By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the removal of CDC director Susan Monarez, President Trump appointed Jim O’Neill as the interim director, a move that sparked further controversy. O’Neill, a biotech investor with no medical background but ties to billionaire Peter Thiel, aligns with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s agenda of restricting vaccine access. O’Neill’s history includes advocating for unproven COVID-19 treatments, downplaying vaccine dangers, and promoting libertarian views on healthcare. Critics, like Dr. Robert Steinbrook, have raised concerns about O’Neill’s conflicts of interest due to his financial links to several medical industry startups that could benefit from his position.
Read the original article here
Trump Taps ‘Manifestly Unqualified’ Peter Thiel Protégé as Acting CDC Director After RFK’s Purge
The appointment of a Peter Thiel protégé as the acting CDC Director following a purported “purge” of the agency, particularly in the wake of any actions by RFK, immediately raises eyebrows. The consistent through line in any analysis of the former administration was a blatant disregard for qualifications, a pattern often framed as running the country like a business. This meant cutting costs, rewarding loyalty over expertise, and prioritizing the interests of a select few. It’s a scenario that, viewed from some angles, seems designed to dismantle rather than develop the very infrastructure that is intended to protect the public’s health.
The very idea of this occurring, especially when viewed against some of the proposed policies that may have been considered by the previous administration is alarming. Suggestions of an open organ market, or unregulated new medicines and treatments, are policies that could benefit only the wealthiest while placing vulnerable people at serious risk. This type of approach, where personal data collection is the primary objective, evokes a distinct sense of unease about the direction of the country. This isn’t mere incompetence, it’s a strategic dismantling. The randomness of these appointments, the consistent selection of individuals demonstrably lacking the necessary expertise, raises the question of whether this is the result of an intentionally destructive strategy.
Given the potential implications of this, it is not surprising that the news is met with a certain level of cynicism. The pattern of prioritizing wealth and connections over competence is well-established. This all raises very important questions about the direction of the country and what is happening with the CDC. If a true “purge” occurred, a scenario where the CDC is actively dismantled, it raises some significant questions. There’s a sense of a deliberate strategy, an agenda to diminish the effectiveness of government agencies, particularly those that regulate or oversee anything.
The Thiel connection is particularly significant. He is viewed by some as an “evil genius” and the implications of his influence are concerning. Thiel’s long-term goals and ideology, particularly his desire to establish extraterritorial zones, raise concerns about corporate interests and the erosion of government control. The selection process has the appearance of a system built on randomness and nepotism. One can easily see how some people would wonder whether this is really about a strategy of causing the government to fail and then claiming it doesn’t work.
The appointment of a person with a background in the humanities, coupled with an almost total lack of experience in the science of medicine, emphasizes the administration’s priorities. The focus on dismantling regulations, promoting a “free-for-all” of corporate financial power, and disregarding the well-being of ordinary people is a recurring theme. It’s an approach that prioritizes profit over people, allowing a few to extract as much wealth as possible, leaving the rest to deal with the consequences.
One has to question what the long-term vision of such an approach is. What happens when there are no more customers? The answer appears to be that this is a concern for future generations of billionaires. The parallels between this type of approach and the strategy of a venture capital firm are quite clear. The focus on stripping away assets, cutting costs, and extracting profits is a recipe for disaster.