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 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:
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?
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:
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.
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.
