Matt Taibi: How Liberals Overreach by Speculating beyond Where the Facts Take Them

Many liberals’ opinions are reflexively just the opposite of whatever Trump says.

They overreach from their criticism of Trump for silencing Dr. Fauci to then speculate that there must be a financial tie — “follow the money.”

Is this is an example of what Rene Girard called mimesis a harmful form of  mimetic rivalry?

Warning: video contains swearing if you listen to the whole thing, but not the brief segment.

Trump’s Dangerous Messaging About a Possible Coronavirus Treatment

The malaria drug chloroquine was developed from quinine, an alkaloid found in the bark of the cinchona tree, which grows in the tropical highlands of South America. The Incas passed the bark cure to Jesuit priests, who transported it to Europe in the mid-sixteen-hundreds. The National Institutes of Health calls quinine “the most serendipitous medical discovery of the 17th century,” but its side effects—diarrhea, vomiting, partial deafness and blindness—could be devastating. A less toxic derivative of chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, was developed in the nineteen-forties. Doctors and pharmacists call it HCQ.

Against malaria, the drugs, which are taken as pills, essentially defend red blood cells against a parasite that is transmitted by mosquito bite. Lately, some doctors have been trying it against the novel coronavirus, which causes COVID-19. Attention to chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine—and to a third drug, the antibiotic azithromycin, a common brand name of which is Zithromax Z-Pak—intensified in mid-March, after researchers at Aix-Marseille University, in France, released a preliminary study saying that, in a clinical trial, the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin had quickly reduced the amount of the virus in COVID-19 patients.

On March 18th, on Fox News, Tucker Carlson opened a three-minute segment about the study by saying, of the United States, “This is a country of science.” He then introduced a lawyer, Gregory Rigano, whom he identified as an adviser to Stanford University’s medical school. Rigano had self-published a white paper about chloroquine, on Google Docs; his connection to the French research was otherwise unclear. He was appearing remotely, wearing a suit and sitting in front of a cold fireplace. When Carlson asked him why he thought the study was important, Rigano responded, “The President has the authority to authorize the use of hydroxychloroquine against coronavirus immediately. He has cut more red tape at the F.D.A. than any other President in history.”

According to his Web site, covidtrial.io, Rigano has experience “advancing various pharmaceutical assets through laboratory, animal, formulation, manufacturing, clinical trials,” and was hosting an “open data clinical trial for Covid-19.” (The wording on the Web site has since been changed.) He told Carlson that the French study “was released this morning on my Twitter account,” and showed a “one hundred per cent cure rate” against the coronavirus. Carlson called the revelation “remarkable.” Rigano, after a bizarre reference to hepatitis, said, “What we’re here to announce is the second cure to a virus of all time.”

Charlie Kirk, the founder of the conservative nonprofit Turning Point USA, tweeted the segment, exhorting his nearly two million followers to “RT If President @realDonaldTrump should immediately move to make this available.” Most media outlets, though, quickly challenged the credibility of Rigano and that of his white paper’s co-author, James Todaro, a cryptocurrency investor who has tweeted about having a medical degree from Columbia. HuffPost called them “hucksters.” Joan Donovan, who studies “media manipulation and disinformation campaigns” at the Shorenstein Center, at the Harvard Kennedy School, called them “bitcoin entrepreneurs” and pointed out that “neither do research on viruses.” She wrote, “This is dangerous because people are now tweeting about trying to get their doctors to prescribe anti-malaria drugs. Worse, thousands of people think they can cure coronavirus by drinking tonic water.” (Tonic water contains quinine.) Stanford Health Care posted an “IMPORTANT NOTICE” on its Web site: “A widely circulating Google document claiming to have identified a potential treatment for COVID-19 in consultation with Stanford’s School of Medicine is not legitimate.”

