The New York Times – which used to be a newspaper – is now in full chloroquine attack mode.

Why?  Because Donald Trump is advocating its use for the COVID-19 virus, there is significant evidence it is working, and that, therefore, would accrue to Trump’s credit.

American Thinker’s Andrea Widburg has written an excellent commentary on the Times’ disgraceful foray into hate-journalism.

Here are the opening paragraphs (but there is far more to Ms. Widburg’s piece:  I urge you in strongest terms to use the link and read every word):

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 COVID-19 is a very 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, 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.

Ms. Widburg goes on to show that, not content with trying to convince COVID-19 sufferers they should be wary of a drug – a fully tested, 70 year old drug – that, among other things, might save their lives, The Times is also intimating that President Trump is touting chloroquine because he’s got a financial stake in it.

That is a huge allegation.  But, as it turns out, a huge sack of manure.

As you will see if you read Ms. Widburg’s entire piece – PLEASE do!), the basis for this claim is so preposterous that it would be laughed out of a 6th grade class in logic.  But, if it’s anti-Trump it’s in The Times.  Therefore (I am ending this blog the way I started it)…

…The New York Times – which used to be a newspaper – is now in full chloroquine attack mode.

I’d say shame on the clowns running this former newspaper.  But they don’t seem to have any shame, so I won’t bother.

At least they still provide a good crossword puzzle.


  • My sister and my best friend are rabid anti-Trumpers. It is so sad to see and hear them repeating the media lies that they believe to be true. Seeing the ones I love tricked into believing the most outlandish and false things about a man who has done great things since being elected.

  • To the blog meister –

    Kindly refrain from criticizing The New York Times and the Washington Post .

    At least the Print editions.

    At least until the shortage of toilet paper is over.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *