Journalist Sharyl Attkisson details cancel of hydroxychloroquine, in new book 'Follow the Science'

Editor's Note: The following is an exclusive excerpt from the new book by investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson, “Follow the Science: How Big Pharma Misleads, Obscures, and Prevails.” The book, by publisher Harper Collins, is due out Tuesday, Sept. 3. 

"If you consume the curated, mainstream medicine and media narrative, you’re probably under the impression that the prescription drug that President Trump touted as a possible game changer against coronavirus – hydroxychloroquine – has been thoroughly 'debunked' and discredited. 

"At the height of the Covid panic as politics, money, and medicine intersected – two divergent views of hydroxychloroquine emerged, both of which could not possibly be true at the same time. The first view was the negative one widely reported in the press. The second view you’ve likely heard less about. Rarely has a discussion about choices of medicine been so polluted by political overtones … 

"Many right-leaning media figures and independent scientists sided with hydroxychloroquine, while the public health establishment and left-leaning press backed remdesivir. Each accusing the other of ignoring real science. 

"I found an informative view from cardiologist Dr. William O’Neill, a medical director at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, Michigan, where researchers were studying both remdesivir and hydroxychloroquine and had no known financial stake in the outcome. 

“'I’ve never seen science so politicized in forty years of practice,' Dr. O’Neill tells me when I visit with him. 

“'Some people in the media are treating hydroxychloroquine as if it’s something that’s being pitched by charlatans [as if] it’s dangerous, debunked, and discredited,' I say to Dr. O’Neill. 'What do you make of that?'" …

"'I think [the negative media narrative on hydroxychloroquine] is very harmful,' Dr. O’Neill tells me. 'President Trump touted it early, and so then the media set out to disprove and discredit it without any regard for science. I think those of us that are actually involved in the scientific endeavor feel that there is some value to it, and it has to be tested.'  

"Dr. O’Neill is a world-renowned leader in interventional cardiology, famous for 'pioneering research in new techniques to diagnose and treat heart attacks.' He’s not only an eminent researcher; he’s also a clinician. 

"When we first spoke, he’d already prescribed hydroxychloroquine, before the government limited its use, to numerous Covid patients. He tells me he saw improvement in all of them. Real-world, firsthand evidence directly from a scientist involved! On the other hand, he tells me he’s far less impressed by remdesivir.

"'There’s a lot of hype for [remdesivir],' Dr. O’Neill continues. 'I saw the original New England Journal article study and I saw the Lancet study, and to me it’s just like a big ‘Ho-hum. I just don’t see a big benefit.'" …

"A recurring lesson in science, and life in general, is that when the actions of media, government, and public officials seems so contrary to common sense: Follow the Money. You can learn a lot. So, amid the hydroxychloroquine nonsense, I start connecting the dots … 

"I go down the list of names on the government’s Covid treatment panel, which dialed back hydroxychloroquine use and promoted newer, more costly remdesivir. I’m looking to see if any of them are connected to companies that make hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir. Ideally, none of the panel members should have links to companies benefiting from their decisions. But that world no longer exists in public health. A second-best option would be for advisors to recuse themselves from decisions involving companies they’re connected to. But that world doesn’t exist either. 

"What do I find? About one-third of the government’s Covid treatment advisory panel, or eleven members, reported having links to a drug company. Nine of the eleven named Gilead, the maker of remdesivir! What are the natural odds that so many people chosen for an expert panel on Covid would be related to the company making the treatment they ended up favoring? 

"I keep digging. 

"Beyond the eleven, I identify nine others, including two of the committee’s three leaders, who also have ties to Gilead but hadn’t disclosed them. Two even served on Gilead’s advisory board! Others were paid consultants or received research support and honoraria from Gilead. They weren’t technically required to fess up those relationships because, under the committee’s special rules, for some reason, panel members don’t have to acknowledge conflicts of interest older than eleven months. As if conflicts of interest somehow become irrelevant after eleven months? 

"There’s one more piece of the puzzle I need to find. How many on the same advisory panel report having financial links to remdesivir’s disfavored rival, hydroxychloroquine – a generic drug so cheap that no big drug company will make billions if it works on Covid? 

"The answer: zero. 

"When I first spoke to Henry Ford Hospital’s Dr. O’Neill, he remained confident that good science would prevail, and studies underway would soon provide definitive answers on hydroxychloroquine’s effectiveness for Covid.

"'I think that it’s just still very early in this disease process that we’re going to learn a lot,' he tells me in late spring of 2020. 'There’s six hundred studies that are being done in the United States right now on Covid to see all sorts of different kinds of infections and combinations. We’re going to be a lot smarter at the end of the summer. So I think what I would just say to everybody, just hold your powder.'

"Not long after, I learn that Dr. O’Neill’s hydroxychloroquine study has been halted by unnamed authorities above his pay grade. It had become pointless, anyway. The FDA’s criticism of hydroxychloroquine had made it impossible to get enough volunteers for the study to move forward. After all, who in their right mind would raise their hand to take part in a trial with medicine the FDA has warned against so publicly? 

"'Now people are scared to use [hydroxychloroquine] – without any scientifically valid concern,' Dr. O’Neill tells me when I follow up. 'We’ve talked with our colleagues at the University of Minnesota who are doing a similar study, and at the University of Washington. We’ve treated four hundred patients and haven’t seen a single adverse event. And what’s happening is [that] because of this fake news and fake science, the true scientific efforts are being harmed. Because people now are so worried that they don’t want to enroll in the trials.' 

"Dr. O’Neill would later say that 'the saddest part' of all is that we won’t get the definitive scientific answer, either way, to what had been made into a political question. 

"The government and other vaccine industry allies were soon to arrange for the same unscientific treatment be given to another generic medicine repurposed, 'off-label,' to treat Covid: ivermectin. 

Order “Follow the Science: How Big Pharma Misleads, Obscures, and Prevails” anywhere. Audiobook available here.