May 4, 2020 05:19 AM
https://www.wired.com/story/the-hype-cyc...-familiar/
EXCERPT: . . . But here’s the thing: Trump did follow the science. (Bear with me for a minute.) So did all the Fox News hosts who breathlessly touted hydroxychloroquine after an initial, peer-reviewed study appeared in a respected scientific journal on March 21, reporting that the drug was an “efficient” coronavirus treatment.
This study was greeted skeptically by the medical community. Some highlighted flaws in the study’s design and methodology. Others pointed to the controversial French researcher behind the finding, who, it turns out, has a dubious history. Even the professional scientific society that published the study in its flagship journal has since distanced itself from the paper.
But these red flags were easily crowded out by the incessant hype of hydroxychloroquine from high-wattage personalities such as Dr. Oz, Elon Musk, Laura Ingraham, and of course Trump. Their media-driven boosterism propelled the “miracle cure” narrative and created massive public demand for the drug.
In hindsight, it’s easy—and correct, no doubt—to blame these influential boosters [...] But it’s important that we recognize the pattern underneath: Bad ideas like this one often grow their roots in solid-seeming science ... then attach themselves to pollinators within the media or political landscape, who continue to spread them even after the underlying claims have been debunked.
We’ve seen the same life cycle of medical disinformation play out many times before. Exhibit A is the false vaccines/autism narrative. Yes, that claim had (and still has) its famous instigators and evangelists: Jenny McCarthy, Robert Kennedy Jr., Del Bigtree, and so on. But would they have become the faces of a movement absent the idea’s crucial, embryonic publication in a top-tier medical journal? And would that movement have grown so large if not for its nurturing by journalists?
Like other pseudoscience, the modern antivaccine narrative started with the imprimatur of respectable, peer-reviewed research. In 1998... (MORE - details)
EXCERPT: . . . But here’s the thing: Trump did follow the science. (Bear with me for a minute.) So did all the Fox News hosts who breathlessly touted hydroxychloroquine after an initial, peer-reviewed study appeared in a respected scientific journal on March 21, reporting that the drug was an “efficient” coronavirus treatment.
This study was greeted skeptically by the medical community. Some highlighted flaws in the study’s design and methodology. Others pointed to the controversial French researcher behind the finding, who, it turns out, has a dubious history. Even the professional scientific society that published the study in its flagship journal has since distanced itself from the paper.
But these red flags were easily crowded out by the incessant hype of hydroxychloroquine from high-wattage personalities such as Dr. Oz, Elon Musk, Laura Ingraham, and of course Trump. Their media-driven boosterism propelled the “miracle cure” narrative and created massive public demand for the drug.
In hindsight, it’s easy—and correct, no doubt—to blame these influential boosters [...] But it’s important that we recognize the pattern underneath: Bad ideas like this one often grow their roots in solid-seeming science ... then attach themselves to pollinators within the media or political landscape, who continue to spread them even after the underlying claims have been debunked.
We’ve seen the same life cycle of medical disinformation play out many times before. Exhibit A is the false vaccines/autism narrative. Yes, that claim had (and still has) its famous instigators and evangelists: Jenny McCarthy, Robert Kennedy Jr., Del Bigtree, and so on. But would they have become the faces of a movement absent the idea’s crucial, embryonic publication in a top-tier medical journal? And would that movement have grown so large if not for its nurturing by journalists?
Like other pseudoscience, the modern antivaccine narrative started with the imprimatur of respectable, peer-reviewed research. In 1998... (MORE - details)