vox--2020-10-07--Kamala Harris, Jill Biden, and the national embrace of stepmothers

At the Democratic National Convention in August , Sen. Kamala Harris ’ s family members introduced her to voters in a short biographical video .
Between vintage photo montages and campaign footage , Harris ’ s stepdaughter , Ella Emhoff , described the California senator as “ a rock — not just for our dad but for three generations of our big , blended family.
” Jill Biden , also a stepmother , got a similar treatment : “ She put us back together , ” presidential candidate Joe Biden said of his second wife , who married the widowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sons from a previous marriage .
“ She gave me back my life .
She gave us back a family.
” This warm depiction of Harris ’ s and Biden ’ s respective roles in blended — and in the case of Harris , multiracial — families marks a radical shift in the presentation of kin in American politics , which has typically prized nuclear dynasties , like the Kennedys and the Bushes , over clans that actually represent many voters ’ lived realities .
Every day , Americans form 1,300 new blended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together into a new unit .
Despite the prevalence of divorce and remarriage , “ we still don ’ t talk about it enough , ” says Ron Deal , the author and therapist behind Smart Stepfamilies .
Roughly 13 percent of adults are stepparents , according to the Pew Research Center , and one in six children live in a stepfamily , yet many feel as though they are navigating the emotional challenges , organizational dilemmas , and societal stigma alone .
Like first lady Melania Trump , both Harris and Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turned their familial roles into reliable talking points during the campaign .
Harris ’ s husband , entertainment lawyer Doug Emhoff , had two children from a previous marriage ; Cole and Ella , now both in their 20s , call Harris “ Momala.
” Jill Biden ’ s stepsons Hunter Biden , 50 , and Beau Biden , who died of brain cancer in 2015 at age 46 , lost their biological mother and sister in a 1972 car crash .
When Jill Biden married their father in 1977 , the boys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Jill and Joe Biden had a daughter , Ashley , in 1981 . )
Although Harris joked in a 2019 Elle essay that her “ modern family is almost a little too functional ” — among other things , Harris and her husband ’ s ex-wife have become good friends — stepmothers have consistently gotten a bad rap .
Whether they ’ re haunted by the embittered Lady Tremaine in Cinderella or the gold-digging fiancé Meredith in The Parent Trap , decades of research show many real-life stepmothers internalize the “ wicked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s fairy tales and Disney movies .
In one 2017 study , 56 percent of stepmothers in New Zealand reported thinking of themselves as wicked for routine things like saying “ no.
” But instead of plotting revenge with their magic mirrors , these women tend to criticize and silence themselves — a phenomenon psychologist and stepmother Elizabeth Church termed “ the poisoned apple , ” an inversion of Snow White ’ s own scheming stepmother , in her own 2000 study on the challenges women face in blended families .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s respective roles in blended families marks a radical shift in the presentation of kin in American politics .
Pop culture , including feel-good television shows like The Brady Bunch , can set unrealistic expectations , whether sinister or oversimplified .
“ It ’ s the subject of great movies and terrible news stories , ” Deal says , “ but that ’ s not really the normal experience.
” The blended family narrative is long overdue for an update .
While millions of people , including Jill Biden and Kamala Harris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the social pressure can be constricting .
In a 2017 essay for the New York Times Magazine about her own experience as a stepmother , novelist and essayist Leslie Jamison wrote , “ Everyone had ideas about our family without knowing anything about our family.
” Stepfamily stereotypes can be especially burdensome for members of multiracial blended families , whose relationships to one another are more often questioned by strangers .
Embracing the stepfamily as it actually exists — as a messy but often caring unit — could alleviate some of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blended families .
The current moment could also help Americans reimagine what familial love really looks like .
The stepfamily has its roots in the Old English word “ steop , ” which means loss .
Until the 20th century , most stepfamilies were formed in the wake of grief , as widowers often remarried quickly to ensure there was someone to take care of their children .
But since the 1960s , when the divorce rate overtook the maternal mortality rate , stepfamilies have increasingly been formed in the wake of acrimony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stereotype persists .
Throughout the ages , the stepmother archetype has changed alongside popular culture , but never truly outgrown her evil origins , says Leslie Lindenauer , a history professor at Western Connecticut State University and author of I Could Not Call Her Mother , an analysis of stepmothers in America between 1750 and 1960 .
Occasionally , the stepmother has been a virtuous figure , as at the turn of the 20th century , when Americans held the belief that anyone could learn to love like a mother — they just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the stepmother always returns to her most frightening form : a threat to children and society at large .
In the American colonies , for example , “ the evil stepmother replaced the witch in popular culture as a way of policing the boundaries around women , ” Lindenauer says .
Both witches and stepmothers were portrayed as women without their own offspring accused of hurting other women ’ s kids .
And both were feared because they rejected the passive role traditionally meant for women by taking action — whether that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another woman ’ s home .
Beneath each iteration of the stepmother mythology , according to Deal , is the “ motherhood mandate , ” a term coined by psychologist Nancy Felipe Russo in 1976 to describe the persistent belief that every adult female ’ s responsibility is to reproduce and rear children .
In this context , stepmothers are tasked with the impossible : They must fulfill the duties of a homemaker and caretaker , without stepping on the biological mother ’ s toes .
“ The stepmother isn ’ t vilified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not the biological mother , ” Lindenauer says .
But these dichotomous demands take their toll on women , with 21st century stepmothers reporting higher stress and anxiety levels than stepfathers .
Naja Hall , the founder of the millennial stepfamily support network Blended and Black , has experienced this bind firsthand .
When the New Yorker met her now-husband in 2014 , she knew he was the perfect partner for her .
But “ the one thing that really gave me pause was the fact that he had children from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twins , now 10 , and an older sibling , now 16 .
While Hall pursued the relationship anyway , she got a taste of the “ baby mama drama ” she ’ d feared , including trips to family court .
“ At the time , I felt victimized by it all , ” Hall says .
As the new person in the situation , she had to empathize with everyone else ’ s emotions , while accepting that no one was really concerned about hers .
Hall searched for online resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Black woman , she didn ’ t see herself reflected in the existing options .
While census data shows Hispanic , Black , and white kids are roughly equally likely to find themselves in a blended family in the United States , Hall noticed representations of happy stepfamilies seemed to focus on white people .
She decided to build her own network , Blended and Black , to provide other stepparents with the information , coaching , and community she craved .
As the company grew and eventually became Hall ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hall that stepmothers were facing unique challenges .
“ I don ’ t think stepmotherhood is something to be ashamed of , but it is a role a lot of women aren ’ t proud of , ” she says .
