Conflict of Interests for last THREE CDC Directors
As COVID-19 runs rampant through our media, social media, world media and though not anywhere near as significant, through our neighborhoods and hospitals... it is a SERIOUS outbreak, even if the actual outbreak NEVER reaches the potential that the media has prompted us to believe. Now, it might breakthrough into new territory that no other outbreak has seen since Spanish Flu, but it might not. I have been called out by many for flying in the face of the World Leaders in epidemiology and questioned as to why I am questioning. So in response to that, without wasting my time responding to those who simply choose to disagree without fact, stat, or truth... I have decided to give up on the social media methodology, and get to writing these blog posts instead. I have been watching these outbreaks for nearly twenty years now, and I commonly hear these leaders cry WOLF, and it is hard to imagine that this is not another WOLF cry ringing around the world. But behind it all, is a little known problem that exists in our CDC leadership, and though they don't all have dramatic conflicts when in their office, they commonly leave for those conflicting relationships, and in my estimation, leverage the relationships they have left behind at the CDC, leading them to be policy influencers long after they have left office. This is one reason why I believe that the decisions that come down from the CDC are not the best for public health. In addition, because their philosophy (as we are seeing right now in this mass shelter-in-place movement) is to protect all people, at no concern for the cost to some people. Meaning, regardless of whether or not I am correct in my belief that the excessive utilization of vaccines has resulted in the deterioration of immune function, and has led to the onslaught of auto-immune conditions in our country... if that were proven true, the CDC directors wouldn't care. Their philosophy is that it wouldn't matter, because the infectious disease is their focus, and all others would be secondary. I don't agree, so we choose to disagree. Now, on the Directors and their fate - Brenda Fitzgerald MD (2017-2018) - from her Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenda_Fitzgerald) - Conflicts of interest
By December 2017 and after five months in office, Fitzgerald had yet to divest her financial holdings that posed conflicts of interest in her position at the CDC. Democratic Senator Patty Murray raised questions as to Fitzgerald's ability to lead the CDC's anti-opioid programs given her financial stake in prescription drug monitoring programs.
In January 2018, Politico reported that Fitzgerald had bought shares in the Japan Tobacco company one month after assuming office as Director of the CDC. The investment raised ethical concerns given the CDC's mission to reduce tobacco use, which is the leading cause of preventable disease in the United States. She sold the stocks a few months later. One day after Politico's story broke, Fitzgerald resigned as Director of the CDC on January 31, 2018.
Tom Frieden MD, MPH (2009-2017) - Tom argued that we were about to see a massive countrywide failure because of Zika and we were "about to see a bunch of kids born with microcephaly" in the coming months back in July of 2016. Which allowed him the opportunity to direct $222M towards the disease. It might or might not have been necessary. This assumption did not come to pass, and the result has been that Zika has receded into the place where it typically has lived since its discovery in the 1940's. An infectious disease that makes its way around the population in small numbers. BUT, Tom has left the CDC, he is doing great work with Resolve to Save Lives, and through their partnership (marriage really) with Vital Strategies, he is involved directly in the management of hundreds of millions of dollars funded by Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg among others. Notable, but not related, he settled sexual harassment charges shortly after leaving the CDC. I believe that he used his post at the CDC to set himself up with this relationship that has a worthy cause, but surely allowed the government post to be the stepping stone to get him there. Not the worst case of conflict.
Julie Gerberding (2002-2009) - Julie was perhaps not in talks with Merck for the job she landed after leaving the CDC, but there have been questions since she departed regarding decisions made while she was there in their utilization and praise of Edelman, a global PR firm that supports efforts of bug Pharma, and also the company she worked for in the short interim between leaving CDC and joining Merck. My greatest concern with all directors, is that they are seeing their exit strategy, while they are working their public job. There is a natural conflict, because they see these companies as the answer for all of their problems... and you can guess what that would create as an internal dialogue. (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2009/12/mercks-new-vaccine-honcho-former-cdc-chief-gerberding#)
This author describes a series of potential conflicts at the end of his article - worth investigation - http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2009/07/julie-gerberding-now-officially-paid.html
In all, I am confident that Julie, followed by Tom, followed by Brenda, all have been considering their exit strategy from almost the first day that they joined the CDC. Which means, that they would begin to develop policies that supported those exit companies. Merck was hammered by Vioxx lawsuit, and settled $4.85B in claims in 2007. In 2006 Gardasil was approved by the FDA, while Julie was with the CDC, and had influence over FDA action. In 2010 Julie joins Merck. Mercks path out of the Vioxx mess, was to create a demand for Gardasil. Replace your profits from one drug that became massive losses, with a drug that you can never be at risk of a law-suit. Protection for vaccines make it the perfect drug... and I am confident that the one year hiatus between working for the CDC and for Merck, was a fabricated gap for the benefit of this story. The fact that she went to work for Edelman, which actually does massive business with Merck, was designed so that we would all say "oh, she found a new job, and then made her way into a better job through relationship". Is she evil? No, I am not saying that... opportunity presents the ability to ignore a complete pursuit of truth, while dressing it up to look pretty.
Be well and be love. - Dr. E