The Surgeon General nominee will only treat corporate America’s woes
Over the weekend, Dan Diamond for the Washington Post reported that Vivek Murthy, MD, nominated for Surgeon General and to help the Biden COVID-19 response, received 2.6 million dollars in pandemic consulting fees and speaking engagements since January 2020. Murthy received $400,000 from Carnival cruise lines for consulting, over $400,000 in cash and another $400,000 worth of stock from Airbnb, nearly $300,000 from Estee Lauder, and $600,000 from Netflix. The article notes, “most of Murthy’s consulting work came after Biden effectively cinched the Democratic nomination in April 2020, after rival Sen. Bernie Sanders dropped out of the race, and he was sometimes touted in speeches as a Biden adviser.”
What’s the problem?
These payments are a serious conflict of interest, and an example of the swamp that Americans want to drain. These companies aren’t paying exorbitant fees for advice or services provided. Sars-Cov-2 is a great threat, but no one has two million dollars of special advice. Most experts know that distancing, ventilation, hand hygiene, cleaning, and masking are key. As for Carnival cruise lines, my advice would be simple: don’t run cruises. That advice is free, by the way.
If these payments cannot be for services rendered, what are they for? They are payments for influence. All of these companies have pending issues right now with the Biden transition and administration. For example, Carnival wants to reopen their cruise ships, so they want Federal exemptions, and attainable ventilation standards; Airbnb wants to use Murthy’s name and title to assure customers it’s safe to stay; Netflix has a dual interest: they want customers to purchase their services, making lockdowns good for business, but they simultaneously must produce shows, so exemptions for filming would be great; the list goes on. (See link for article)
Why Janet Woodcock Is Wrong Person to Lead FDA
Dr. Janet Woodcock, acting FDA commissioner, is one of two leading contenders for the role of FDA commissioner, but some argue her past and current conflicts of interest and her inadequate oversight of the opioid crisis should disqualify her.
On Jan. 20, the Biden administration named Dr. Janet Woodcock acting commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
As The New York Times reported over the weekend, Woodcock is “one of two leading contenders” to lead the agency, but she faces “strong opposition.”
Among those opposing Woodcock’s appointment as FDA commissioner is as a coalition of nonprofit advocacy groups who argue that Woodcock’s “inadequate” oversight of the FDA during the opioid crisis should disqualify her. In a letter to officials at the Department of Health and Human Services, the coalition wrote:
“In its opioid decision-making, Dr. Woodcock, and the division she supervised, consistently put the interests of opioid manufacturers ahead of public health, often overruling its own scientific advisors and ignoring the pleas of public health groups, state Attorneys General, and outraged victims of the opioid crisis.”
(See link for article)
According to HHS.gov:
The U.S. Surgeon General is the Nation’s Doctor, providing Americans with the best scientific information available on how to improve their health and reduce the risk of illness and injury. The Surgeon General oversees the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) Commissioned Corps, an elite group of over 6,000 uniformed officers who are public health professionals. The USPHS mission is to protect, promote, and advance the health of our nation.
The office of Surgeon General should be an unbiased source of public health information.
According to FDA.gov, the office of the FDA Commissioner’s role is to:
“protect and promote public health, and to meet the challenges of rapid innovation across the industries regulated by FDA.”
So similarly to the Surgeon General, the head of the FDA is entrusted with public health, but further regulates industries.
But, true to form, we discover the very people entrusted with public health have their hands in deep coffers and are financially vested in things obstructing their ability to make unbiased decisions, giving them ZERO credibility.