“ I have heard from a lot of stepdads .
They don ’ t envy stepmoms.
” Saskia Thompson , a 44-year-old paralegal in the San Francisco Bay Area , joined Hall ’ s dedicated VIP Stepmom network when she got engaged to a man with two daughters , ages 9 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the experience has been overwhelming .
“ I don ’ t want to say I ’ m making it up as I go , but if I ’ m honest , I am , ” Thompson says .
She doesn ’ t want to be in the traditional role of a “ stepmom , ” and instead sees herself as one member of the “ village ” that ’ s necessary to raise every child .
But she ’ s found that many people are not accepting of her mentality — or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children ’ s lives .
“ No one even looks at me like a stepmom , ” says Thompson , a Black woman engaged to a white man with white children .
It ’ s only added to the “ stigma ” she feels around her role .
When Thompson took her fiancé ’ s youngest daughter to get a haircut , the stylist mistook her for a nanny .
At the girls ’ birthday party , one parent assumed she was the driver of the van that would take the kids to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long , slow process of blending a family seem even more impossible .
At one point , Thompson took a step back from all of her relationships , including those with her fiancé ’ s children , so she could care for herself for a few months instead .
Thompson says she can see herself in Biden and Harris .
While a stepfamily in the White House won ’ t stop people speculating about her role in her fiancé ’ s children ’ s lives , Thompson says that seeing the differences in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with their stepchildren has reinforced her commitment to charting her own path — one in which she ’ s free to be neither witch nor martyr .
Stepfamilies are an intricate and intimate arrangement , as any member can tell you .
But in politics , thrusting these relationships into the spotlight is standard practice , says Jennifer Lawless , a politics professor at the University of Virginia .
For candidates , family provides a logistical and psychological support system during the campaign .
They also offer a humanizing effect — vouching that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person .
“ Voters want to hear from a family the kinds of things they wouldn ’ t hear from a surrogate , ” Lawless says , including details about their past , their personal relationships , and their capacity for love .
“ I think that ’ s why Trump ’ s use of his family has been so odd and jarring to people , ” Lawless adds .
“ His children aren ’ t saying , ‘ He ’ s a great father.
’ They ’ re saying , ‘ He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Family provides a logistical and psychological support system during the campaign .
They also offer a humanizing effect .
The expectation of family participation in campaigns is now so ingrained that “ the absence of a candidate ’ s supportive family is glaring , ” Lawless says .
But she says what that family looks like is more flexible than ever .
Candidates can use close friends , parents , siblings , and stepchildren to boost their credibility .
In the lead-up to the election , it ’ s clear that Harris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members have been primped and prepped for their starring role .
But they are real families , and their presence on a national stage has the potential to amplify existing conversations about how Americans create and maintain some of the most important relationships in their lives .
In more than two decades working with stepfamilies , Deal , the author and therapist , says he ’ s never met anyone who grew up wanting to be a stepmother or stepfather , but he ’ s worked with plenty of people who have found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not the primary narrative people want to write for their lives , ” he says .
“ But there can be a second opportunity for love and family that is beautiful.
” And , in the right hands , it can be politically advantageous , too .
Eleanor Cummins reports on the intersection of science and popular culture .
She ’ s a former assistant editor at Popular Science and writes a newsletter about death .
She previously wrote about the “ death-positive generation ” and the people hell-bent on ignoring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

At the Democratic National Convention in August, Sen. Kamala Harris’s family members introduced her to voters in a short biographical video. Between vintage photo montages and campaign footage, Harris’s stepdaughter, Ella Emhoff, described the California senator as “a rock — not just for our dad but for three generations of our big, blended family.” Jill Biden, also a stepmother, got a similar treatment: “She put us back together,” presidential candidate Joe Biden said of his second wife, who married the widowed Biden and took on raising his two sons from a previous marriage. “She gave me back my life. She gave us back a family.”
This warm depiction of Harris’s and Biden’s respective roles in blended — and in the case of Harris, multiracial — families marks a radical shift in the presentation of kin in American politics, which has typically prized nuclear dynasties, like the Kennedys and the Bushes, over clans that actually represent many voters’ lived realities. Every day, Americans form 1,300 new blended families, bringing kids from previous relationships together into a new unit.
Despite the prevalence of divorce and remarriage, “we still don’t talk about it enough,” says Ron Deal, the author and therapist behind Smart Stepfamilies. Roughly 13 percent of adults are stepparents, according to the Pew Research Center, and one in six children live in a stepfamily, yet many feel as though they are navigating the emotional challenges, organizational dilemmas, and societal stigma alone.
Like first lady Melania Trump, both Harris and Biden are stepmothers — and they’ve turned their familial roles into reliable talking points during the campaign. Harris’s husband, entertainment lawyer Doug Emhoff, had two children from a previous marriage; Cole and Ella, now both in their 20s, call Harris “Momala.” Jill Biden’s stepsons Hunter Biden, 50, and Beau Biden, who died of brain cancer in 2015 at age 46, lost their biological mother and sister in a 1972 car crash. When Jill Biden married their father in 1977, the boys decided to call her “mom.” (Jill and Joe Biden had a daughter, Ashley, in 1981.)
Although Harris joked in a 2019 Elle essay that her “modern family is almost a little too functional” — among other things, Harris and her husband’s ex-wife have become good friends — stepmothers have consistently gotten a bad rap. Whether they’re haunted by the embittered Lady Tremaine in Cinderella or the gold-digging fiancé Meredith in The Parent Trap, decades of research show many real-life stepmothers internalize the “wicked” role assigned to them by Grimm’s fairy tales and Disney movies. In one 2017 study, 56 percent of stepmothers in New Zealand reported thinking of themselves as wicked for routine things like saying “no.” But instead of plotting revenge with their magic mirrors, these women tend to criticize and silence themselves — a phenomenon psychologist and stepmother Elizabeth Church termed “the poisoned apple,” an inversion of Snow White’s own scheming stepmother, in her own 2000 study on the challenges women face in blended families.
This depiction of Harris’s and Biden’s respective roles in blended families marks a radical shift in the presentation of kin in American politics.
Pop culture, including feel-good television shows like The Brady Bunch, can set unrealistic expectations, whether sinister or oversimplified. “It’s the subject of great movies and terrible news stories,” Deal says, “but that’s not really the normal experience.”
