Their mandate changed. They are not the centre for disease control and prevention and they act in accordance with their mandate as a public health agency

I know this is a typo, but it reverses the meaning so clarifying for future readers in case it's confusing:

They are _now_ the centre for disease control and prevention

Yes, I know. I have friends there who are fantastic, smart, committed civil servants working within their mandate and structure. I have a Master's in Public Policy from the Kennedy School, I'm not anti-government. But mission creep has hurt the CDC more than helped the nation. Public health is far too big a remit for any one agency.

I'm confused I've never heard of it getting involved in anything else.

What do you mean?

Guns: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.htm...

I would tend to agree that they have no place talking about guns.

Collecting gun-related injury and fatality data allows us to make evidence-based informed decisions about what types of legislation are likely to be effective to reduce harm. For example:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-05/the-3-gun...

And that has nothing to do with Disease Control and is a clear demonstration of mission creep. The CDC has recently displayed its incompetence regarding its core function. Maybe it should master that before addressing other issues of society which are, at best, only tenuously in its purview.

Did they ask for this work or was it thrust on them because of political football?

You have many questions. At first it seemed as if you were curious about what other aspects the CDC had delved into. Now it looks like you are pursuing some agenda. The basic questions can be answered with a bit of research. Here are some more to ponder. Or maybe these are what you are getting at.

What was the CDC's original mission?

Did it execute it competently?

Why is it now involved in areas other than communicable diseases?

Do people in organizations seek to increase their power and influence?

Do they do this by enlarging the scope of their organizations' missions?

How is this notionally science-based entity being influenced by other factors?

Not exactly good faith here....

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24293489 - my sibling comment to yours might clarify my opinion for you...

I actually suspect this role was thrust on the CDC because they are generally supported by everyone (everyone sane anyway). I'm not a fan of this having happened because they should be too important to get mixed into politically poisonous debates.

I completely agree. There should be a government agency doing this. That agency should not be the CDC.

Well, don't they do other things that involve health? Like drinking guidelines and dietary guidelines and cancer research/information and things of that sort?

Still well within the realm of health and certainly affects communicable diseases (an unhealthy population is more prone to worse effects of disease).

Why? What do they do that you oppose?

Public health is precariously close to politics in a lot of cases and it casts shade on their mundane and universally appreciated work on topics more directly related to disease.

That said, it'd kind of inevitable that they run a course like that because constantly doing good non-controversial work banks political capital and the politicians are gonna try to harness organizations like that for their own ends.

So, because some folks make it political, we shouldn't get facts about things like the HPV vaccine or the effects of birth control methods?

How, exactly, are folks (who are not versed in medicine) supposed to get this information from a trusted source?