Donald Trump, however, ran with it. Last Thursday, at a press conference, he declared that chloroquine had “been approved” by the Food and Drug Administration as a treatment for COVID-19. (It hadn’t.) On Friday, he said that he is “a big fan” of the drug. (The F.D.A. commissioner, Stephen Hahn, issued a cautionary statement about spreading “false hope.”) On Saturday, Trump tweeted, “HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine.” He added that the drugs should be used “IMMEDIATELY to treat the coronavirus. HCQ is also used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, which are autoimmune diseases; at one of his pressers, Trump had said, “If you wanted, you can have a prescription,” adding, “What the hell do you have to lose?

Physicians responded instantly and publicly. Sam Ghali, an emergency physician in Lexington, Kentucky, tweeted that the President’s recommendation involved “a DANGEROUS combination of drugs with tons of side effects,” and that “together they can make your heart go into abnormal rhythms and even KILL you.” Rob Davidson, an emergency physician in western Michigan, who chairs the Committee to Protect Medicare, tweeted, at Trump, “Leave the medical advice to doctors. You can’t even do your own job correctly, stop trying to do ours.”

The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists soon reported a shortage of HCQ. By Sunday, at least four state pharmacy boards—in Idaho, Ohio, Nevada, and Texas—had restricted prescriptions. (The list has now grown to include Kentucky, North Carolina, and Oklahoma.) At least one board also restricted azithromycin. Katherine Rowland, a pharmacist in Eugene, Oregon, tweeted, “Well it finally happened to me. A dentist just tried to call in scripts for hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin for himself, his wife, & another couple (friends). NOPE. I have patients with lupus that have been on HCQ for YEARS and now can’t get it because it’s on backorder.” A lupus patient in Maryland told a reporter for Undark Magazine that she never worried about a drug shortage but was now terrified that, without the medication that protects her organs from inflammation, her immune system would turn on her. “I’ll suffocate,” she said.

In recent weeks—as the number of coronavirus cases escalated to what is now half a million worldwide—the F.D.A. and the Federal Trade Commission have sent cease-and-desist letters to at least seven sellers of products that are being marketed as cures for the coronavirus. On March 6th, one such warning went to “The Jim Bakker Show,” in Blue Eye, Missouri. The television program, which is fronted by a televangelist who spent nearly five years in prison, in the early nineteen-nineties, for fraud, had been touting survivalist products, including Silver Sol Liquid, a silver solution that was purported to “mitigate, prevent, treat, diagnose, or cure COVID-19 in people.” Viewers were told that they could put the liquid “in a nebulizer which then creates a steam and you breathe it in, and it will go directly into your lungs where that virus is.” Another letter went to Herbal Amy, an L.L.C. in Nampa, Idaho, the Web site of which was selling “Coronavirus Protocol” products: Coronavirus Boneset Tea, Coronavirus Cell Protection. The suggested regimen was “rather extensive,” because “the particular corona virus that is now spreading world wide is exceptionally potent,” the Web site noted. The herbs in the protocol were “specific in one way or another” for the virus, and worked “for acute infections.”

Anthony Fauci has directed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since Ronald Reagan was President. As a medical professional, he has faced H.I.V., SARS, MERS, Ebola, and now Trump. At press conferences, Trump speaks of hunches (“I feel good about it”); Fauci delivers information that has been vetted by experts. On Sunday, Science magazine asked Fauci how he can tolerate statements that “aren’t true and aren’t factual”; Fauci replied, “I can’t jump in front of the microphone and push him down.” Fauci carefully explained that any clinical successes related to the cocktail that Trump was praising were anecdotal. He said, “My job is to ultimately prove without a doubt that a drug is not only safe but that it works.”

As the coronavirus continued to spread, Trump made one troubling declaration after another. A vaccine was coming “relatively soon,” he said. (It takes at least a year to develop a vaccine.) “We were very prepared” for a pandemic, he said. (The country’s hospitals were caught with such a shortage of basic protective gear that front-line health-care workers are reusing, by necessity, potentially contaminated masks). The virus “miraculously goes away” as the weather warms, he said. (Robert Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has said, “This virus is probably with us beyond this season, beyond this year.”) The number of coronavirus patients would be “close to zero,” Trump said. (At least a thousand people have died of the coronavirus in the United States, thirteen of them in one twenty-four-hour period, this week, at a single hospital in Elmhurst, Queens.) By Wednesday night, on Twitter, #DoctorsOnlyPressConferences was trending nationally.