The blended family narrative is long overdue for an update. While millions of people, including Jill Biden and Kamala Harris, are working to define their step-relationships, the social pressure can be constricting. In a 2017 essay for the New York Times Magazine about her own experience as a stepmother, novelist and essayist Leslie Jamison wrote, “Everyone had ideas about our family without knowing anything about our family.” Stepfamily stereotypes can be especially burdensome for members of multiracial blended families, whose relationships to one another are more often questioned by strangers.
Embracing the stepfamily as it actually exists — as a messy but often caring unit — could alleviate some of the pressure on the millions of Americans in blended families. The current moment could also help Americans reimagine what familial love really looks like.
The stepfamily has its roots in the Old English word “steop,” which means loss. Until the 20th century, most stepfamilies were formed in the wake of grief, as widowers often remarried quickly to ensure there was someone to take care of their children. But since the 1960s, when the divorce rate overtook the maternal mortality rate, stepfamilies have increasingly been formed in the wake of acrimony, and the “replacement mother” stereotype persists.
Throughout the ages, the stepmother archetype has changed alongside popular culture, but never truly outgrown her evil origins, says Leslie Lindenauer, a history professor at Western Connecticut State University and author of I Could Not Call Her Mother, an analysis of stepmothers in America between 1750 and 1960. Occasionally, the stepmother has been a virtuous figure, as at the turn of the 20th century, when Americans held the belief that anyone could learn to love like a mother — they just had to try hard enough. But the stepmother always returns to her most frightening form: a threat to children and society at large. In the American colonies, for example, “the evil stepmother replaced the witch in popular culture as a way of policing the boundaries around women,” Lindenauer says. Both witches and stepmothers were portrayed as women without their own offspring accused of hurting other women’s kids. And both were feared because they rejected the passive role traditionally meant for women by taking action — whether that’s over a bubbling cauldron or in another woman’s home.
Beneath each iteration of the stepmother mythology, according to Deal, is the “motherhood mandate,” a term coined by psychologist Nancy Felipe Russo in 1976 to describe the persistent belief that every adult female’s responsibility is to reproduce and rear children. In this context, stepmothers are tasked with the impossible: They must fulfill the duties of a homemaker and caretaker, without stepping on the biological mother’s toes. “The stepmother isn’t vilified for anything other than that she’s not the biological mother,” Lindenauer says. But these dichotomous demands take their toll on women, with 21st century stepmothers reporting higher stress and anxiety levels than stepfathers.
Naja Hall, the founder of the millennial stepfamily support network Blended and Black, has experienced this bind firsthand. When the New Yorker met her now-husband in 2014, she knew he was the perfect partner for her. But “the one thing that really gave me pause was the fact that he had children from a previous relationship,” she says — twins, now 10, and an older sibling, now 16. While Hall pursued the relationship anyway, she got a taste of the “baby mama drama” she’d feared, including trips to family court. “At the time, I felt victimized by it all,” Hall says. As the new person in the situation, she had to empathize with everyone else’s emotions, while accepting that no one was really concerned about hers.
Hall searched for online resources to help her cope, but as a Black woman, she didn’t see herself reflected in the existing options. While census data shows Hispanic, Black, and white kids are roughly equally likely to find themselves in a blended family in the United States, Hall noticed representations of happy stepfamilies seemed to focus on white people. She decided to build her own network, Blended and Black, to provide other stepparents with the information, coaching, and community she craved.
As the company grew and eventually became Hall’s full-time job, it became clear to Hall that stepmothers were facing unique challenges. “I don’t think stepmotherhood is something to be ashamed of, but it is a role a lot of women aren’t proud of,” she says. “I have heard from a lot of stepdads. They don’t envy stepmoms.”
Saskia Thompson, a 44-year-old paralegal in the San Francisco Bay Area, joined Hall’s dedicated VIP Stepmom network when she got engaged to a man with two daughters, ages 9 and 11. Though the girls embraced her, the experience has been overwhelming. “I don’t want to say I’m making it up as I go, but if I’m honest, I am,” Thompson says. She doesn’t want to be in the traditional role of a “stepmom,” and instead sees herself as one member of the “village” that’s necessary to raise every child. But she’s found that many people are not accepting of her mentality — or her presence in her fiancé’s children’s lives.
“No one even looks at me like a stepmom,” says Thompson, a Black woman engaged to a white man with white children. It’s only added to the “stigma” she feels around her role. When Thompson took her fiancé’s youngest daughter to get a haircut, the stylist mistook her for a nanny. At the girls’ birthday party, one parent assumed she was the driver of the van that would take the kids to the event. The experiences made the long, slow process of blending a family seem even more impossible. At one point, Thompson took a step back from all of her relationships, including those with her fiancé’s children, so she could care for herself for a few months instead.
Thompson says she can see herself in Biden and Harris. While a stepfamily in the White House won’t stop people speculating about her role in her fiancé’s children’s lives, Thompson says that seeing the differences in how Biden and Harris approach their relationships with their stepchildren has reinforced her commitment to charting her own path — one in which she’s free to be neither witch nor martyr.
Stepfamilies are an intricate and intimate arrangement, as any member can tell you. But in politics, thrusting these relationships into the spotlight is standard practice, says Jennifer Lawless, a politics professor at the University of Virginia.
For candidates, family provides a logistical and psychological support system during the campaign. They also offer a humanizing effect — vouching that the candidate is a good and trustworthy person. “Voters want to hear from a family the kinds of things they wouldn’t hear from a surrogate,” Lawless says, including details about their past, their personal relationships, and their capacity for love.
“I think that’s why Trump’s use of his family has been so odd and jarring to people,” Lawless adds. “His children aren’t saying, ‘He’s a great father.’ They’re saying, ‘He’s such a great businessman.’”
Family provides a logistical and psychological support system during the campaign. They also offer a humanizing effect.
The expectation of family participation in campaigns is now so ingrained that “the absence of a candidate’s supportive family is glaring,” Lawless says. But she says what that family looks like is more flexible than ever. Candidates can use close friends, parents, siblings, and stepchildren to boost their credibility.
In the lead-up to the election, it’s clear that Harris’s and Biden’s family members have been primped and prepped for their starring role. But they are real families, and their presence on a national stage has the potential to amplify existing conversations about how Americans create and maintain some of the most important relationships in their lives.
In more than two decades working with stepfamilies, Deal, the author and therapist, says he’s never met anyone who grew up wanting to be a stepmother or stepfather, but he’s worked with plenty of people who have found joy in the role.
“It’s not the primary narrative people want to write for their lives,” he says. “But there can be a second opportunity for love and family that is beautiful.” And, in the right hands, it can be politically advantageous, too.
