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

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Social Science & Medicine Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-20 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":5.0000,"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":"2025/1/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","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
民粹主义和医疗宣传:2020年美国总统大选前羟氯喹的案例。
在2020年美国总统大选之前,关于羟氯喹治疗COVID-19无效的科学共识被行政部门的科学家们驳回,他们将其作为一种治疗方案和政治工具进行宣传。本文与批评现有卫生机构危机管理能力的与唐纳德·特朗普有关的医疗倡导团体一致,探讨了在宣布大流行之前实验性药物是如何合理化的。白宫研究人员将紧急情况定义为需要采取特别措施,提倡行政单边主义,并最终寻求通过用业务医学专家取代关键的卫生当局来保障公共卫生。最具争议的案例涉及计划中的药物干预,旨在挽救生命,并在2020年大选前恢复公众对政府大流行应对措施的信心。这篇文章引用了2022年众议院特别小组委员会关于冠状病毒危机发布的机密文件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Fair pay, performance optimizer, or status marker? The social meaning of remuneration for India's women community health workers ‘A gendered family affair’? Examining the role of partners', parents', and parents-in-law's education in preventive healthcare use among older men and women How do traits and dispositional constructs relate to intentions and behavior? The trait-informed attitude, cognition, and intention tenet (TACIT) Multimodal metaphors in animated depression educational videos on Chinese social media: A critical multimodal discourse analysis What counts as need? A qualitative study exploring perceptions of sexual and reproductive health in humanitarian settings
×
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:604180095
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