CDC Director Resigns Over Her Tobacco Stock Purchases

[suncowiam]

Don't see why.

Smoking or buying stock is not a disease itself. ;0)

I would say it's a given many cancer surgeons smoke themselves, much less have purchased tobacco stock for which cancer itself isn't attributed solely and exclusively to smoking and the use of tobacco products.

This is the Center for Disease Control, not a center for the elimination of tobacco companies.

Smoking can become an addiction. Addiction is considered a disease.

Addiction as a Disease

"The consequences of untreated addiction often include other physical and mental health disorders that require medical attention. If left untreated over time, addiction becomes more severe, disabling and life threatening."

Oh also, she did resign so there's that.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Smoking can become an addiction. Addiction is considered a disease.

Addiction as a Disease

"The consequences of untreated addiction often include other physical and mental health disorders that require medical attention. If left untreated over time, addiction becomes more severe, disabling and life threatening."

Oh also, she did resign so there's that.

Addiction is not a disease it's a mental condition.

If I had a nickel for everything they call diseases these days.

 

[suncowiam]

Addiction is not a disease it's a mental condition.

If I had a nickel for everything they call diseases these days.

I didn't make this stuff up.

If you disagree then ok. You just happen to disagree with the medical establishment.

That's like arguing with Judge Judy after she served you a decision but what do I know.

 

[Enoch07]

Smoking can become an addiction. Addiction is considered a disease.

Addiction as a Disease

"The consequences of untreated addiction often include other physical and mental health disorders that require medical attention. If left untreated over time, addiction becomes more severe, disabling and life threatening."

Oh also, she did resign so there's that.

I guess that means CDC employees cannot invest in Soda companies (caffeine), pharmaceutical companies (opioids), alcoholic beverage companies (alcohol), any transportation companies that ship these things to retailers, or in any retailer (which is basically all retailers) that sells these things.

Now if she invest in tobacco companies and then worked to lessen restrictions on big tobacco which would increase her profits from stocks. That is an issue and highly illegal/prosecutable.

 

[Revoltingest]

Addiction is not a disease it's a mental condition.
If I had a nickel for everything they call diseases these days.

I disagree, based upon this definition....
the definition of disease
noun
1.
a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, orsystem of the body resulting from the effect of genetic ordevelopmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency orimbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness;sickness; ailment.

Addiction results in brain dysfunction due to altered chemistry & physical restructuring of the brain.
Ref....
How addiction hijacks the brain - Harvard Health

And also....

 

[suncowiam]

I guess that means CDC employees cannot invest in Soda companies (caffeine), pharmaceutical companies (opioids), alcoholic beverage companies (alcohol), any transportation companies that ship these things to retailers, or in any retailer (which is basically all retailers) that sells these things.

Now if she invest in tobacco companies and then worked to lessen restrictions on big tobacco which would increase her profits from stocks. That is an issue and highly illegal/prosecutable.

I can't comment on all the addictions but I would assume that she would follow the advice of our medical boards for various areas of medicine.

Concerning tobacco, CDC already has an anti-tobacco campaign before her arrival. Anyone that purchases stocks in a industry wants to see profit from that industry. Having anti-tobacco campaign from a government sponsored agency is hardly conducive to the profits of that industry. How do I put it??? She nailed her own coffin with those stock purchases.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I disagree, based upon this definition....
the definition of disease
noun
1.
a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, orsystem of the body resulting from the effect of genetic ordevelopmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency orimbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness;sickness; ailment.

Addiction results in brain dysfunction due to altered chemistry & physical restructuring of the brain.
Ref....
How addiction hijacks the brain - Harvard Health

And also....

Well yeah, when they decide to change the
parameters of what disease meant.

Personally I think it's an agenda driven change considering the etymology of the word disease.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well yeah, when they decide to change the
parameters of what disease meant.

Personally I think it's an agenda driven change considering the etymology of the word disease.

I don't disagree about being agenda driven.
Nonetheless, there's solid science behind addiction meeting all the criteria for disease.
The most disagreement I get on this is from a Xian fundie friend, who doesn't fully
accept brain science (but I'm slowly bringing him on board). He takes the Biblical
approach, ie, that we all have free will, & remaining addicted is a free choice.

 

[Enoch07]

I can't comment on all the addictions but I would assume that she would follow the advice of our medical boards for various areas of medicine.

Concerning tobacco, CDC already has an anti-tobacco campaign before her arrival. Anyone that purchases stocks in a industry wants to see profit from that industry. Having anti-tobacco campaign from a government sponsored agency is hardly conducive to the profits of that industry. How do I put it??? She nailed her own coffin with those stock purchases.

Her personal finances are not reflective of the CDC though. You seem to equate the spending of her own money on tobacco stock as equivalent to her spending CDC money on tobacco stock.