Eleanor Cummins reports on the intersection of science and popular culture. She’s a former assistant editor at Popular Science and writes a newsletter about death. She previously wrote about the “death-positive generation” and the people hell-bent on ignoring social distancing for The Highlight.


vox--2020-10-07--Top chemical weapons watchdog group confirms Alexei Navalny was poisoned with a nerve agent

The world ’ s top chemical weapons watchdog group concluded that the substance ingested in August by Alexei Navalny , Russian President Vladimir Putin ’ s most outspoken critic , was a nerve agent with “ similar structural characteristics ” to Novichok — providing more evidence the Kremlin was behind a chemical attack on a political opponent .
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons ’ s ( POCW ) finding on Tuesday backs what a toxicology report in Germany found last month .
Novichok is one of the world ’ s most lethal nerve agents .
It was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used on a Russian double agent in the UK two years ago .
That ’ s why the OPCW seemed especially concerned about what they concluded .
“ These results constitute a matter of grave concern , ” it said in a statement .
“ The use of chemical weapons by anyone under any circumstances [ are ] reprehensible and wholly contrary to the legal norms established by the international community.
” Luckily , Navalny was released from a German hospital on September 23 and is expected to make a full recovery .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ after he was placed in a medically induced after being poisoned before boarding a flight in Russia in August .
The confirmed use of a deadly nerve agent increases the likelihood that the Russian government was behind Navalny ’ s poisoning , as many have suspected , and has already led to condemnations from world leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg .
Sanctions from European countries may follow , though it ’ s unclear if the United States will take any direct action .
Which means the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further split ties between a Europe united in its disdain for Russia ’ s actions and an America unwilling to chastise Moscow for the heinous act .
On August 20 , Navalny drank tea at a Siberian airport before boarding a flight to Moscow .
He became ill on the aircraft , with a video purportedly showing the politician moaning and needing immediate medical attention .
The plane made an emergency landing in Omsk , near Kazakhstan , where an ambulance waited to take him to a local hospital .
But Navalny ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a coma before he arrived at the facility .
Russia ’ s Omsk Emergency Hospital No .
1 , where Navalny was first treated , became the site of a frustrating standoff between Navalny ’ s family and supporters and the doctors overseeing his care .
Navalny ’ s wife and team alleged the doctors were controlled by the Kremlin and tried to cover up the poisoning attack instead of properly treating their patient .
The physicians at the time said Navalny wasn ’ t poisoned but instead suffered from a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blood sugar .
“ Poisons or traces of their presence in the body have not been identified , ” Anatoly Kalinichenko , the deputy chief doctor at the Omsk emergency hospital , told reporters on Friday .
“ The diagnosis of ‘ poisoning ’ remains somewhere in the back of our minds , but we do not believe that the patient suffered poisoning.
” But Navalny ’ s team — including his wife Yulia Navalnaya , who was barred from seeing her husband in the Russian hospital , according to a spokesperson — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason to believe that : The Kremlin has a long , sordid history of poisoning political dissidents , defectors , and other enemies of the state .
“ The medics are being totally commanded by the FSB and hardly release anything , ” Vladimir Milov , a close Navalny associate , told me last week , using the acronym for Russia ’ s Federal Security Service , the successor agency to the Soviet-era KGB responsible for internal security , among other things .
“ We of course can not trust this hospital and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to us , so that we could have him treated in an independent hospital whose doctors we trust , ” Navalnaya said in another press conference on August 21 .
A medical plane sent by the Berlin-based humanitarian group Cinema for Peace Foundation arrived in Omsk on Friday to take the opposition leader to Germany for treatment .
The Russian doctors initially blocked the transfer , saying Navalny wasn ’ t stable enough to travel , before finally allowing the German physicians to take a look at the patient ’ s condition .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ pleading for him to allow the transfer , and EU leader Charles Michel raised the issue and expressed concern about the situation in a Friday call with Putin .
Late that Friday , the Russian physicians granted the transfer request , and Navalny arrived in Berlin over the weekend .
Hanging over all the drama is one pressing question : Did Putin have anything to do it ?
As of right now , we don ’ t have a definitive answer to that question — and we may never get it .
Turns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point .
Why Putin may be responsible for Navalny ’ s poisoning with Novichok Ask people familiar with how the Russian government handles dissidents , and they unanimously note that what likely happened to Navalny is part of a long-standing Russian government playbook — one that Putin follows .
“ Killing or intimidating ‘ enemies of the people ’ has been a staple of Kremlin policy for over 100 years , ” said John Sipher , who ran CIA operations in Russia during his 28-year intelligence career before retiring six years ago .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ killing his enemies at home and abroad , and has created a system where those who wish to earn the Kremlin ’ s support need to do [ his ] bidding , ” Sipher said .
“ Whether or not Putin personally ordered the poisoning , he is behind any and all efforts to maintain control through intimidation and murder.
” Poisoning people is kind of the Kremlin ’ s thing .
In 2004 , Viktor Yushchenko campaigned against a Putin ally for the presidency of Ukraine .
But then he fell ill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blotchy and the left side paralyzed .
He also suffered immense abdominal and back pain .
He said he had been poisoned — with dioxin , a toxic chemical , no less — but Russian officials have long denied having anything to do with what happened to him .
( Oh , and Yushchenko ended up winning the presidency . )
In 2006 , two Russian agents put polonium-210 — a highly radioactive chemical — in former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko ’ s tea at a London hotel bar ( he had defected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks for Litvinenko to die , and he blamed Putin for orchestrating the attack .
“ You may succeed in silencing one man , ” Litvinenko said from his hospital bed , “ but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate , Mr. Putin , in your ears for the rest of your life.
” Russia continues to deny any involvement in Litvinenko ’ s death .
In 2018 , the UK determined that Russian operatives poisoned a former Russian double agent and his daughter in Britain with Novichok , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lethal nerve agents ( that just so happens to have been developed by the Soviet Union ) , putting both victims in the hospital in serious condition .
They both recovered from the attack and are now in an unknown location — hiding out of fear of another potential attack .
And while poison is one of the most commonly used assassination tools , the Kremlin isn ’ t above using more prosaic methods .
Boris Nemtsov , for instance , was shot near the Kremlin in February 2015 .
Nemtsov had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s misdeeds , which may have prompted Putin allies to want him dead .
A man was sentenced to 20 years in prison for the murder , but many critics believe the whole trial was a sham and a cover-up by the president ’ s team .
The common thread among all of these episodes , as Sipher alluded to , is that it ’ s unclear just how directly Putin may or may not have been involved .
Plausible deniability is baked into the cake of his authoritarian system .
