A better summary would "orange man not a medical researcher therefore HCQ needs evaluation." Your version of this summary is disingenuous and not in the spirit

A better summary would "orange man not a medical researcher therefore HCQ needs evaluation." Your version of this summary is disingenuous and not in the spirit of Hacker News conversation, where we try to take the best possible interpretation of the conversation as it happens. There is no way to take the text "orange man bad" as anything but a petty dismissal of anyone who is not entirely supportive of a particular politician. People have interpreted a broad array of responses to Trump's advocacy to mean "orange man bad," from actual blind hatred to observations that full trials need to be put on to confirm effectiveness. I have no problem dismissing the former, but when calls for scientific rigor are met with "oh, you're just a Trump hater" we have a real problem -- in that the act of discovering a fact is now politically risky for anyone who suggests it. Fortunately in this case the publication process is working; the paper came out, was questioned, those questions were investigated, and it was determined the data was insufficiently open to defend the study, so it was retracted. Ask yourself what would have happened if a paper agreed with the president's assertions, but was based on faulty/unavailable data? Would anyone questioning the paper be met with "orange man bad" dismissals? What effect might that have on NIH/NSF-funded research, do you think?