This article was originally published by Common Dreams. You can read it here.
After President Donald Trump claimed Monday that he has been taking hydroxychloroquine on a daily basis for more than a week in an effort to prevent Covid-19—even though the anti-malaria medicine has not been proven effective for that purpose—medical professionals condemned Trump for continuing to recklessly tout the drug and warned the public against following the president's lead.
"If everything else we know about President Trump hasn't proven to you that he does not understand medicine or healthcare, and certainly doesn't have your best interests at heart, this statement and the fact that he's taking this drug should be everything you need to know," Dr. Rob Davidson, an emergency care physician and executive director of the Committee to Protect Medicare, said in a video posted to Twitter following Trump's remarks.
"The FDA recently issued a warning that this should not be used outside of hospital settings because of the risk of death. We know that patients with lupus depend on hydroxychloroquine, and when President Trump was touting it in March, they ran into shortages," Davidson continued.
"We in the healthcare field need to come out in one voice against the use of this drug and against the advice of this president, knowing that he is going to put more people in harm's way," he continued.
"Trump said during a press briefing Monday that "you'd be surprised at how many people are taking" hydroxychloroquine, adding that he has been taking the drug every day for a week and a half as a preventative measure.
"I happen to be taking it," Trump said after claiming without evidence that many frontline workers are also taking the drug. "I'm not gonna get hurt by it."
Asked to provide evidence that the drug is effective in preventing coronavirus infection, Trump said: "Here we go, are you ready? Here's my evidence—I get a lot of positive calls about it."
"I get a lot of tremendously positive news on the hydroxy," Trump continued, "and, you know, I say, hey... what do you have to lose?"
Following Trump's comments, which reportedly "surprised many of his aides," the White House released a memo from the president's physician Dr. Sean Conley, who wrote that "after numerous discussions he and I had regarding the evidence for and against the use of hydroxychloroquine, we concluded the potential benefit from treatment outweighed the relative risks."
The memo, dated May 18, does not explicitly say that Trump is taking hydroxychloroquine.
As Vox's Zack Beauchamp wrote, "the president is either doing something irresponsible or lying irresponsibly."
"On the one hand, if Trump—a notorious liar—is telling the truth about taking the drug, it's certainly newsworthy that the president is taking a dangerous medication for no good reason," wrote Beauchamp.
"On the other hand, Trump may be trying to goad the media into getting bogged down in an issue that's less important than the actual outbreak and Trump's failed response to it," Beauchamp continued.
"At the press conference, he told reporters, 'I was just waiting for your eyes to light up when I said this, when I announced this,' indicating he's perfectly aware that he's starting a controversy," he said.
"Either way," Beauchamp added, "it's terrible behavior that reflects poorly on the man in charge of our country—just one more example of the wild unfitness for office that's been on display throughout the pandemic."
The president's comment certainly sparked alarm across the media, including from his favorite television network, Fox News.
Fox anchor Neil Cavuto warned in a segment following Trump's comments that "if you are in a risky population here, and you are taking this as a preventative treatment to ward off the virus... it will kill you."
"I cannot stress enough," Cavuto said. "This will kill you."
Dr. Steven Nissen, the chief academic officer of the Miller Family Heart, Vascular, and Thoracic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, told the New York Times in an interview that he is concerned Trump's comments will lead the public to "believe that taking this drug to prevent Covid-19 infection is without hazards."
"In fact, there are serious hazards," said Nissen.
Ultrasound of human baby.Image via 
IVF animated process.Image via 
A couple speaks with a fertility professional.Image via 
Love, Mom.Photo from Heidi Johnson 
A teen boy having a hard time. 
Hands hold a digital representation of the brain.Image via 
Mother and daughter work a puzzle.Image via 
Man and woman connect under the sunshine.Image via
Why do some folks use social media but don't engage?
Psychologist says people who never comment on social media share these 5 positive traits
For over 20 years, social media has developed into a staple in many people’s day-to-day lives. Whether it’s to keep in communication with friends and family, following the thoughts of celebrities, or watching cat videos while sipping your morning coffee, there seem to be two types of social media users: commenters and lurkers.
The term “lurker” sounds equally mysterious and insidious, with some social media users writing them off as non-participants at best or voyeurs at worst. However, mindfulness expert Lachlan Brown believes these non-commenters have some very psychologically positive and healthy traits. Let’s take a look at how each one of these traits could be beneficial and see how fruitful lurking might be even though it can drive content creators crazy.