Everyone who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wants without him having to explicitly ask .
That means Kremlin operatives have the green light to pursue some of those goals — like knocking off a political rival — while officially keeping Putin out the loop .
That , in a sense , is how he gets what he wants without having his fingerprints on the government ’ s dirtiest actions .
So Putin could have ordered Navalny dead himself , but it ’ s equally possible that someone who wanted to make Putin happy did it on their own initiative .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Judy Twigg , a Russia expert at Virginia Commonwealth University .
Navalny has been repeatedly jailed for instigating protests against Putin and was twice attacked with an antiseptic green dye in 2017 .
“ It looks funny but it hurts like hell , ” Navalny tweeted about the attacks .
And last summer , while Navalny was serving a 30-day prison sentence for leading anti-government protests , he was taken to the hospital with symptoms of facial swelling , itching , and a rash .
As the Guardian reported at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Navalny was experiencing an allergic reaction to something but didn ’ t say what that something was .
One of Navalny ’ s personal doctors also examined him , though , and she said he was suffering from “ the result of harmful effects of undefined chemical substances ... induced by a ‘ third person.
’ ” In other words , poison .
There ’ s still no official proof of foul play ( of course ) .
But beyond this very suggestive history , there are two other potential context clues that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direction in this latest incident .
First , if the FSB did indeed put pressure on the Omsk hospital , as the Navalny associate Milov alleged , that would imply that Putin or someone close to him cares deeply about how Navalny ’ s situation is handled .
Twigg told me it ’ s certainly possible the FSB was involved .
“ The FSB would surely be highly engaged in a situation where there ’ s contact with foreigners , ” said Twigg , especially since employees of the state — which includes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their contacts with international visitors , such as the German doctors .
Of course , any state security officials that were involved may have just been following protocol by inserting themselves into a situation that would clearly garner global attention .
But their suspected role in keeping the German doctors from initially seeing Navalny , if true , could mean they were trying to hide something — like , say , any evidence of poison coursing through the opposition figure ’ s veins .
Second , things aren ’ t looking too great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s overseeing one of the world ’ s worst coronavirus outbreaks , facing protests that question his leadership , and watching as his ally in Belarus faces nationwide calls to step down .
With all that instability , Putin may have wanted to target his main political rival to send a strong message .
“ This is an escalation and a sign that the regime is anxious and eager to clamp down once and for all , ” Alina Polyakova , the president of the Center for European Policy Analysis , told me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s unclear whether it will actually work .
If Navalny fully recovers , he may have even more credibility to form a larger opposition movement against Putin as a result of the suspected attack , experts say .
Instead of getting rid of his biggest political rival , Putin ( or whoever might be responsible ) may have just made him more powerful .
Whether or not Navalny bounces back and is able to wield that power is what many inside and outside Russia — and certainly many inside the Kremlin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The world’s top chemical weapons watchdog group concluded that the substance ingested in August by Alexei Navalny, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s most outspoken critic, was a nerve agent with “similar structural characteristics” to Novichok — providing more evidence the Kremlin was behind a chemical attack on a political opponent.
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons’s (POCW) finding on Tuesday backs what a toxicology report in Germany found last month. Novichok is one of the world’s most lethal nerve agents. It was developed by the Soviet Union and was used on a Russian double agent in the UK two years ago.
That’s why the OPCW seemed especially concerned about what they concluded. “These results constitute a matter of grave concern,” it said in a statement. “The use of chemical weapons by anyone under any circumstances [are] reprehensible and wholly contrary to the legal norms established by the international community.”
Luckily, Navalny was released from a German hospital on September 23 and is expected to make a full recovery. Such an outcome wasn’t guaranteed after he was placed in a medically induced after being poisoned before boarding a flight in Russia in August.
The confirmed use of a deadly nerve agent increases the likelihood that the Russian government was behind Navalny’s poisoning, as many have suspected, and has already led to condemnations from world leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Sanctions from European countries may follow, though it’s unclear if the United States will take any direct action.
Which means the fallout from the suspected murder attempt might further split ties between a Europe united in its disdain for Russia’s actions and an America unwilling to chastise Moscow for the heinous act.
What happened to Navalny, briefly explained
On August 20, Navalny drank tea at a Siberian airport before boarding a flight to Moscow. He became ill on the aircraft, with a video purportedly showing the politician moaning and needing immediate medical attention.
The plane made an emergency landing in Omsk, near Kazakhstan, where an ambulance waited to take him to a local hospital. But Navalny’s condition worsened, and he fell into a coma before he arrived at the facility.
Russia’s Omsk Emergency Hospital No. 1, where Navalny was first treated, became the site of a frustrating standoff between Navalny’s family and supporters and the doctors overseeing his care. Navalny’s wife and team alleged the doctors were controlled by the Kremlin and tried to cover up the poisoning attack instead of properly treating their patient.
The physicians at the time said Navalny wasn’t poisoned but instead suffered from a “metabolic disorder” that led to low blood sugar. “Poisons or traces of their presence in the body have not been identified,” Anatoly Kalinichenko, the deputy chief doctor at the Omsk emergency hospital, told reporters on Friday. “The diagnosis of ‘poisoning’ remains somewhere in the back of our minds, but we do not believe that the patient suffered poisoning.”
But Navalny’s team — including his wife Yulia Navalnaya, who was barred from seeing her husband in the Russian hospital, according to a spokesperson — suspected foul play. They had good reason to believe that: The Kremlin has a long, sordid history of poisoning political dissidents, defectors, and other enemies of the state.
“The medics are being totally commanded by the FSB and hardly release anything,” Vladimir Milov, a close Navalny associate, told me last week, using the acronym for Russia’s Federal Security Service, the successor agency to the Soviet-era KGB responsible for internal security, among other things.
“We of course cannot trust this hospital and we demand for Alexei to be given to us, so that we could have him treated in an independent hospital whose doctors we trust,” Navalnaya said in another press conference on August 21.
A medical plane sent by the Berlin-based humanitarian group Cinema for Peace Foundation arrived in Omsk on Friday to take the opposition leader to Germany for treatment. The Russian doctors initially blocked the transfer, saying Navalny wasn’t stable enough to travel, before finally allowing the German physicians to take a look at the patient’s condition.
Navalnaya wrote a letter to Putin, pleading for him to allow the transfer, and EU leader Charles Michel raised the issue and expressed concern about the situation in a Friday call with Putin. Late that Friday, the Russian physicians granted the transfer request, and Navalny arrived in Berlin over the weekend.
Hanging over all the drama is one pressing question: Did Putin have anything to do it?
