involved she was in deciding to purchase the stock. The article mentions that her financial account manager made the decisions. Though honestly even they should have known better.

[TBoneTX 43,250]

18 minutes ago, bcking said:

1.  her financial account manager made the decisions.

2.  Though honestly even they should have known better.

1.  They can be very independent when we're not looking, surely.

2.  They can be very boneheaded when we're not looking, too.

 

What did you think of her as head of the CDC?

Edited January 31, 2018 by TBoneTX

[bcking 3,157]

2 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

1.  They can be very independent when we're not looking, surely.

2.  They can be very boneheaded when we're not looking, too.

 

What did you think of her as head of the CDC?

Ya I'm still not sure if she is really responsible for the decision or not...

 

I didn't know anything about her prior to the appointment, and even after honestly what I know is just from what I've read in the news. So take it with a grain of salt.

 

She peddled in "snake oil" anti-aging treatments during her clinical practice. As someone who promotes evidence-based medicine, I can't get behind that. But that is just an opinion on her clinical practice. I've read that she oversaw some improvements in outcomes in Georgia, but an overall decline in composite health outcomes (though composite health outcomes, at all levels, can be highly misleading. Certain outcomes are obviously more important than others). 

 

In her short tenure she has been fairly quiet and inconsequential. I don't know what role, if any, she played in the recent "scandal" about "banning" words. I know whether or not it actually even happened is in doubt, but I find the whole concept of restricting language to be demeaning to the practice of science. Words like "evidence-based" is somehow offensive? Fetus? Transgender? While I get it that these all have political ramifications, they are all completely ordinary and reasonable within the frame of scientific research. Let the politicians argue about the politics, but we shouldn't be restricting what we investigate and how we talk about what we study. Like it or not the transgender population exists, and epidemiological and medical research on the population SHOULD occur without restrictions. We can argue about how to apply that knowledge to political practice, but that is a separate issue.

 

My feelings on that topic though go all the way back to the restrictions on research into gun violence.

[TBoneTX 43,250]

Appreciate the thoughtful analysis, as always.