1. Cautious about vulnerability
Consciously or not, making a post online or commenting on one puts you and your words out there. It’s a statement that everyone can see, even if it’s as simple as clicking “like.” Doing so opens yourself up to judgment, with all the good, bad, and potential misinterpretation that comes with it. Non-commenters would rather not open themselves up to that.
These silent users are connected to a concept of self-protection by simply not engaging. By just scrolling past posts or just reading/watching them without commentary, they’re preventing themselves from any downsides of sharing an opinion such as rejection, misunderstanding, or embarrassment. They also have more control on how much of themselves they’re willing to reveal to the general public, and tend to be more open face-to-face or during one-on-one/one-on-few private chats or DMs. This can be seen as a healthy boundary and prevents unnecessary exposure.
Considering many comment sections, especially involving political topics, are meant to stir negative emotional responses to increase engagement, being extra mindful about where, when, and what you comment might not be a bad idea. They might not even take the engagement bait at all. Or if they see a friend of theirs post something vulnerable, they feel more motivated to engage with them personally one-on-one rather than use social media to publicly check in on them.
2. Analytical and reflective mindset
How many times have you gone onto Reddit, YouTube, or any other site and just skimmed past comments that are just different versions of “yes, and,” “no, but,” or “yes, but”? Or the ever insightful, formerly popular comment “First!” in a thread? These silent browsers lean against adding to such noise unless they have some valid and thoughtful contribution (if they bother to comment period).
These non-posters are likely wired on reflective thinking rather than their initial intuition. Not to say that all those who comment aren’t thoughtful, but many tend to react quickly and comment based on their initial feelings rather than absorbing the information, thinking it over, researching or testing their belief, and then posting it. For "lurkers," it could by their very nature to just do all of that and not post it at all, or share their thoughts and findings privately with a friend. All in all, it’s a preference of substance over speed.
3. High sense of self-awareness
Carried over from the first two listed traits, these silent social media users incorporate their concern over their vulnerability and their reflective mindset into digital self-awareness. They know what triggers responses out of them and what causes them to engage in impulsive behavior. It could be that they have engaged with a troll in the past and felt foolish. Or that they just felt sad after a post or got into an unnecessary argument that impacted them offline. By knowing themselves and seeing what’s being discussed, they choose to weigh their words carefully or just not participate at all. It’s a form of self-preservation through restraint.
4. Prefer to observe rather than perform
Some folks treat social media as information, entertainment, or a mix of both, and commenting can feel like they’re yelling at the TV, clapping alone in a movie theater when the credits roll, or yelling “That’s not true!” to a news anchor that will never hear them. But contrary to that, social media is a place where those yells, claps, and accusations can be seen and get a response. By its design, social media is considered by experts and the media as performative, regardless of whether it is positive or negative. Taking all of the previously mentioned traits into account, one can see why they would prefer to “observe the play” rather than get up on the stage of Facebook or X.
On top of that, these non-commenters could be using social media differently than those who choose to fully engage with it. Using this type of navigation, there may be nothing for them to comment about. Some commenters are even vying for this for their mental health. There are articles about how to better curate your social media feeds and manipulate algorithms to create a better social media experience to avoid unnecessary conflict or mentally tiring debate.
If you go on a blocking spree on all of your accounts and just follow the posters that boost you, it could turn your social media into a nice part of your routine as you mainly engage with others face-to-face or privately. In terms of commenting, if your curated Instagram is just following cute dogs and all you have to offer for a comment is “cute dog,” you might just enjoy the picture and then move on with your day rather than join in the noise. These non-commenters aren’t in the show and they’re fine with it.
5. Less motivated by social validation
The last trait that Brown showcases is that social media users who browse without posting tend to be independent from external validation, at least online. Social media is built to grow through feedback loops such as awarding likes, shares, and reposts of your content along with notifications letting you know that a new person follows you or wants to connect. This can lead many people to connect their activity on social media with their sense of self worth, especially with adolescents who are still figuring out their place in the world and have still-developing brains.
Engaging in social media via likes, shares, comments, and posts rewards our brains by having them release dopamine, which makes us feel good and can easily become addictive. For whatever reason, non-commenters don’t rely on social media as a means to gauge their social capital or self worth. This doesn’t make them better than those who do. While some non-commenters could have healthier ways to boost their self worth or release dopamine into their systems, many get that validation from equally unhealthy sources offline. That said, many non-commenters’ silence could be a display of independence and self confidence.
Whether you frequently comment online or don’t, it’s good to understand why you do or don’t. Analyzing your habits can help you determine whether your online engagement is healthy, or needs to be tweaked. With that information, you can then create a healthy social media experience that works for you.