As of right now, we don’t have a definitive answer to that question — and we may never get it. Turns out, that may be exactly the point.
Why Putin may be responsible for Navalny’s poisoning with Novichok
Ask people familiar with how the Russian government handles dissidents, and they unanimously note that what likely happened to Navalny is part of a long-standing Russian government playbook — one that Putin follows.
“Killing or intimidating ‘enemies of the people’ has been a staple of Kremlin policy for over 100 years,” said John Sipher, who ran CIA operations in Russia during his 28-year intelligence career before retiring six years ago.
“Putin has continued this tactic of killing his enemies at home and abroad, and has created a system where those who wish to earn the Kremlin’s support need to do [his] bidding,” Sipher said. “Whether or not Putin personally ordered the poisoning, he is behind any and all efforts to maintain control through intimidation and murder.”
Poisoning people is kind of the Kremlin’s thing. In 2004, Viktor Yushchenko campaigned against a Putin ally for the presidency of Ukraine. But then he fell ill, with his face mysteriously and suddenly blotchy and the left side paralyzed. He also suffered immense abdominal and back pain. He said he had been poisoned — with dioxin, a toxic chemical, no less — but Russian officials have long denied having anything to do with what happened to him. (Oh, and Yushchenko ended up winning the presidency.)
In 2006, two Russian agents put polonium-210 — a highly radioactive chemical — in former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko’s tea at a London hotel bar (he had defected to the UK). It took weeks for Litvinenko to die, and he blamed Putin for orchestrating the attack.
“You may succeed in silencing one man,” Litvinenko said from his hospital bed, “but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr. Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life.” Russia continues to deny any involvement in Litvinenko’s death.
In 2018, the UK determined that Russian operatives poisoned a former Russian double agent and his daughter in Britain with Novichok, one of the world’s most lethal nerve agents (that just so happens to have been developed by the Soviet Union), putting both victims in the hospital in serious condition. They both recovered from the attack and are now in an unknown location — hiding out of fear of another potential attack.
And while poison is one of the most commonly used assassination tools, the Kremlin isn’t above using more prosaic methods. Boris Nemtsov, for instance, was shot near the Kremlin in February 2015. Nemtsov had been digging up dirt on the government’s misdeeds, which may have prompted Putin allies to want him dead. A man was sentenced to 20 years in prison for the murder, but many critics believe the whole trial was a sham and a cover-up by the president’s team.
The common thread among all of these episodes, as Sipher alluded to, is that it’s unclear just how directly Putin may or may not have been involved. Plausible deniability is baked into the cake of his authoritarian system. Everyone who works in the government knows what Putin wants without him having to explicitly ask. That means Kremlin operatives have the green light to pursue some of those goals — like knocking off a political rival — while officially keeping Putin out the loop.
That, in a sense, is how he gets what he wants without having his fingerprints on the government’s dirtiest actions.
So Putin could have ordered Navalny dead himself, but it’s equally possible that someone who wanted to make Putin happy did it on their own initiative. “Navalny has lots of enemies,” said Judy Twigg, a Russia expert at Virginia Commonwealth University.
Navalny has been repeatedly jailed for instigating protests against Putin and was twice attacked with an antiseptic green dye in 2017. “It looks funny but it hurts like hell,” Navalny tweeted about the attacks.
And last summer, while Navalny was serving a 30-day prison sentence for leading anti-government protests, he was taken to the hospital with symptoms of facial swelling, itching, and a rash. As the Guardian reported at the time, doctors at the hospital said Navalny was experiencing an allergic reaction to something but didn’t say what that something was.
One of Navalny’s personal doctors also examined him, though, and she said he was suffering from “the result of harmful effects of undefined chemical substances ... induced by a ‘third person.’”
In other words, poison. There’s still no official proof of foul play (of course).
But beyond this very suggestive history, there are two other potential context clues that point the finger in Putin’s direction in this latest incident.
First, if the FSB did indeed put pressure on the Omsk hospital, as the Navalny associate Milov alleged, that would imply that Putin or someone close to him cares deeply about how Navalny’s situation is handled.
Twigg told me it’s certainly possible the FSB was involved. “The FSB would surely be highly engaged in a situation where there’s contact with foreigners,” said Twigg, especially since employees of the state — which includes most Russian medical staff — must report their contacts with international visitors, such as the German doctors.
Of course, any state security officials that were involved may have just been following protocol by inserting themselves into a situation that would clearly garner global attention. But their suspected role in keeping the German doctors from initially seeing Navalny, if true, could mean they were trying to hide something — like, say, any evidence of poison coursing through the opposition figure’s veins.
Second, things aren’t looking too great for Putin right now. He’s overseeing one of the world’s worst coronavirus outbreaks, facing protests that question his leadership, and watching as his ally in Belarus faces nationwide calls to step down. With all that instability, Putin may have wanted to target his main political rival to send a strong message.
“This is an escalation and a sign that the regime is anxious and eager to clamp down once and for all,” Alina Polyakova, the president of the Center for European Policy Analysis, told me.
If that was the plan, it’s unclear whether it will actually work. If Navalny fully recovers, he may have even more credibility to form a larger opposition movement against Putin as a result of the suspected attack, experts say. Instead of getting rid of his biggest political rival, Putin (or whoever might be responsible) may have just made him more powerful.
Whether or not Navalny bounces back and is able to wield that power is what many inside and outside Russia — and certainly many inside the Kremlin — will be waiting to see.


vox--2020-10-07--Hydroxychloroquine conspiracies are back, but Trump’s the patient now

Much of the United States woke up to the news that President Trump had tested positive for the coronavirus last Friday .
Many turned to social media with theories about how Trump was faking it or had been targeted by an assassination plot .
The most popular conspiratorial idea , however , was rooted in a familiar hoax : hydroxychloroquine .
Mentions of hydroxychloroquine spiked in the hours and days following the president ’ s Covid-19 diagnosis , according to data from the media intelligence firm Zignal Labs , which monitors misinformation on social media , traditional media , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these mentions involved people calling for Trump to be treated with hydroxychloroquine , a malaria drug that ’ s been widely shown as ineffective as a Covid-19 treatment .
Trump has been treated with an experimental antibody treatment developed by Regeneron , as well as remdesivir and dexamethasone .
The prevalence of online discussions around hydroxychloroquine highlights how misinformation about the drug — much of which was promoted by Trump himself — has become deeply ingrained in the public consciousness .
And the durability of the hydroxychloroquine myth suggests that the endless stream @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that downplay the severity of Covid-19 will have a lasting negative impact .