Ryan Marino, one of the doctors tweeting about the dangers of Trump’s messaging, is a thirty-one-year-old medical toxicologist at University Hospitals in Cleveland. His specialty involves “the poisoned patient”—a drug overdose, lead exposure, “things that bite and sting.” Call a poison-control center and it is usually a clinician like Marino, as opposed to a laboratory toxicologist, at the other end of the line. A podcast host recently told him, “You are right out at the tip of the spear,” treating “patients at the point of care.”

A few years ago, Marino noticed rumors about fentanyl, the potent painkiller which in an illicit form, usually a powder, is often found in street drugs such as heroin. On Facebook, a Texas man warned everybody to sanitize the handles of Walmart’s shopping carts because “one drop” of fentanyl could “cause death”—“all you have to do is rub your nose or touch your child’s mouth.” (The post has been shared more than thirty thousand times.) In Grove City, Ohio, after law-enforcement officers seized three kilograms of fentanyl, one network news affiliate described that amount of drugs as “enough to kill 1.5 million people.” Law-enforcement officers and other first responders had heard that they could fatally overdose by simply inhaling or touching fentanyl during drug busts. In one town, a police officer brushed an unidentified white powder off his shirt after searching a drug suspect’s car; he fell unconscious and received naloxone, a drug that can reverse an overdose. The officer was recovering shortly thereafter, but his chief spoke to “Inside Edition” and described the potential danger, as he imagined it: “He leaves and goes home, takes off that shirt, throws it in the wash. His mom, his wife, his girlfriend goes in the laundry, touches the shirt: boom, they drop. He goes home to his kid: ‘Daddy! Daddy!’ They hug him: boom, they drop. His dog sniffs his shirt: it kills his dog.” A fentanyl-industrial complex appeared—gloves, sprays, masks, hazmat suits.

In late 2017, Marino started a hashtag, #WTFentanyl, to dispel the myths that fentanyl can be easily absorbed into the skin or inhaled after becoming airborne. The rumors had, at first, struck Marino as humorous, then absurd. Then he decided that there was “serious potential for harm.” He worried that first responders would ration naloxone for themselves, and that people would die. His tweets, though, could be darkly funny. In a news interview, the C.E.O. of an alcohol- and drug-treatment center said that anyone who “enters a room with someone who might be having an issue with fentanyl” could “instantly” become addicted. Health-care workers tweeted about it, one telling Marino, “I became addicted to fentanyl by reading this tweet.” Marino replied, “Now you’re dead,” and attached a GIF of Stewie, the baby on “Family Guy,” tossing a red rose into an open grave. After someone else tweeted about fentanyl patches that had been in her bathroom cabinet for “nearly a year,” Marino responded, “Everyone who has been to your bathroom became instantly addicted and then died.”

Poisoning, in any form, is no joke to Marino—he became a medical toxicologist partly because he lost a beloved cousin to an overdose. On a podcast, he recently said that his “end game” is “to insure that there’s less harm.” After Trump’s comments about hydroxychloroquine, Marino began tweeting about the coronavirus. Whereas before he had dispelled gross exaggerations about fentanyl, he now found himself urging politicians and the public to take the risks of HCQ more seriously. He told me, “There’s very few things that make me clench up inside, and hydroxychloroquine is on the short list, because it’s so toxic.”

HCQ can cause cardiac arrest, low blood pressure, hypoglycemia, seizures, and an altered mental state. Marino warned his nearly twenty-four thousand Twitter followers that Trump, by making “unsupportable recommendations,” praised what was in fact a combination of “extremely toxic drugs with a long history of lethality and complications that are difficult to treat in even the most advanced settings.” Retweeting Trump, he wrote that it is “a crime in all 50 United States to dispense medical advice without a license.” Later, he tweeted, “Don’t listen to the President. Listen to all the experts around the world who are in consensus that we need to continue to distance/isolate.”

