Kagan Owns Stock in Three Vax Companies
The Democrats Culture of Corruption in Annapolis rolls on
Early this week, our Christopher Faircloth wrote about Senator Cheryl Kagan’s legislation to eliminate the rights of parents in the vaccination of their children.
Well, we might have a little more insight into that.
Where things get interesting is if you look at the most recent Financial Disclosure Statement for Sen. Kagan, filed 3/22/22. At that time Sen. Kagan disclosed that she owned stock in only 3 companies:
Novavax Inc – advertises itself as the “new era of vaccines”. It has a COVID-19 vaccine on the market and has a pipeline of vaccines that includes influenza, RSV and MERS.
Emergent Biosolution – manufactures a small pox vaccine and cholera vaccine. It has a pipeline that includes an influenza vaccine, quine encephalitic VLP vaccine, Marburg vaccine, and lassa fever vaccine.
Aptevo Theraeutics – pipeline company focused on therapeutics.
This brings a lot more context as to the “why” Kagan is going to these lengths to take away parental rights and just further proof that the Maryland Democrats Culture of Corruption continues to churn on.
If you believe the disclosure form, let's go through the numbers on it:
Aptevo: A company that makes chemo drugs (not vaccines) has a current share price of $2.04, and she holds "less than 100" shares. Total investment: <$204.
Novovax: A company that absolutely makes vaccines (although I don't believe any of their COVID vaccines are available in the US). It is also based in Gaithersburg, MD, in the heart of her district. Current share price is $9.95, and she holds "less than 100 shares." Total investment: <$995
Emergent Biosolutions: A company that develops vaccines and other things. It is based in Rockville, MD -- also very much in her district. Current share price is $13.10, and she owns between 100 and 250 shares, for a total investment of between $1310 and $3275.
So there you have it, you're going after someone who has holdings between $1322 and $4475 and accusing them of corruption because they are trying to promote vaccine uptake -- because who knows, if the legislation passes, maybe her stock will go up by say 5% (somewhere between $66 to $224).
Yeah, I can see how that's a freaking corrupt act. Does it ever occur to you that maybe she's just trying to support companies in her district? Does it ever occur to you maybe she just believes in vaccines and wants to see more people vaccinated -- and that she believes a child who agrees that vaccines work, shouldn't have to have their life risked because of their anti-vax parent?
Did you ever bother reading the disclosure yourself and realized just how little stock she owned and whether it was an ACTUAL conflict of interest? Did you read the disclosure and then still conclude after realizing she likely has less than $3000 in stock, almost all of it in the district she represents that that was still a major conflict of interest?