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.
It’s essential to remember that hydroxychloroquine has been safely used in other contexts for decades. In autoimmune conditions, for example, it acts as an immunosuppressive, helping to reduce inflammation. When we think about COVID-19, particularly severe cases, the cytokine storm—an intense immune response—resembles an autoimmune reaction to the virus. Hydroxychloroquine’s ability to moderate immune responses theoretically made it a potential treatment to lessen severe COVID symptoms by reducing this storm.
However, the pandemic’s progression and the virus's evolution have shifted the treatment landscape. With the Omicron variant, we now know that the virus uses different cellular entry routes, making early treatment with hydroxychloroquine potentially even more relevant. The drug can interfere with the virus’s ability to release RNA within cells, slowing down viral replication. This effect, however, is most impactful if the treatment begins early.
We lost valuable time and potentially valuable data due to the politicization of hydroxychloroquine. And the consequences are still felt today, as people continue to seek alternative treatments in a time when vaccines are widely available but hesitancy remains. As we see breakthrough infections and recurring cases, particularly in highly vaccinated areas, the need for antivirals or treatments that can help curb the spread has only grown.
In my view, we need to move beyond the stigma that was attached to hydroxychloroquine. Politics and science serve different purposes, and when they’re conflated, people lose out. As we enter a new phase of the pandemic, our focus should be on finding effective solutions, regardless of past controversies. Hydroxychloroquine may not be the answer for everyone, but it’s a part of the scientific conversation that deserves to be revisited without the baggage of politics.
The broader lesson here is clear: public health decisions must be guided by objective science, not by political influence. If we’re going to effectively address future health crises, we have to find ways to separate evidence from opinion. Otherwise, we risk repeating the same mistakes.
Share this post