Marino publicly shared a memo that he had sent to his emergency-department staff: the research paper that related to Trump’s comments sounded “promising on the surface” but involved “flawed” and “limited” science. The French study that Fox News had touted had ultimately involved a treatment group of only twenty patients. Six dropped out. Three went to intensive care. One died. In a clinical trial, “dying, and doing worse, are important outcomes to measure,” Marino told me. “When they say it was ‘a hundred per cent’ successful, they’re ignoring the fact that patients were cut out of the results.”

Something else worried Marino: sick people may hear about Trump’s “hunches” and treat their coronavirus symptoms at home with a dangerous, unproven drug. That has now happened. In Lagos, at least two people have overdosed on chloroquine. The Nigeria Centre for Disease Control tweeted that the World Health Organization had “NOT approved” the compound as a treatment for COVID-19, and exhorted, “Please DO NOT engage in self-medication.” On Monday, a man in Arizona died, and his wife was in critical condition, after ingesting the kind of chloroquine solution that is used to clean fish tanks. Marino tweeted, “ ‘Fake news’ is a term that I hate to use, but when White House press briefings are causing people to poison themselves needlessly then I can’t think of a better way to describe that.”

By Thursday morning, Kaiser Permanente had stopped filling “routine” prescriptions for chloroquine, in order to “ensure access” to the drug for “severely sick patients, including both COVID-19 and those with acute lupus.” Doctors in New York, the outbreak’s epicenter, are experimenting with the drugs; days ago, Governor Andrew Cuomo announced the impending arrival of seven hundred and fifty thousand doses of chloroquine. Physicians elsewhere have tried the medications in cases of “compassionate use,” when nothing else is working. Clinical trials are underway in Minnesota and elsewhere. Alison Bateman-House, a professor of population health at New York University, told the Washington Post that the F.D.A. is “caught between saying it wants good science, and good processes, and what evidence-based medicine requires, and this is what our bosses, the people and the president are telling us they want.”

Marino heard about New York’s experiments on Thursday, when at least two hundred and thirty-seven people died of the coronavirus nationwide. That night, Trump called “The Sean Hannity Show,” on Fox News, and repeated his claims that “there’s no risk” in using an anti-malarial drug for COVID-19 “when it’s already out there in different form, for a different purpose.” He bragged about getting “such fast turnaround,” saying, “Why would we wait?” But, seconds later, he said, “If you were a betting man, I guess you’d have to bet against it.”

Marino told me, “While superficially it seems prudent to just try anything in the face of an overwhelming crisis, there is no reason to believe that these meds will help,” unless they are proven to do so. He said, “If our response to a crisis is to ignore the scientific method that has gotten us this far, then we are setting ourselves up for additional and preventable problems.”

Chloroquine May Fight Covid-19—and Silicon Valley’s Into It

The old malaria drug is getting used against the coronavirus. Tech enthusiasts are abuzz. One missing step: clinical trials.

THE CHATTER ABOUT a promising drug to fight Covid-19 started, as chatter often does (but science does not), on Twitter. A blockchain investor named James Todaro tweeted that an 85-year-old malaria drug called chloroquine was a potential treatment and preventative against the disease caused by the new coronavirus. Todaro linked to a Google doc he’d cowritten, explaining the idea.

Though nearly a dozen drugs to treat coronavirus are in clinical trials in China, just one—remdesivir, an antiviral that was in trials against Ebola and the coronavirus MERS—is in full-on trials in the US. Nothing has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. So a promising drug would be great—and even better, chloroquine isn’t new. Its use dates back to World War II, and it’s derived from the bark of the chinchona tree, like quinine, a centuries-old antimalarial. That means the drug is now generic and is relatively cheap. Physicians understand it well, and they’re allowed to prescribe it for anything they want, not just malaria.

