[American Thinker] Very soon after the coronavirus hit America, reports emerged that chloroquine, an older malaria drug, and its analog, Hydroxychloroquine, were helpful against the virus, especially when used in conjunction with azithromycin, an antibiotic. Trump expressed a strong hope that these drugs would effectively treat those with serious coronavirus cases.
The media reflexively struck back. They first accused Trump of lying about the drugs’ potential value. Now that it’s become clear that Trump was accurate, the media have a new tactic, which is to present chloroquine as a deadly drug that will kill more than it cures. For the media, it’s never about the actual issue; it’s always about "getting" Trump.
On Sunday, American Thinker ran Andrew Longman’s excellent summary about chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin. Before reading this post, you might want to refresh your knowledge by reading that article. The takeaway is that these drugs have been around for a long time, so doctors are familiar with them; that there’s an increasing body of evidence that they work; and that the Trump administration got the FDA to allow doctors to prescribe them "off-label" or for "compassionate use" (that is, for a purpose other than treating malaria). (Just two recent examples of successful chloroquine use are here and here.)
On Saturday, Trump tweeted out his hope that Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, when taken together, could save lives. Please note that he didn’t say they "would" save lives, just that they had a "real chance" to change the outcome:
|