health

For mostly political reasons, hydroxychloroquine has become a highly controversial drug

There seems to be an inclination among policy-makers that adherence to evidence-based policy-making is a luxury we can only afford when not in a crisis.

The American Medical Association and many other professional organizations demand “peer-reviewed science” before they will recommend or even accept the re-purposing of a long-established anti-malaria drug to treat or prevent COVID-19.

Clinical trials do more than inform us whether a drug is effective. They inform us when a drug is effective, in what combinations, in what dosages, and what are the counter indications.

We have yet to record meaningful samples of the general population with regard to the prevalence of coronavirus, the distribution of its outcomes, and the build-up of immunity.

I hope you are doing well–for access to medical help is increasingly threatened.

Fear of litigation delayed delivery of millions of N95 masks for healthcare workers. Should the law be slowing our emergency response?

The United States has taken unprecedented actions to halt the spread of the novel coronavirus and the illness it causes, COVID-19. How bad will this be for the economy?

The word has leaked out on a potential cheap treatment for COVID-19, the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine.

Here’s what Trump should say during his next coronavirus press conference.

In their frantic attempts to delay the spread of the Wuhan virus, governments are sowing the seeds of economic depression and currency destruction.

Our system may not be the fastest, but it’s giving us trustworthy answers.

Heartland’s Donald Kendal, and Justin Haskins are joined by Isaac Orr in episode #191 of the In The Tank Podcast. Today’s episode features work from Environmental Progress, The Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation.