hmmm. Spooky is more like it, rather than DEI. But we need someone in there that knows the ways of the federal bureaucracy and is ready and able to take them on. Apparently, per RFK, that is her key qualification.
Was writing above before your response. Why not put that expertise to work at FDA where it belongs and put CDC. back to work fighting infectious disease, not analyzing it to death?
Let me add further that it has been the expansion of CDC into roles it had no business going into that has brought it to the sorry state it is in. IMHO it has no role in monitoring adverse responses to meds and jabs...that belongs to FDA. The last thing this monstrosity of our Fed needs is more redundancy. Slim it down DOGE, don't grow it!
Yes, thatтАЩs also been my position as well. Are we appointing nominees to get government out of our personal lives, like D.O.E., or are we going to keep political money laundering through healthcare, etc.?
Her history reeks of DEI to me but I am a strictly bench oriented scientist (long retired)
hmmm. Spooky is more like it, rather than DEI. But we need someone in there that knows the ways of the federal bureaucracy and is ready and able to take them on. Apparently, per RFK, that is her key qualification.
Was writing above before your response. Why not put that expertise to work at FDA where it belongs and put CDC. back to work fighting infectious disease, not analyzing it to death?
Let me add further that it has been the expansion of CDC into roles it had no business going into that has brought it to the sorry state it is in. IMHO it has no role in monitoring adverse responses to meds and jabs...that belongs to FDA. The last thing this monstrosity of our Fed needs is more redundancy. Slim it down DOGE, don't grow it!
Yes, thatтАЩs also been my position as well. Are we appointing nominees to get government out of our personal lives, like D.O.E., or are we going to keep political money laundering through healthcare, etc.?