But going back to what I was saying. I don't consider it a conflict of interest unless she is trying to reduce government restrictions on tobacco companies, or some other type of regulation manipulation. Which could increase her profits from her stocks. Other than that what she does with her personal money is nobody else business. If she is attempting to manipulate regulations for personal gain, then feed her to the wolves, she gets what she deserves.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't disagree about being agenda driven.
Nonetheless, there's solid science behind addiction meeting all the criteria for disease.
The most disagreement I get on this is from a Xian fundie friend, who doesn't fully
accept brain science (but I'm slowly bringing him on board). He takes the Biblical
approach, ie, that we all have free will, & remaining addicted is a free choice.

Then what's the point of using the word Addiction?

If you look at the definition of addiction disease isn't even mentioned.

Definition of ADDICTION

 

[suncowiam]

Her personal finances are not reflective of the CDC though. You seem to equate the spending of her own money on tobacco stock as equivalent to her spending CDC money on tobacco stock.

But going back to what I was saying. I don't consider it a conflict of interest unless she is trying to reduce government restrictions on tobacco companies, or some other type of regulation manipulation. Which could increase her profits from her stocks. Other than that what she does with her personal money is nobody else business. If she is attempting to manipulate regulations for personal gain, then feed her to the wolves, she gets what she deserves.

No, I did not make that equivalent as you suggest.

She can make decisions as the director of CDC to stop the anti-tobacco campaign which does influence her positions of her personal assets in the tobacco industry. Do you agree that the CDC's anti-tobacco campaign has hurt tobacco business?

 

[Enoch07]

No, I did not make that equivalent as you suggest.

She can make decisions as the director of CDC to stop the anti-tobacco campaign which does influence her positions of her personal assets in the tobacco industry. Do you agree that the CDC's anti-tobacco campaign has hurt tobacco business?

She can, but has she? You can't prosecute (in this case fire or ask someone to step down) someone on the basis of what they might do. You can only prosecute someone over what they have actually done. Innocent until proven guilty is how our justice system works.

I don't know that the anti-tobacco campaign has hurt the tobacco business or not. That presumably is one of the intended consequences along with getting people to stop smoking being the primary concern. Increased regulations make profits harder for big tobacco, decrease regulations increase profits, simple as that.

If she has been caught manipulating regulations then like I say. Throw her to the wolves. But unless someone can find some evidence that she is using her position in the CDC to manipulate regulations for personal gain, then this is an egregious overstepping. As such if I was her I would consult my lawyer and look at any possible litigation.

All that being said the article even says her financial manager purchased the stock without her knowledge but as soon as she learned of this she sold the stock immediately. Which sounds reasonable to me, as a person not trying to pull shenanigans.

 

[Twilight Hue]

She can make decisions as the director of CDC to stop the anti-tobacco campaign which does influence her positions of her personal assets in the tobacco industry. Do you agree that the CDC's anti-tobacco campaign has hurt tobacco business?

How many people do you think are in this world that have influential positions that affect people who hold varying interests and opinions?

I'm sure if a person digs for information, this type of " conflict of interest" situation isn't very uncommon. She is just being singled out before she even can demonstrate that any of her personal interest and views supersedes the duties of her position unless she's actually done something already contrary in fulfilling her job description adequately and reasonably. Has she?

Her business is her own and nobody else's unless it can be proven she actually placed her interest above her duties and actually compromised her position.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then what's the point of using the word Addiction?

If you look at the definition of addiction disease isn't even mentioned.

Definition of ADDICTION

The definition doesn't deal with all aspects of a word.

 

[sun rise]

I implied nothing.
But I will clearly state that she showed unbelievably bad judgement.

The world is surely ending soon. I agree.

 

[sun rise]

Addiction is not a disease it's a mental condition.

If I had a nickel for everything they call diseases these days.

This is a controversial area. Supporting your idea is Is Addiction a Disease?

 

[Revoltingest]

The world is surely ending soon. I agree.

I'm more optimistic.
Astounding incompetence has existed thru the ages.
It's independent of whoever won the election.
It will continue unabated.

 

[Stevicus]

Who got bribed to do what?

They all get bribed to support big business in one way or another. The proof of this rests in the fact that we don't have socialized medicine in this country (among other things).

 

[Revoltingest]

They all get bribed to support big business in one way or another. The proof of this rests in the fact that we don't have socialized medicine in this country (among other things).

Oooooo....a conspiracy theory!
I love those.

 

[Stevicus]

Oooooo....a conspiracy theory!
I love those.

Yeah, but in this case, it's pretty obvious and self-evident that money talks in politics. Surely you don't believe that the politicians are all in it out of selfless love of country? And if you do believe that, why would you be so worried about expansion of government control, since they're all in it out of selfless love and sincere desire to work for our country's interests?