As a Cornell University study recently found , the president is the “ single largest driver of misinformation around Covid.
” It now appears that even this so-called infodemic is also shaping public conversation around Trump ’ s own illness .
The volume of online discussion about Trump and hydroxychloroquine versus other misinformation wasn ’ t even close .
From October 1 to October 5 , there were 336,286 mentions of hydroxychloroquine related to Trump ’ s diagnosis , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be treated with hydroxychloroquine or links to articles that called for that treatment , according to Zignal Labs .
A smaller number of those mentions pointed out that Trump received several treatments but that hydroxychloroquine was not one of them .
Mentions of all of these phrases were almost nonexistent in the days leading up to Trump ’ s diagnosis .
There were newer conspiracy theories , too .
The next most popular misinformation topic were allusions to the idea that Trump was faking the illness , of which there were 86,977 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president — including claims that Trump was intentionally infected at the debate and that teams of Deep State assassins had pursued the president — came next with about 33,000 mentions .
There were also 13,768 mentions about how masks don ’ t help to prevent transmission of the virus , which pointed to senators who were infected but had been seen wearing masks .
While Trump ’ s ongoing battle with Covid-19 is bound to fuel speculation about how and why the president got infected , the immediate surge of discussion about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come as a huge surprise .
As early as March , some experts said the drug was an effective treatment for the disease , a claim that Trump promoted to his supporters for weeks .
Trump ’ s doctors even said in early June — months before he tested positive for the coronavirus — that the president underwent a two-week course of hydroxychloroquine “ safely and without side effects.
” Less than two weeks later , the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) said that the drug was “ unlikely to produce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has nevertheless continued on mainstream conservative media outlets like Breitbart , Fox News , and the Federalist .
“ To be clear , because hydroxychloroquine got so much attention from the president , and was subsequently studied so heavily , it ’ s probably one of the things in the pandemic where the science is the most settled , ” Kellie Owens , a health researcher at Data & Society , told Recode .
“ The most recent meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that I ’ ve seen showed no benefit to hydroxychloroquine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” As far as the public knows , Trump has not received hydroxychloroquine since he tested positive for the coronavirus .
And why would he ?
It ’ s a potentially dangerous treatment .
Why hundreds of thousands of people would call for the president to receive the drug is not quite as simple , but the situation ultimately boils down to the amount of time and attention hydroxychloroquine has gotten in the press and on social media .
Consider late July , when Trump and his son , Don Jr. , shared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claiming that hydroxychloroquine could help cure Covid-19 and that “ you don ’ t need to wear a mask.
” After being promoted by Breitbart and the Trumps , the video went viral in a matter of hours but was quickly discredited and removed from Facebook and Twitter for spreading false claims about Covid-19 .
Don Jr. actually got suspended from Twitter for sharing it , and Immanuel skyrocketed to social media stardom .
Previously unknown , Immanuel now has nearly 200,000 Twitter followers .
( Immanuel also says she ’ s under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Now we know that thousands of people online continue to cling to the false hope that hydroxychloroquine cures Covid-19 .
On October 2 , the day that Trump announced his positive test result , one of the most popular posts on Facebook , according to engagement data from the social media analytics firms CrownTangle and NewsWhip , highlights a tweet in which Immanuel offered to prescribe hydroxychloroquine to President Trump if his own doctors wouldn ’ t .
The post had over 623,000 interactions .
It ’ s hard to identify exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some say early observational studies that suggested the drug had some benefit made some people believe that the deadly pandemic could end with a miracle drug .
Trump ’ s promotion of such a fantasy just expanded its reach .
“ Often , you have to dig down to find a small grain of truth that can be used to promote that sort of misinformation narrative , ” said John Gregory , a senior analyst at NewsGuard .
He explained that the narrative about hydroxychloroquine as a cure had many months to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media sources and on social media .
“ It became more ingrained in the audience that this was already a proven cure , and they ’ re going to reject the new evidence , ” Gregory said .
Again , with this context in mind , it ’ s chilling to consider the long-term implications of Trump ’ s most recent statements about the Covid-19 .
Since being diagnosed and hospitalized with the disease , the president has said that Americans must “ not be afraid of ” the coronavirus or “ let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s also continued to suggest , recklessly , that Covid-19 is less severe than the flu .
These statements fuel a frightening and dangerous narrative about the pandemic that distrusts science and stands to shape the public ’ s response to a deadly pandemic .
And for now , thanks in part to Trump ’ s history of spreading misinformation , the hydroxychloroquine saga continues , even if the drug doesn ’ t work against Covid-19 .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Much of the United States woke up last Friday to the news that President Trump had tested positive for the coronavirus. Many turned to social media with theories about how Trump was faking it or had been targeted by an assassination plot. The most popular conspiratorial idea, however, was rooted in a familiar hoax: hydroxychloroquine.
Mentions of hydroxychloroquine spiked in the hours and days following the president’s Covid-19 diagnosis, according to data from the media intelligence firm Zignal Labs, which monitors misinformation on social media, traditional media, and other online sources. The majority of these mentions involved people calling for Trump to be treated with hydroxychloroquine, a malaria drug that’s been widely shown as ineffective as a Covid-19 treatment. Trump has been treated with an experimental antibody treatment developed by Regeneron, as well as remdesivir and dexamethasone.
The prevalence of online discussions around hydroxychloroquine highlights how misinformation about the drug — much of which was promoted by Trump himself — has become deeply ingrained in the public consciousness. And the durability of the hydroxychloroquine myth suggests that the endless stream of false and misleading claims from Trump that downplay the severity of Covid-19 will have a lasting negative impact. As a Cornell University study recently found, the president is the “single largest driver of misinformation around Covid.” It now appears that this so-called infodemic is also shaping public conversation around Trump’s own illness.
The volume of online discussion about Trump and hydroxychloroquine versus other misinformation wasn’t even close. From October 1 to 5, there were 336,286 mentions of hydroxychloroquine related to Trump’s diagnosis, and 106,000 specifically included calls for Trump to be treated with hydroxychloroquine or links to articles that called for that treatment, according to Zignal Labs. A smaller number of those mentions pointed out that Trump received several treatments but that hydroxychloroquine was not one of them. Mentions of all these phrases were almost nonexistent in the days leading up to Trump’s diagnosis.
There were newer conspiracy theories, too. The next most popular misinformation topic were allusions to the idea that Trump was faking the illness, of which there were 86,977. Conspiracy theories about a plot to kill the president — including claims that Trump was intentionally infected at the debate and that teams of “deep state” assassins had pursued the president — came next, with about 33,000 mentions. There were also 13,768 mentions about how masks don’t help to prevent transmission of the virus, which pointed to senators who were infected but had been seen wearing masks.
