However, Trump has also supported several other antiviral drugs, including the anti-inflammatory temozolomide, among others. Trump also publicly supports the use of moxagolum, an antifungal drug often used for bacterial infections. So, what if you’re a physician who prescribed a drug like temozolomide, and Trump was paying you to do it? How would that go down with the House Oversight Committee and the FDA?
You should know that moxagolum is supposed to be a single dose, so there are no concerns of abuse. You could argue that he didn’t fully understand how the drug works, but that’s entirely different from allowing the drug to be prescribed without adequate patient oversight. If you don’t believe me, then read the prescribing data sheets that we published here, or see the Drug Enforcement Administration’s website . It’s shocking.
And, by the way, there’s another reason that he could be in a bind here: The U.S. is one of seven countries in the world where the FDA has an ethical obligation to ensure that vaccines are available for all to benefit from. If the president thinks that it’s a bad idea to make it easier for parents to get their kids vaccinated, that’s an ethical/political dilemma that we can solve with some pretty smart legislation, at an incredibly minimal cost.
Anyway, that’s my perspective on all this. And if you’ve learned anything at all about this topic, let me know. If that happens, though, and things are actually different (which I doubt), I look forward to reading an article from someone else who is taking this seriously as an issue.
For example, we might be able to get there by, in effect, legislating to use fewer antibiotics for the same disease-causing bacteria.
So, I would say to the parents who are now wondering if there is something terribly wrong here, if you should stop the investigation. Stop believing what Trump believes, and decide for yourselves if you believe there’s a problem here, both ethically and politically. The only way you will be able to put an end to this is by taking the steps listed above, or maybe by doing something equally stupid in the process.
PS: For those of you who have been wondering what the hell the ‘unmasking’ story is all about: it’s something that we’re working on. I’ll post a post every week that describes what we’re doing with specific cases, but the more general story is that we’re using metadata (like, we’ve learned that the names/social media accounts sometimes used to spread misinformation about doctors are actually medical providers’ accounts, or someone’s family, or friends, etc.) from medical records to expose patients’ and doctors’ private health data. The idea is that we can build a database of people who are probably telling untruths about their doctors and who maybe are putting those providers at risk. So far, however, I haven’t heard a big outcry against it, but it’s possible that things could change with more data.