Todaro’s tweet got thousands of likes. The engineer/tech world picked up the idea. The widely-read blog Stratechery linked to Todaro’s Google document; Ben Thompson, the blog’s editor, wrote that he was “wholly unqualified to comment” but that the anecdotal evidence favored the idea. Echoing the document, Thompson wrote that the paper was written in consultation with Stanford Medical School, the University of Alabama at Birmingham medical school, and National Academy of Sciences researchers—none of which is exactly true. (More on that in a bit.) One of Todaro’s coauthors, a lawyer named Gregory Rigano, went on Fox News to talk about the concept. Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk tweeted about it, citing an explanatory YouTube video from a physician who’s been doing a series of coronavirus explainers. To be fair, Musk wasn’t all-in on the idea absent more data, though he wrote that he’d received a life-saving dose of chloroquine for malaria.

It’s the definition of “big if true.” Part of the story of Covid-19, of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, is that it is novel. Humans don’t have any immunity to it. There’s no vaccine, no drug approved to treat it. But if a drug did exist—if a cheap, easy drug can stave off the worst, ventilator-requiring, sometimes-fatal complications of coronavirus infection, or maybe prevent that infection in the first place, what are we all socially isolating for, like suckers?

That if—as the saying goes—is doing a lot of work. The Covid-19 pandemic is causing, reasonably, a worldwide freak-out as scientists and policymakers race to find solutions, not always competently or efficiently. It’s the kind of thing that rankles the engineer-disruptor mindset. Surely this must be an easily solved problem that’s primarily the fault of bureaucracy, regulation, and people who don’t understand science. And maybe the first two things are true. The third thing, though, is where the risks hide. Silicon Valley lionizes people who rush toward solutions and ignore problems; science is designed to find solutions by identifying those problems. The two approaches are often incompatible.

What happened here, specifically, is that Rigano sought Todaro out. Todaro’s tweet identified Rigano as being affiliated with Johns Hopkins; Rigano’s LinkedIn profile says he’s on leave from a masters degree program there in bioinformatics, and has been an advisor to a program at Stanford called SPARK, which does translational drug discovery—finding new uses and applications for approved drugs. “I have a very unique background at the crossroads of law and science,” Rigano tells me. “I have been working with large pharmaceutical companies, universities, biotechs, and nonprofits in the development of drugs and medical products.” He says those contacts told him about the use of chloroquine against Covid-19 in China and South Korea, so he started reading up on it.

(Johns Hopkins did not return a request for comment; a spokesperson for Stanford Medical School emails: “Stanford Medicine, including SPARK, wasn’t involved in the creation of the Google document, and we’ve requested that the author remove all references to us. In addition, Gregory Rigano is not an advisor with Stanford School of Medicine and no one at Stanford was involved in the study.“)

It turns out that people have been pitching chloroquine as an antiviral for years. In the early 1990s researchers proposed it as an adjunct to early protease inhibitor drugs to help treat HIV/AIDS. A team led by Stuart Nichol, the head of the Special Pathogens Unit at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, published a paper in 2005 saying that the drug was effective against primate cells infected with SARS, the first big respiratory coronavirus to affect humans. That’s an in vitro test, not live animals—just cells.

Nichol didn’t respond to a request for comment, but a CDC spokesperson emailed this: “CDC is aware of reports of various medications being administered for either treatment or prophylaxis for COVID-19, including those demonstrating in vitro activity against SARS-CoV- 2. At this time, it is important to ensure robust clinical data, gathered from clinical trials, are obtained quickly in order to make informed clinical decisions regarding the management of patients with COVID-19.”

At a World Health Organization press conference in February, a reporter from the fact-checking group Africa Check asked whether chloroquine was an option. Janet Diaz, head of clinical care for the World Health Organization Emergencies Program, answered that WHO was prioritizing a couple of other drugs in testing along with remdesivir, and acknowledged that Chinese researchers were working on even more. “For chloroquine, there is no proof that that is an effective treatment at this time,” Diaz said. “We recommend that therapeutics be tested under ethically approved clinical trials to show efficacy and safety.”

