During the pandemic, one drug became the unexpected center of a political firestorm: hydroxychloroquine. Originally used as an anti-malarial and widely prescribed for autoimmune diseases, hydroxychloroquine was suddenly thrust into the spotlight when former President Donald Trump mentioned he was taking it as a preventive measure against COVID-19. His announcement ignited a media frenzy, leading to a polarized response that unfortunately sidetracked serious scientific evaluation of the drug’s potential.
What happened next was a perfect example of how politics can cloud science. Shortly after Trump’s endorsement, demand for hydroxychloroquine surged, prompting the FDA to step in with an advisory. They warned that hydroxychloroquine hadn’t been proven safe or effective for COVID-19 and that it might cause serious heart rhythm issues in COVID patients. The CDC then added its own caution, emphasizing there were no approved therapeutics for COVID-19, effectively shutting down the exploration of treatments like hydroxychloroquine. With all eyes on the vaccine as the ultimate solution, any alternative was almost reflexively dismissed.
From a scientific perspective, the issue is more nuanced. I’m not here to defend political statements or debate intentions; my interest lies in understanding what the science actually says about hydroxychloroquine. Recently, a paper published by researchers who are completely independent of U.S. politics reviewed the available studies on hydroxychloroquine, particularly its use in early COVID treatment. They concluded that early treatment with hydroxychloroquine, especially in combination with zinc and antibiotics, yielded positive outcomes in reducing severe illness. Yet, because of the early politicization, these findings went largely unnoticed.
