Populism and medical advocacy: The case of hydroxychloroquine prior the 2020 United States presidential election

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Social Science & Medicine Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117726
Gabriel Salgado Ribeiro de Sá
{"title":"Populism and medical advocacy: The case of hydroxychloroquine prior the 2020 United States presidential election","authors":"Gabriel Salgado Ribeiro de Sá","doi":"10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117726","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Leading up to the 2020 U.S. presidential elections, the scientific consensus on hydroxychloroquine's ineffectiveness in treating COVID-19 was dismissed by Executive branch scientists, who promoted it as both a therapeutic solution and a political tool. This article examines how experimental pharmaceuticals were rationalized even before the pandemic declaration, aligning with medical advocacy groups linked to Donald Trump, who criticized the crisis management capacity of existing health institutions. Framing the emergency as requiring extraordinary measures, White House researchers advocated for executive unilateralism and eventually sought to securitize public health by replacing key health authorities with operational medicine specialists. The most controversial case involved an attempt of planned pharmaceutical intervention aimed at saving lives and restoring public confidence in the administration's pandemic response before the 2020 election. The article draws on confidential documents released by the 2022 House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49122,"journal":{"name":"Social Science & Medicine","volume":"367 ","pages":"Article 117726"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625000553","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Leading up to the 2020 U.S. presidential elections, the scientific consensus on hydroxychloroquine's ineffectiveness in treating COVID-19 was dismissed by Executive branch scientists, who promoted it as both a therapeutic solution and a political tool. This article examines how experimental pharmaceuticals were rationalized even before the pandemic declaration, aligning with medical advocacy groups linked to Donald Trump, who criticized the crisis management capacity of existing health institutions. Framing the emergency as requiring extraordinary measures, White House researchers advocated for executive unilateralism and eventually sought to securitize public health by replacing key health authorities with operational medicine specialists. The most controversial case involved an attempt of planned pharmaceutical intervention aimed at saving lives and restoring public confidence in the administration's pandemic response before the 2020 election. The article draws on confidential documents released by the 2022 House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Social Science & Medicine
Social Science & Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
762
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Social Science & Medicine provides an international and interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination of social science research on health. We publish original research articles (both empirical and theoretical), reviews, position papers and commentaries on health issues, to inform current research, policy and practice in all areas of common interest to social scientists, health practitioners, and policy makers. The journal publishes material relevant to any aspect of health from a wide range of social science disciplines (anthropology, economics, epidemiology, geography, policy, psychology, and sociology), and material relevant to the social sciences from any of the professions concerned with physical and mental health, health care, clinical practice, and health policy and organization. We encourage material which is of general interest to an international readership.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Catastrophic health expenditure during healthcare financing reform: Evidence from Kazakhstan Is time a gift for health and life satisfaction? Exploring the relationship between time allocation and adaptation to a breast cancer diagnosis Stressors faced by forcibly displaced Ukrainians in England within 6 months of arrival: A qualitative study Editorial Board
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1