If the CDC hadn’t focused for years on “gun control” and “social justice,” it would have been better prepared for coronavirus PANDEMIC
03/18/2020 / By JD Heyes
The major problem with continually growing the size of the federal government is that eventually, it becomes so large it begins to do things it was never intended to do.
At the same time, the various agencies tasked with certain functions begin to operate outside of their mandates and/or purposes at the time of creation. One such agency is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Mind you, the formation of an agency specifically designed to help the country prepare for and guard against major health emergencies was a necessary and resourceful use of tax dollars. Advanced nations tend not to survive for the long haul if the cannot detect and prevent things that threaten their survival.
The CDC was initially founded for that purpose — to monitor, detect, and prevent pandemics while assisting in the research of potential viral and bacterial threats as well as responding to them when they struck.
But over the years, the agency branched into other areas of ‘research’ that were wholly inappropriate for, and unrelated to, its core mission.
As reported by Big League Politics, the CDC is once again coming under scrutiny over its initial responses to the outbreak of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19). But “examining what they devote their limited resources toward shows that the anger that has developed toward the bureaucracy is well-deserved.”
The site further reports:
Journalist Daniel Greenfield noted in FrontPage Mag that the CDC has focused on liberal causes du jour rather than their mandate of actually keeping Americans safe from legitimate public health crises.
Greenfield noted that one of the social justice causes that have been pushed by the CDC are unconstitutional gun control schemes.
Greenfield, in noting that the CDC has a $6.6 b billion budget, “messes up” the one job it has “every time.” (Related: CDC coronavirus test kits distributed all across America found to produce false negatives due to failed test kit reagents.)
The last time the CDC sprang into action over an outbreak was six years ago during the Ebola crisis. At the time, Greenfield notes, CDC guidelines led to medical personnel becoming infected with the virus to avoid a quarantine and then interact with Americans until they demonstrated “undeniable symptoms.”
Transgender beauty pageants?
Greenfield added there weren’t any protocols in place for treating potentially infected people which resulted in a wider spread of the disease inside the United States.
He adds:
At the height of the crisis, confidence in the CDC fell to 37%. Meanwhile, CDC personnel had managed to mishandle Ebola virus samples, accidentally sending samples of the live virus to CDC labs. And the heads of the health bureaucracy blamed the lack of funding for their failure to have an Ebola vaccine.
The self-quarantine measures being used today in response to the coronavirus outbreak “are partially a response to the lessons of the Ebola disaster,” writes Greenberg.
But during the Ebola emergency, Democrats attempted to shift blame away from King Obama and onto Republicans (of course) for cutting the CDC’s budget. But, as Greenfield asks, “where do those billions for the CDC actually go?”
“Among other things, pushing gun control,” he writes, noting further that the awful budget deal passed in December even allocated $25 million to CDC and the National Institutes of Health to study ‘gun violence.’
What else? Greenberg points out that the agency established to research, prepare for and fight pandemics has blown billions on things like a visitor’s center with Japanese gardens, a massive gym, a transgender beauty pageant, and the promotion of bike paths.
These are not good, productive uses of CDC funds and they don’t do anything to help the agency prepare for and carry out its core set of missions.
So is it any wonder why the agency either takes too long to respond when the occasional deadly bug makes its way to U.S. shores or does so in a way that is completely ineffective?
Sources include:
Tagged Under:
