[1] by Wynton kelly Stone Guess
In the past 6 years, I have resided outside of United States, and in that time period, it has given me a particular distance in my perceptions of the American media, especially pertaining to president Donald Trump. There has been a tendency to regard anything that comes out of the president’s mouth as immediately dismissible and now in a time of national crisis, this has become especially dangerous as his administration attempts to navigate a situation, which doesn’t really have historical precedence. If there has been anytime during his 3 year administration for the media and press to place journalistic integrity over personal grudges it’s now.
Whatever one may think of him as a person, it is important to remember that he is still the president of the United States and that the office should be given the same level of seriousness as any previous administration. In this particular case of his administration’s advocacy for the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine, seriousness and nuance in debate is necessary.
Much of the worldwide enthusiasm surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine stems from a study published by French physician and microbiologist Didier Raoult, who is currently the director of the Research Unit in Infectious and Tropical Emergent Diseases in Marseille. Dr. Raoult has made explosive claims as to the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treating patients with Covid-19.
He is also quite a controversial figure in France for his proclivity toward making these kinds of sweeping proclamations. As one would predict, the media in France have taken these claims and used them as either the face of the fight against Covi-19, or the pinnacle of the absurd for even suggesting the use of an anti-malaria drug in the fight. Neither side actually took the effort to scrutinize not only Raoult himself but also the information backing his claims. The French investigative website Les Crises, run by Olivier Berruyer has already done a lengthy exposé of Dr. Raoult and his questionable history of public statements, ethics, and professional standards when it comes to the studies he has published.
Another article republished on Les Crises by Julien Hernandez, originally found on Futura Science also goes to great lengths to expose Dr. Raoult, so I will not provide any judgment here as to his credibility or reliability as a researcher, or his study.
What I will say about this article by Hernandez is that it provides the level of nuance necessary in assessing policy regarding using such a drug. Hernandez cites a summary from a study done by two researchers Franck Touret and Xavier de Lamballerie of l’Unité des Virus Émergents de l’université d’Aix-Marseille. From this study the following conclusions, which are extremely relevant to the debate, can be drawn:
· In vitro (studies done on cells) data suggest that chloroquine inhibits SARS Cov-2 replication.
· In past research, chloroquine has shown in vitro activity against many different viruses, but no benefit in animal models.
· Chloroquine has been proposed several times for the treatment of acute viral diseases in humans without success.
· The outcomes of some current clinical trials of chloroquine in China have been announced, without access to the data.
· Peer review of the results and an independent assessment of the potential benefit for patients are essential.
This amounts to a collective shoulder shrug, from a medical community still awaiting more peer reviewed studies regarding the benefits and consequences of using such a drug in the specific case of Covid-19.
Hernandez also offered several key observations, which are useful to always keep in mind when dealing with the American media.
Authority is not an argument!
This one is important to remember when the core of an argument hinges upon someone’s authority or position of authority on a certain subject. A title absence of strong corroborating evidence is not a substitute for that lack of evidence.
The second takeaway is the importance of information with nuance.
It is the responsibility of the media to provide assistance to the public in parsing through the nuance of complex subjects. Unfortunately, this has not been the case, in France, as both Olivier Berruyer and Julien Hernandez have decried, but even more so in the United States.
The American media seem to have experienced a relapse of the institutional Trump Derangement Syndrome that has befallen them for the better part of this decade. Rather than acknowledging that President Trump may have acted upon an impulse in the interest of public health, the media have at every end tried to grandstand and humiliate the president and his surrogates over his interest in the possible benefits of hydroxychloroquine.
In one instance, the media tried to blame the president for the death of a man who tried to self-medicate using a fish tank cleaner called chloroquine phosphate. Even worse is that in their treatment of this episode, many prominent outlets intentionally obfuscated the fact that this individual was killed by a different chemical of a similar name. They ran such misleading headlines as “Man dies after taking chloroquine in an attempt to prevent coronavirus” and “Man Dies, Woman Hospitalized After Taking Form Of Chloroquine To Prevent COVID-19”. This kind of journalism is sleazy and dishonest to say the least.
This brings us to a recent CNN interview with economist and Trump advisor, Peter Navarro conducted by anchor John Berman. The segment in question is ultimately about differences between the policy the administration has been advocating and various statements by Dr. Anthony Fauci regarding hydroxychloroquine, which echo the conclusions from the Marseille study, “In terms of science, I don’t think we can definitively say it works…The data are really just at best suggestive. There have been cases that show there may be an effect and there are others to show there’s no effect.”
The American mainstream media as a whole have been extremely dismissive of the Trump Administration’s interest in the drug and have equated there currently not being enough evidence to support its efficacy, with the notion that the drug does not work. Berman’s questions operate under this base assumption in his repeated insistence upon questioning Navarro about this “disagreement” between him and Dr. Fauci.
Berman not only attempts to hold Dr. Fauci’s title over Navarro’s head, but also in his many leading questions, Berman tries to force Navarro into an affirmative statement or declaration of his or the president’s belief in the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine. This is something Navarro specifically avoids doing.
Navarro is dealing in the realm of policy. This is something completely different than medical advice. In my belief, it is the responsibility of the federal government to make available all of the possible paths in treating Covid-19. This is exactly what Navarro was concerned about.
Absence of any conclusive evidence in the affirmative or negative, the government should still make available any form of treatment and leave the specific medical questions to the discretion of doctors. If there are specific cases in which a doctor judges that hydroxychloroquine might provide some level of relief or assistance to a patient, the drug should be available for them to use.
This is specifically what Navarro advocates for in his closing statement. “All my role has been in this is to suggest that we have [hydroxychloroquine] in the stockpiles… you should have that discussion about whether we should [make it available] in the task force, [which includes] Surgeon General, Fauchi ,Steve Hahn and others. [They] unanimously, agreed that we should [make it available] to the hot zones and let the doctor-patient relationship determine who takes it.”
This basic point was illustrated several times over the span of the 12 minute interview, but Berman was too busy trying to elicit a soundbite that could be used as a weapon against the president, rather than doing his job as a journalist, to help parse through information instead than intentionally clouding it.
He repeatedly interrupts Navarro whenever he attempts to make this point and sticks to his false assumption of a disagreement. It can be possible for Dr. Fauci to have his doubts about the effectiveness of the drug – which he is professionally obligated to maintain given the dearth of conclusions either way- AND for the Trump administration to advocate for its widespread availability leaving it up to a doctor’s discretion on whether or not they would like to use it. There have been cases in the United States where doctors have come to this conclusion.
The media has shown that even amidst one of the worst crises to have befallen the nation, they cannot be trusted to maintain journalistic standards and integrity in their reporting. This lack of objectivity for the sake of personal grudges and ill feelings toward the president may prove to be very dangerous and even deadly as the nation seeks to find its way from the precipice of the unprecedented.
1. https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/coronavirus-vers-une-sortie-de-crise/
“Dr. Raoult has made explosive claims”
"The French investigative website Les Crises"
3. https://www.les-crises.fr/chloroquine-et-covid-19-que-faut-il-en-penser/
"Another article republished by Les Crises"
4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220301145#!
“Hernandez cites a summary from a study done by two researchers Frank Touret"
5. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/05/coronavirus-fauci-trump-anti-malaria-drug
“various statements by Dr. Anthony Fauci regarding hydroxychloroquine"