Chloroquine and an alternative version called hydroxychloroquine seem to work on viruses by inhibiting a process called glycosylation, a chemical transformation of the proteins in the virus’s outer shell that’s part of the infection process. Chinese researchers have initiated perhaps a half-dozen randomized trials of the two versions in humans and gotten at least some promising initial data.

With that data in mind, a French infectious disease researcher named Didier Raoult published a fast review of existing in vitro studies of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, and (along with some other researchers) has recommended not only spinning up research in humans but also starting to use the drugs clinically. (Raoult didn’t return a request for comment, but a publicist at the hospital where he works sent a link to a video in which Raoult presents data he says shows efficacy in a small group of actual humans. That data hasn’t been published or peer reviewed.)

Except for that video, which hadn’t come out yet, Rigano put all that together and got in touch with Todaro. “I essentially wrote the publication based on my interface with various Stanford researchers and others, and we developed this body of evidence and hardcore science,” Rigano says. “James, Dr. Todaro, was doing the best job, I thought, of anyone in the media, any doctor, any news outlet, anyone on Twitter, of covering coronavirus. I’d been following his research on other items, like decentralized computing, for several years.”

Todaro, who got an MD from Columbia and is now a bitcoin investor, was interested enough to collaborate on the document. “I added stuff that pertained more to the medical side of things, and gave a more, I guess, clinical feel to it,” Todaro says. “Something that Big Pharma is not going to like—it’s widely available, it’s pretty cheap, and it’s something that at least a million people are already on. It’s really got a lot of the aspects of something that can be rolled out quickly if the right clinical data is there.”

Todaro and Rigano together started talking to Raoult about the small study he was then preparing, and they also called a retired biochemist named Tom Broker. He was originally listed as the first author of the Google doc, his name followed by “(Stanford).” That’s where Broker got his PhD, in 1972, but Broker has been, for years, at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. His area of research is adenovirus and human papillomavirus, which have DNA as their genetic material, as opposed to the RNA inside coronaviruses. They’re pretty different.

Broker says he wasn’t involved in producing the Google doc and would never advocate the use of a drug without formal trials. Todaro and Rigano have since removed his name from it, at Broker’s request. “I neither contributed to, wrote any part of, nor had knowledge of this google.com document. I have never conducted research on RNA virus pathogens … I have no professional credentials or authority to suggest or recommend clinical trials or practices,” Broker wrote in an email. “Apparently I was inserted as a ‘gratuitous’ author, a practice that I have always avoided over my 53-year career. Moreover, I have never engaged any part of social media, privately or professionally. All of my scientific publications are processed through peer review. I suggest that you communicate with one of the actual authors.”

Asked about Broker’s statement, Todaro says that Broker just didn’t want to engage with the attention the idea and document were getting “I don’t personally know Tom Broker. My correspondence has been with Mr. Rigano,” Todaro says. “When we started getting inquiries from the press, my impression was, Mr. Broker got very overwhelmed by that.”

Rigano says that was his impression as well. “Dr. Broker is a scientist of the highest order. He’s not used to this type of media attention, so we kind of just have to proceed without him here,” Rigano says. “He’s not ready for the media, becoming a celebrity.”

The chloroquine document Todaro and Rigano wrote spread almost—sorry about this—virally. But even though some people are hyping this is a treatment, it still has not yet undergone a large-scale randomized control trial, the gold standard for evaluating whether a medical intervention like a drug actually works. Until that happens, most physicians and researchers would say that chloroquine can’t be any kind of magic bullet. “Many drugs, including chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, work in cells in the lab against coronaviruses. Few drugs have been shown to work in an animal model,” says Matthew Frieman, a microbiologist who studies therapeutics against coronaviruses at the University of Maryland. What happens if you put the drugs into animals? No one knows yet. Probably nothing bad, because they’ve been used for decades. But maybe they don’t actually help a person fight off the virus.

