Donald trump's Disinfectant and UV light on the Coronavirus

The various media are consumed with commentary and response concerning the public musings of our President on the possible efficacy of disinfectants and UV light on the Coronavirus, utterances that have caused companies, states, and agencies to release attention-grabbing memos asking the populace not to drink Clorox, or inject Lysol. Such is the power of the bully pulpit, that a stray comment or two can move a nation. It is a power that the current resident of the oval office has never fully comprehended, occasionally to his (and to the country’s) detriment.

It is also, to a large degree, a misdirection of where our attention surely needs to be.

There were three keys to the exchange: first, to whom and how he expressed his ideas, second, the history of such expressions previously, and third, the resulting impact of the media responses. These are the critical points to be made and understood, and I’ll attempt to outline them below.

Contrary to the President’s later statements, the comments were clearly not made to a reporter, or to the camera. They were not sarcastic. The President turned his body, and specifically directed the comments at the scientists off to the side, addressed what appear to be previous conversations, and appeared to offer a directive that might or might not have been subsequently followed upon. Here’s the transcript of the relevant segment:

President Trump: “So I asked Bill a question some of you are thinking of if you're into that world, which I find to be pretty interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous, whether its ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said, that hasn't been checked but you're gonna test it. And then I said, supposing it brought the light inside the body, which you can either do either through the skin or some other way, and I think you said you're gonna test that too, sounds interesting.

Acting Undersecretary Bryan: “We’ll get it to the right folks who could.”

President Trump: “And I then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute and is there a way you can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it'd be interesting to check that. So you're going to have to use medical doctors, but it sounds interesting to me, so we'll see.”

“Bill” is William Bryan, the acting Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Science and Technology. A full version of the transcript can be found here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-31/

Mr. Bryan had just provided a simplified, but still somewhat interesting report on the research being done under his auspices. The thrust of his research appeared to be that the virus — when located on hard surfaces or suspended in the air — was significantly affected by certain disinfectants and environmental conditions such as sunlight, heat, and humidity. President Trump riffed on those findings and mused as to whether there were direct applications on patients.

You and I musing on such matters on our couch wouldn’t warrant a memory of the event, let alone a national outcry. That is not what happened here, but it still isn’t the critical part. The most important statement in the whole exchange was when Mr. Bryan stated that he would get the President’s idea “… to the right people who could” test those theories.

Fast Track Treatments and Vaccines

The scientific and medical communities of this country are in a race against time. Professionals who are used to protracted programs and multiple layers of testing their results are being pressed to work around the clock and to fast track critical options for treatments and vaccines. And yet, time and again, the President imposes his views and opinions on that community, distracting efforts and confusing the popular understanding of their actual work. That the President has some ideas about light and disinfectants isn’t particularly important; that his ideas take scientists and funds away from critical research at this time is highly relevant, and deeply concerning. We have a very recent example of the damage that can be done:

For a week or two, there was an emphasis on hydroxychloroquine as a potential “game-changer” in the treatment of Covid-19 patients. It was a fixture at every briefing, culminating in his oft-repeated statement of “Try it… What have you got to lose?” As the results of further testing have indicated that there was little or no efficacy in the drug (in point of fact, fatalities in a limited test group increased among patients using it) the subject was dropped, and no longer featured in the briefings. Embarrassing, perhaps, but not directly harmful… until you consider the history and actual events.

The Purpose Behind Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine

Prior to the rush on hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine as treatments, scientists considered it one of many drugs worth investigating. Some early trials suggested positive outcomes, and there was sufficient reason to allocate precious time to evaluate it. With the public endorsement of the President, massive energies were diverted to that one possibility, stunting alternative investigations in ways that were counter-productive. A reasonably good article outlining those issues is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01165-3

The federal government then went about accumulating some 29,000,000 doses of the drug (according to the President’s own statements, not confirmed), preparing to aggressively distribute it even though there were no credible results in hand. Compromises to the usual regulatory chains were casually made in the interest of supporting the President’s timetables, and whole sections of the chain of command were involved in the process. (see https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/04/internal-documents-reveal-team-trumps-chloroquine-master-plan for some single-source background). Ultimately, the back and forth led to the controversial ouster of Dr. Rick Bright, head of BARDA, and a significant player in the search for a vaccine.

The distraction of a Presidential edict cost precious time resources human and financial, and perhaps most importantly it significantly compromised the confidence that the public has in the work being done by experts to combat the virus. In a world where substantial sacrifice and patience are being daily requested of the nation, the squandering of that confidence can have serious — and potentially lethal — effects.

Which brings us to the other point: what has the result of the latest uproar been? It appears that the President, embarrassed and upset, is going to limit or cancel the daily briefings about the progress being made regarding the virus. The briefings — before being coopted by the President — were a useful forum for providing the public with reports and recommendations from the scientific and medical communities; it was where the nation found a voice that is trusted in Dr. Fauci and took solace from a belief that there were special and talented professionals at the helm. If those briefings are compromised, one of the nation’s only direct contacts with the massive effort being made on their behalf will be severed, or minimized, directly leading to a loss of trust and security at a time when both are in drastically low supply.

Injecting Disinfectant

The media has surely taken the comments made by the President to a level beyond their merit in characterizing that he suggested actions (injecting disinfectant, for instance) as opposed to investigation and analysis. The resulting mockery and derision seem, therefore, excessive and perhaps even undeserved… and, as noted above, represent the distraction of a passing squirrel. As a distraction, the impact of the coverage will expire quickly, and the media will move on.

I do want to be clear: the President of the United States, musing at a podium on national television, as to the positive effects of cleaning products and internal lighting programs is a careless mistake, one that could potentially cause people to make dangerously bad decisions. The reactions of governmental authorities to disclaim misuse of poisonous products were absolutely necessary for those few who might have erred.

But what is the real issue, the truly dangerous factor being grossly underreported, is the President’s continuing and frequent interference in (and diversion of) critical efforts and resources, keeping them away from sound scientific research, and pushing them into the shifting pursuits of amateur opinions. By focusing their attention on the superficial and the glib, the media is missing the critical point: this is not just an easy joke, a source for obvious criticism… but rather masks a serious impediment to the health and progress of life-saving work. We must train our attention not only on the sloppy words of the President, but on the actions and impacts that result from his position and his insistence on relevancy in an area where such involvement can have, and likely already has had drastic consequences.