- Apr 26, 2020
- United Kingdom
I don't know why they're touting the drug-- I imagine it's because of the anecdotal evidence that it can help. But I doubt that Fox News hosts, TV personalities, and conservative radio talking-heads are the best people to be leading public drug policy. I consider it a warning sign when the President sides with a cause celebre and in so doing overrules actual expert advice.tstorm823 said:Why were they touting the drug? Could it have been that it was a genuine top contender among the list of potential treatments being tested? Could it be that Bayer announced they were donating a mountain of it [https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/bayer-is-donating-its-malaria-drug-that-could-help-coronavirus-patients-in-the-u.s.-2020] to the US government literally the day before [https://www.newsweek.com/hydroxychloroquine-malaria-drug-coronavirus-fda-1493293] Trump started talking about it?
I have no idea. The NYT lists Ken Fisher as having a significant financial interest in Sanofi, and one of Trump's golfing buddies is apparently a co-founder of another drug company currently preparing to manufacture it. This could feasibly be coincidence, though-- The point is that it's extremely easy to catch the President's attention with a product, and then have him shortly endorsing it with an enormous official platform.tstorm823 said:Do you think anyone stood to gain financially from pushing an off-patent medicine that drug companies were giving away before Trump said a word?
Trump's long history of nepotism, misusing charitable funds, and maintaining financial conflicts-of-interest while in office all point towards his willingness to use his platform for this kind of gain. He has a reeking track record. The suspicion is not coming from nowhere.tstorm823 said:I don't think there's a single reason to be suspicious about the initial hope that hydroxychloroquine would work, other than people instinctively believing the opposite of what Trump says.