Hydroxychloroquine: Then(1658) and Now

Pope Urban VIII sought a cure for malaria b/c in 1623, while being selected as Pope, he was stricken by it. For months he was too weak to work. Eight cardinals who selected him as Pope died from the dreaded disease. He sent Jesuit missionaries to learn all they could of medicines in the new Americas. A Jesuit apothecary in Lima (Peru) noted that the Quecha natives of the Andes used cinchona bark for chills. Doctors in Rome discovered that the bark was a cure for malaria. The active ingredient was quinine, still used today to fight the disease.

The powdered bark was sometimes called "Jesuits' Powder". Association of the remedy with the Jesuits made it controversial. Considerable anti-Catholic sentiment existed in Northern Europe and England and many suspected anything associated with the Church. Oliver Cromwell hated all things Catholic and was an example of this. When he fell ill to malaria in 1658, he refused to take the 'popish powder' and died as a result.

https://www.scientus.org/Jesuits-Bark.html

Fast forward to today:

Chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine are derivatives of quinine. The mere mention of hydroxychloroquine by a Republican president put the medicine on a "hate list" for Democratic party opponents of Donald Trump. From President Trump’s first mention of the drug there was a major effort to portray hydroxychloroquine as dangerous quackery.

http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/hydroxychloroquine

Note how the two situations parallel each other:

Cromwell <-is like--> liberal press and media

    |                      |

   hated                 hates

    |                      |

Jesuit's Bark -----------------hydroxychloroquine

    |                      |

associated with---------------- associated with

    |                      |

Roman Church <--is like-> President Trump

Can we say that we are any better at making judgments as a society today than we were in 1658?

It appears not.