Chloraquine’s action, Frieman says, “has been known for some time for other coronaviruses but never developed as a tested therapeutic in humans. There is reason to believe that will change now, along with other therapeutics that have efficacy in the lab.” That’s because the new coronavirus is encouraging research to pick up again on just about anything that has ever shown any effect on coronaviruses, and some new ideas too.

Rigano says he and Todaro are now spinning up their own clinical trials, though it isn’t clear how they intend to collect or present the data. They’re hoping to have clinicians enroll as subjects, and they’d then prescribe hydroxychloroquine to themselves as they treat patients with Covid-19. When asked what the control group would be—case-matched physicians who didn’t take the drug, perhaps?—Rigano had a couple of ideas. “You can use historical controls, the rate of medical doctors being infected that were not on hydroxychloroquine regularly. And if there are doctors that would like to participate in the study that would like to not take hydroxychloroquine, they would also be excellent controls,” Rigano says. “Ethically speaking, we don’t want anyone to contract this virus. It’s really a wonderful design.”

Rigano says he’s talking to staff at four Australian hospitals about spinning up a bigger, randomized trial after the one with volunteer physicians is underway.

Rigano and Todaro know that a Google doc shared over Twitter isn’t the way science typically gets done. But they say there’s no time to waste, that the pandemic is moving too fast for traditional science. “That would take months,” Todaro says. “I’d hate to bank on things we would find in months, or a vaccine that comes out in mid to late 2021.”

They’re not the only ones with those worries, of course. The latest model from Imperial College London of Covid-19’s progress lays out a worst worst-case scenario that involves millions of deaths, or social distancing and sheltering in place across the planet for more than a year. Social distance might give hospitals a better chance to accommodate and treat the sick, but unsheltering means the disease just comes back. The only things that would shift those outcomes are vaccines or drugs.

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine aren’t the only candidates. There’s a protease inhibitor called camostat mesylate that a team of German scientists says works against the mechanism that SARS-CoV-2 uses to attach to the cells it infects. Virologists are pitching nucleoside analog inhibitorsremdesivir is one of these—that screw up the virus’ ability to replicate its RNA. Trials are actually going on—in China—on drugs like darunavir and cobicistat and interferon. And that doesn’t even get into the world of monoclonal antibodies that amp up a person’s own immune system to fight the virus. It’s good that all these things are in the works, and chloroquine’s relatively easy access does make it attractive … but no one knows which of these things is going to help people with Covid-19. All of them have side effects, to greater or lesser extents. Even chloroquine, well known and well tolerated, can cause nausea, heart palpitations, and—at the most extreme—eye damage and hallucinations.

Here’s the even deeper irony: Physicians are already using chloroquine anyway, because there’s nothing else yet. President Donald Trump actually mentioned it in a press conference on Thursday, praising the fact that it’s already approved by the FDA, albeit, again, not specifically for Covid-19. “It’s show—encouraging, very, very encouraging early results,” Trump said. “And we’re going to be able to make that drug available almost immediately.”

Not only is it already available, as it has been for almost a century, but Covid-19 patients are already getting it. Montefiore Medical Center in New York has already started seeing the surge of Covid-19 patients that public health experts have been warning about. The hospital is participating in the remdesivir trial and is giving Covid-19 patients chloroquine. “All of our patients get put on chloroquine, as well as on antiretrovirals. We’re using Kaletra. Different places are using different antiretrovirals,” says Liise-anne Pirofski, chief of infectious diseases at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore. “Everybody gets that, unless they have some contraindication.”

And, according to Axios, the pharmaceutical company Bayer is getting ready to donate some large amount of the drug to the US—unclear what agency, though Axios cites an anonymous source at the Department of Health and Human Services—for use against Covid-19.

So it’s entirely possible that the disruptors are right about chloroquine, but wrong about how to prove it. Right now, in the midst of a crisis, they’re on the same page as the front-line practitioners facing a tsunami of sick people and nowhere near enough ventilators to keep them all breathing. Chloroquine has a chance of helping; the doctors are hoping it’ll do no harm.