Beginning when President Trump declared his fervent hope and faith that (hydroxy)chloroquine would help tame COVID-19, Democrats, both in and out of the media, have waged war against the drug. While they are correct that chloroquine has not been the subject of any full-scale, double-blind studies, they seem to have missed that, during a war, emergency field medicine is a bit different from what happens during peacetime. To the extent that COVID-19 is an aggressive virus that quickly destroys people's lungs, doctors are having to rely on old-fashioned empirical evidence.

Unfortunately for the Times, the empirical evidence is piling up fast. Some of the evidence comes in the form of individual success stories. The latest success is Michigan state rep. Karen Whitsett, a young mother, who credits hydroxychloroquine with reducing her symptoms within two hours. Not only does she praise the drug, but she praises the president for making it available:

"It has a lot to do with the president ... bringing it up," Whitsett said. "He is the only person who has the power to make it a priority." Asked whether she thinks Trump may have saved her life, Whitsett said: "Yes, I do," and "I do thank him for that."

Individual doctors are also enthusiastic about the drug's benefits. On a larger scale, the American Thoracic Society issued guidelines for doctors who want to prescribe hydroxychloroquine for COVID-infected patients:

The Thoracic Society said its guidelines are based on input from an international task force comprised of doctors from medical centers that are currently treating COVID-19 patients. The medical group said evidence about the impact of hydroxychloroquine is "contradictory" but it is worth experimenting with during a public health crisis to treat very sick patients. "We believe that in urgent situations like a pandemic, we can learn while treating by collecting real-world data," said Dr. Kevin Wilson, chief of guidelines and documents at the American Thoracic Society.

It's true that the data is still inconclusive, which deserves serious consideration (especially for those on metformin). Still, as of now, chloroquine is the best we've got. And boy, does that rankle with the Times.

In the Times' latest attempt to "talk down" chloroquine, the journalists' ill will toward President Trump is on steroids. The article, entitled "Trump's Aggressive Advocacy of Malaria Drug for Treating Coronavirus Divides Medical Community," hauls out all of the usual critiques, including Dr. Fauci's urging caution, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko's being "a hit on conservative media," the fact that Zelenko was born in Ukraine, and the Zelenko-Giuliani connection (cue the ominous music).

Those criticisms are getting stale, so this time around, the Times threw in something new: it hinted that Trump and his cronies are about to get rich off hydroxychloroquine:

Some associates of Mr. Trump's have financial interests in the issue. Sanofi's largest shareholders include Fisher Asset Management, the mutual fund company run by Ken Fisher, a major donor to Republicans, including Mr. Trump. A spokesman for Mr. Fisher declined to comment. Another investor in both Sanofi and Mylan, another pharmaceutical firm, is Invesco, the fund previously run by Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary. Mr. Ross said in a statement Monday that he "was not aware that Invesco has any investments in companies producing" the drug, "nor do I have any involvement in the decision to explore this as a treatment." As of last year, Mr. Trump reported that his three family trusts each had investments in a Dodge & Cox mutual fund, whose largest holding was in Sanofi. Several generic drugmakers are gearing up to produce hydroxychloroquine pills, including Amneal Pharmaceuticals, whose co-founder Chirag Patel is a member of Trump National Golf Course Bedminster in New Jersey and has golfed with Mr. Trump at least twice since he became president, according to a person who saw them.

There are several problems with this conspiracy theory. First, even George Conway, who hates Trump the way Ahab hated the whale, thinks it's a stupid theory:

He owns some mutual funds that hold Sanofi. And the med is off-patent. The suggestion that this is significant is a huge stretch. — George Conway (@gtconway3d) April 7, 2020

Conway is correct. Mike Cernovich did the research that the four Times reporters who filed the story didn't want to do or couldn't be bothered to do and discovered that Trump's stake is laughably small:

LFMAO!



The New York Times story is *worse* than it seems.



Trump owns between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of Dodge & Cox International Fund.



Sanofi is 2.9% of Dodge & Cox fund.



This means Trump owns 2.9% of $15,000 worth of Sanofi stock.



$435 pic.twitter.com/JqV99ffeQA — Cernovich (@Cernovich) April 7, 2020

Not only is Trump not going to get rich off hydroxychloroquine, neither are his friends and associates. Chloroquine is a generic drug. Once a drug is generic, any company can make it, and, as one site explained, "prices ... approach the costs of production." It's only those valuable patents leftists hate so much that give companies the incentive to do research and development for new drugs.

Whenever you read anything the Times writes, you need to remember that it's not even pretending anymore to report the news. Its writers are entirely dedicated to removing Trump from the White House. Old-fashioned journalistic virtues such as honesty and research have no place in a Times hit piece against President Trump.