By Alexandra DeSanctis
Saturday, March 21, 2020
In an article published on Thursday and updated on
Friday, New York Times reporters downplayed the possibility of using
hydroxycholoroquine (HCQ), an anti-malaria drug, to treat COVID-19.
“With Minimal Evidence, Trump Asks F.D.A. to Study
Malaria Drugs for Coronavirus,” the headline reads. And the subtitle: “The use
of the existing drugs against the new virus is unproven, and some shortages
have already been reported.”
The article went on to claim that the president had
“exaggerated the potential of drugs available to treat the new coronavirus,
including an experimental antiviral treatment and decades-old malaria remedies
that hint of promise but so far show limited evidence of healing the sick.”
Another Times article on the topic bore the
headline “Trump’s Embrace of Unproven Drugs to Treat Coronavirus Defies
Science.”
No one should suggest, based on the available evidence,
that HCQ is some sort of silver bullet that will cure COVID-19 and get us out
of this global crisis. But neither should reporters cover a possible positive
development from the angle of how best they can disparage the president. And
Trump’s comments about the drug, though perhaps more optimistic than warranted,
were not unreasonable.
According to the Times’s own reporting, when
discussing the recent studies on the effects of HCQ in COVID-19 patients, Trump
“acknowledg[ed] he couldn’t predict the drugs would work.”
“I feel good about it. And we’re going to see. You’re
going to see soon enough,” Trump said. Hardly comments bad enough to require
the Times to cover hopeful scientific evidence with a laser-like focus
on the flaws in the president’s tone.
Of course, like the president, I can’t predict whether
HCQ will work. Nor am I a scientist with an advanced understanding of
antimalarials. But based on what I’ve read, I think there’s reason for some
optimism. On this subject, I found useful some commentary from American
microbiologist and Dominican priest Nicanor Austriaco, who has a PhD in biology
from MIT and is chief researcher at the Austriaco lab at Providence College.
In a Facebook post yesterday, Austriaco wrote that he was
“struck by the attempts of these New York Times reporters to dismiss or
minimize the impact of the possible use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to treat
COVID-19.” He noted that the results from the study in France — which found
that HCQ, both on its own and in conjunction with the antibiotic azithromycin,
successfully removed the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 from a number of
patients — were limited but promising, especially when reviewed in conjunction
with data from a Chinese study finding that HCQ had anti-viral effects on
SARS-CoV-2 in a test tube.
Of the Chinese study, Austriaco wrote, “They were able to
provide a mechanism of action for this anti-viral activity, and it is a
reasonable one. (For molecular biologists, mechanism makes all the difference
in the world!) Briefly, it alters the pH of the parts of the cell necessary for
viral reproduction.” He added that the “molecular evidence for anti-viral
function” makes the clinical-study results more promising.
“In the end, despite what the NYT says, I am very
optimistic about this development. I think that the headline is misleading,”
Austriaco concluded. “Yes, there is minimal evidence but that is not unexpected
in a pandemic. But the minimal evidence is actually pretty solid, given the
practical limits of doing clinical trials in a global crisis. Yet, when both in
vitro and in vivo studies converge, that is an optimistic sign. Especially when
you have a mechanism of action that is reasonable and is in line with what we
know about viral reproduction.”
This doesn’t mean we should all rush to the nearest beach
this weekend, assuming that the miracle cure is on its way. But as
pharmaceutical company Bayer seeks approval from the FDA to sell its
chloroquine product in the U.S. to be used on an emergency basis to treat
COVID-19, there’s no reason in the world for a leading newspaper to trivialize
scientific evidence for the sake of attacking the president.
No comments:
Post a Comment