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?
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?