TUCKER CARLSON (HOST): At the very least, we should all be following developments in hydroxychloroquine's use with interest and measured hope. Why wouldn't we be? Well, here's why. Donald Trump is for it. Several days ago, the president expressed confidence in hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for the epidemic. That was it for the media. If Trump is for it, they're against it, even if it might save American lives -- what reactive children they are. And they immediately began a sustained push to discredit the drug long before the clinical results were in. CNN ran a story accusing the president of, quote, “peddling unsubstantiated hope in dark times.” NBC News parroted the line blasting Trump for selling, quote, “false hope.”
Now, keep in mind, this isn't a tax bill they're lying about. It's a potentially life-saving medicine that we are desperately trying to evaluate in the middle of a global pandemic. And it's not just CNN that's doing it. Consider this Bloomberg News story from last night, quote, “Chloroquine no better than regular coronavirus care, study finds.” That was the headline and it sounds definitive. Why are we wasting our time with this crap? It doesn't work. But take a look at the details inside the piece. The story turns out to be based on an article in the Journal of Jiaxing University in China. The Chinese study in the article considered a total of just 15 patients -- 15 -- who have been given chloroquine. It seems like an awfully small sample for a legitimate study. And in fact, the story does concede that it was. Quote: “The results of the study weren't statistically significant. Researchers concluded that additional studies using larger numbers of patients are needed.”
In other words, the story doesn't really tell us anything. So why is Bloomberg News writing about it? Later in the story, we learned that in contrast to the protocol in that tiny Chinese study, doctors here in the West are administering hydrochloroquine with antibiotics, and that combination, the two of them hydroxychloroquine and antibiotics appears to be effective. And that raises the same question once again. What exactly is the point of Bloomberg's so-called news story? The way the Chinese used the drug had nothing to do with the way we are using it here. The study is irrelevant. Writing about it doesn't illuminate anything. It misleads. That's the point. They're manipulating you. This is what happens when science becomes political. Suddenly, people start lying, and you can't trust anything you hear. That's a very dangerous thing to do at a moment like this. The truth is essential.