• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald resigns over conflicting interests

Only the best people.

Original Politico reporting that led to this below. This shop has been on quite a roll for a couple years at least, several of their better reporters have matriculated to the NYT and WaPo. They did the private plane investigation that got Tom Price pushed out of the cabinet and dinged Zinkie/Pruitt as well.

The Trump administration’s top public health official bought shares in a tobacco company one month into her leadership of the agency charged with reducing tobacco use — the leading cause of preventable disease and death and an issue she had long championed.

The stock was one of about a dozen new investments that Brenda Fitzgerald, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, made after she took over the agency’s top job, according to documents obtained by POLITICO. Fitzgerald has since come under congressional scrutiny for slow walking divestment from older holdings that government officials said posed potential conflicts of interest.


Buying shares of tobacco companies raises even more flags than Fitzgerald’s trading in drug and food companies because it stands in such stark contrast to the CDC’s mission to persuade smokers to quit and keep children from becoming addicted. Critics say her trading behavior broke with ethical norms for public health officials and was, at best, sloppy. At worst, they say, it was legally problematic if she didn't recuse herself from government activities that could have affected her investments.

“You don’t buy tobacco stocks when you are the head of the CDC. It’s ridiculous; it gives a terrible appearance,” said Richard Painter, who served as George W. Bush’s chief ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007. He described the move as “tone deaf,” given the CDC’s role in leading anti-smoking efforts.

Even if Fitzgerald, a medical doctor and former Georgia Department of Public Health commissioner, met all of the legal requirements, “it stinks to high heaven,” Painter said.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/30/cdc-director-tobacco-stocks-after-appointment-316245
 
Politico reported Tuesday that Fitzgerald bought a share in Japan Tobacco one month into her leadership of the agency, which is responsible for reducing tobacco use among Americans.

The stock was one of about a dozen new investments Fitzgerald made after she took the job, according to Politico.

She also bought stocks in Merck & Co., Bayer and health insurer Humana.

Fitzgerald was already under scrutiny for failing to divest from other holdings she bought prior to taking the job, which led to her recusal from some health issues.

She was invited to testify before Congress at least four times on various public health issues but was unable to because of her conflicts, drawing the ire of Democrats.

lol

Trump supporters will read this story and then start talking about how great their 401k's are doing
 
lol

Trump supporters will read this story and then start talking about how great their 401k's are doing
If only they would open their eyes and see his true colors.
graphic-trump-0111.jpg
 
Gynecologist running the CDC? Wtf? That is a horrible choice. Ob/Gyn is as far removed from infectious disease as civil engineering is from chemical engineering.

Also what is the deal with physicians from Georgia and conflicts of interest and corruption? First Tom Price, then this lady.
 
Gynecologist running the CDC? Wtf? That is a horrible choice. Ob/Gyn is as far removed from infectious disease as civil engineering is from chemical engineering.

Eh. CDC is not exclusive for infectious disease or even acute illness. Much of what they do that intersects with current events and fiction is focused on infectious disease, but it is a public health organization. I don't think an OBGYN is an inappropriate specialty if they have the public health and leadership background necessary.

However, from a conflict of interest standpoint, this is ludicrous. Why the hell would her or her financial manager invest in a tobacco company while she was in this role?
 
You guys obviously don't understand winning. She was setting herself up to win forever. It's what the GOP does, cheats its way to winning.
 
Eh. CDC is not exclusive for infectious disease or even acute illness. Much of what they do that intersects with current events and fiction is focused on infectious disease, but it is a public health organization. I don't think an OBGYN is an inappropriate specialty if they have the public health and leadership background necessary.

However, from a conflict of interest standpoint, this is ludicrous. Why the hell would her or her financial manager invest in a tobacco company while she was in this role?
CDC is definitely a public health organization but the work they do is almost entirely within the realm of internal medicine (I would say at least 95%) which includes infectious disease as a subspecialty. That's why almost every CDC director is internal medicine trained and tend to have MPHs or PHDs mostly from Harvard actually. She in fact is the first CDC director since 1953 without at least a MPH which is very disappointing. In addition she is the first director in at least 2 decades (I stopped looking after that) who is not internal medicine trained. Ob/gyn is not an appropriate background to be in a leadership position for essentially internal medicine research. Completely in appropriate. It's like Rick Perry running the energy dept after a long line of prize winning physicists in my opinion. Or like letting a gastroenterologist run a cardiology dept.
 
Last edited:
CDC is definitely a public health organization but the work they do is almost entirely within the realm of internal medicine (I would say at least 95%) which includes infectious disease as a subspecialty. That's why almost every CDC director is internal medicine trained and tend to have MPHs or PHDs mostly from Harvard actually. She in fact is the first CDC director since 1953 without at least a MPH which is very disappointing. In addition she is the first director in at least 2 decades (I stopped looking after that) who is not internal medicine trained. Ob/gyn is not an appropriate background to be in a leadership position for essentially internal medicine research. Completely in appropriate. It's like Rick Perry running the energy dept after a long line of prize winning physicists in my opinion. Or like letting a gastroenterologist run a cardiology dept.

I don't think she's anywhere near on the level of qualification of the last several directors. But I also don't think that medical specialty is all that important if someone has the appropriate public health background (of which hers is light). Still, I sometimes interact with people who have worked at the CDC, so next time I see one I'll ask what they think. This is not the same as Rick Perry running the energy department by any means. He lacks any specific education or experience that would qualify him for that position.
 
I don't think she's anywhere near on the level of qualification of the last several directors. But I also don't think that medical specialty is all that important if someone has the appropriate public health background (of which hers is light). Still, I sometimes interact with people who have worked at the CDC, so next time I see one I'll ask what they think. This is not the same as Rick Perry running the energy department by any means. He lacks any specific education or experience that would qualify him for that position.
I think think that in my interaction with on/gyns they have almost zero experience and expertise with internal medicine issues and run away screaming from them. I shudder to think this lady may have been making decisions regarding Ebola vaccines, coronary disease screening, asthma policy, etc etc. By all accounts at best she was a general ob/gyn.

She clearly is the least qualified director I would say in 30 years by far and I'm surprised her appointment totally slipped the media's attention. Seems like she was a friend of Tom Price and be was doing her a favor. However the two of them both were caught with their fingers in the forbidden corporate stock cookie jar.
 
I think think that in my interaction with on/gyns they have almost zero experience and expertise with internal medicine issues and run away screaming from them. I shudder to think this lady may have been making decisions regarding Ebola vaccines, coronary disease screening, asthma policy, etc etc. By all accounts at best she was a general ob/gyn.

She clearly is the least qualified director I would say in 30 years by far and I'm surprised her appointment totally slipped the media's attention. Seems like she was a friend of Tom Price and be was doing her a favor. However the two of them both were caught with their fingers in the forbidden corporate stock cookie jar.

Depends. Lots of psychiatrists don't want anything to do with general medicine and some are really quite familiar with it. Since I do predominantly inpatient work, most of a patient's medical care is managed by me while they're in the hospital. OBGYN is also a spectrum. Certainly many function in primary care roles for patients, and many do a lot of surgical care or high-risk OB care so have a lot more interest and familiarity with other medical care.

Nonetheless, your viewpoint has caused me to reconsider a bit. I don't know in general public health leadership positions how widespread the specialties are. Probably there is a selection bias for people interested in doing that coming from an IM background. I'm also not sure at the CDC how much clinical experience is important to the director position vs. research and administration. You've made me curious, though.
 
Back
Top