For the record, this absolutely had the requisite level of engagement for the front page, but mysteriously languished under new.
Readit NewsI disagree. I think the anti-Trump crowd would've happily been on board with HCQ if Trump had said it was helpful and then scientific studies then also concluded it was helpful and that was the end of it.
Instead, the FDA publicly retracted it's authorization for the use of HCQ and said it did more harm than good, and so public sentiment solidified behind the idea that it was stupid all along. If the FDA hadn't done that and the treatment continued to prove effective, I think we would all generally be on board with it.
There are a lot of ways in which it turns out anti-Trumpers are exactly the same as Trump supporters, but the anti-science bent isn't one of them.
The treatment is continuing to prove effective when administered in the correct dosages at the appropriate times and in conjunction with Zinc and Azithromycin.
Unfortunately a lot of people were biased against it precisely because Trump supported it. The studies showing it didn't work or was dangerous were poorly designed but people happily accepted their results because they made Trump look like a fool.
It's time we put politics aside and reverse course on HCQ.
I suggest changing the title to something like:
Yale professor of epidemiology claims hydroxychloroquine "key to defeating COVID-19"Done. I usually try to avoid editorializing titles after repeated scoldings but I think this is appropriate.
If someone says "you should take this", based on “[they] feel good about it. That’s all it is, just a feeling, you know, smart guy. [They] feel good about it.”, with no strong medical support, then rejecting the drug is the proper course of action.
The medical community can continue to perform tests, and if there later is support for the drug, then policies can change. But that doesn't alter the fact that rejecting the drug was the correct policy.
Subsequent poorly designed studies got bad results precisely because they were poorly designed, yet they continue to influence attitudes on HCQ treatment.