No, we should cover the retraction. And we are, that's what the linked article is. I genuinely don't understand the need on some people's part to impart an "a

No, we should cover the retraction. And we are, that's what the linked article is. I genuinely don't understand the need on some people's part to impart an "agenda" here. The president of the united states made this front page news by boosting the drug in a context where there was minimal evidence that it helped. That's newsworthy. It just is. The same principle that gets his statements on the front page gets refutations there too. It's news if he's right. It's news if he's wrong. I mean... what would your preferred action be? Not cover newsworthy science? Not cover the statements of the president? Or do you just not want them to cover stuff you personally disagree with? In reality: they covered the president, they covered the result, and they covered the retraction. All with pretty solid reach, frankly. We're literally yelling about it right now.