While Trump’s ongoing battle with Covid-19 is bound to fuel speculation about how and why the president got infected, the immediate surge of discussion about treating him with hydroxychloroquine shouldn’t come as a huge surprise. As early as March, some experts said the drug was an effective treatment for the disease, a claim that Trump promoted to his supporters for weeks. Trump’s doctors even said in early June — months before he tested positive for the coronavirus — that the president underwent a two-week course of hydroxychloroquine “safely and without side effects.” Less than two weeks later, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said that the drug was “unlikely to produce an antiviral effect.” Speculation about hydroxychloroquine has nevertheless continued on mainstream conservative media outlets like Breitbart, Fox News, and the Federalist.
“To be clear, because hydroxychloroquine got so much attention from the president, and was subsequently studied so heavily, it’s probably one of the things in the pandemic where the science is the most settled,” Kellie Owens, a health researcher at Data & Society, told Recode. “The most recent meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that I’ve seen showed no benefit to hydroxychloroquine, and suggests potential increases in mortality.”
As far as the public knows, Trump has not received hydroxychloroquine since he tested positive for the coronavirus. And why would he? It’s a potentially dangerous treatment.
Why hundreds of thousands of people would call for the president to receive the drug is not quite as simple, but the situation ultimately boils down to the amount of time and attention hydroxychloroquine has gotten in the press and on social media. Consider late July, when Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr. shared a video of Houston doctor Stella Immanuel claiming that hydroxychloroquine could help cure Covid-19 and that “you don’t need to wear a mask.” After being promoted by Breitbart and the Trumps, the video went viral in a matter of hours but was quickly discredited and removed from Facebook and Twitter for spreading false claims about Covid-19. Don Jr. actually got suspended from Twitter for sharing it, and Immanuel skyrocketed to social media stardom. Previously unknown, Immanuel now has nearly 200,000 Twitter followers. (Immanuel also says she’s under investigation by the Texas Medical Board.)
Now we know that thousands of people online continue to cling to the false hope that hydroxychloroquine cures Covid-19. On October 2, the day that Trump announced his positive test result, one of the most popular posts on Facebook, according to engagement data from the social media analytics firms CrownTangle and NewsWhip, highlights a tweet in which Immanuel offered to prescribe hydroxychloroquine to President Trump if his own doctors wouldn’t. The post had over 623,000 interactions.
Everyone in the White House get on HCQ twice a month. With daily vit C, D, and zinc. If your doctors will not prescribe it I will. I can see you via telehealth emergency licensed in DC. Use https://t.co/jTDgb5Et5p and I will hook you guys up. POTUS, FLOTUS don’t wait to get sick. — Stella Immanuel MD (@stella_immanuel) October 2, 2020
It’s hard to identify exactly why the hydroxychloroquine myth remains so popular. Some say early observational studies that suggested the drug had some benefit made some people believe the deadly pandemic could end with a miracle drug. Trump’s promotion of such a fantasy just expanded its reach.
“Often, you have to dig down to find a small grain of truth that can be used to promote that sort of misinformation narrative,” said John Gregory, a senior analyst at NewsGuard. He explained that the narrative about hydroxychloroquine as a cure had many months to take hold as it circulated through mainstream media sources and on social media.
“It became more ingrained in the audience that this was already a proven cure, and they’re going to reject the new evidence,” Gregory said.
Again, with this context in mind, it’s chilling to consider the long-term implications of Trump’s most recent statements about the Covid-19. Since being diagnosed and hospitalized with the disease, the president has said that Americans must “not be afraid of” the coronavirus or “let it dominate your lives.” He’s also continued to suggest, recklessly, that Covid-19 is less severe than the flu. These statements fuel a frightening and dangerous narrative about the pandemic that distrusts science and stands to shape the public’s response to a deadly pandemic.
And for now, due in part to Trump’s history of spreading misinformation, the hydroxychloroquine saga continues, even if the drug doesn’t work against Covid-19.


vox--2020-10-07--CRISPR has ignited a gene-editing revolution. These Nobel-winning women scientists were the spark.

Mushrooms that don ’ t brown .
A treatment for sickle-cell anemia .
Driving malaria-carrying mosquitoes to extinction .
Resurrecting the woolly mammoth .
Editing genes in human embryos to make them less susceptible to HIV .
These are just a handful of the possibilities of the versatile gene editing tool known as CRISPR that scientists have explored in the few years since its discovery .
On Wednesday , the 2020 Nobel Prize in chemistry was awarded to the pair of scientists who discovered the CRISPR gene-editing mechanism , also known as CRISPR/Cas9 .
It acts as a pair of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cuts and insertions in genomes , creating the possibilities of treating genetic maladies , as well as introducing new heritable traits into living organisms .
Emmanuelle Charpentier , director of the Max Planck Unit for the Science of Pathogens in Berlin , Germany , and Jennifer Doudna , a professor at the University of California , Berkeley , will split the $ 1.1 million prize evenly , marking the first time women scientists have been awarded the chemistry Nobel without a male collaborator .
“ This year ’ s prize is about rewriting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ K. Hansson , Secretary General of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said on Wednesday .
It ’ s hard to overstate the impact of Charpentier and Doudna ’ s discovery .
In 2011 , there were fewer than 100 published papers on CRISPR .
In 2020 , there were more than 35,000 .
Dozens of companies have sprung up to develop products from this technique , from therapies for genetic diseases to engineered crops .
Scientists have even developed a CRISPR-based test to detect SARS-CoV-2 , the virus that causes Covid-19 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ found in common bacteria .
The CRISPR/Cas9 technique has managed to simultaneously improve the precision and speed of genome editing , while also lowering the cost of this manipulation .
Despite all the progress to date , there may be many more discoveries built on this foundation that lie ahead .
With the Covid-19 pandemic raging around the world , Charpentier and Doudna will not be able to accept their prizes in person this year and will instead participate in a digital ceremony in December .
“ I can guarantee you that Doctors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the end of the year , and that they will be our guests of honor next time we can celebrate Nobel week with the traditional festivities here in Stockholm , ” Hansson said .
How CRISPR sequences and the Cas9 enzyme work to edit genomes The roots of the discovery date back to 1987 , when Japanese researchers looking at E. coli found a strange section of DNA in the bacteria .
There were short , repeating clusters of the DNA sequence that could be read in the same way forward and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these sequences Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats , or CRISPR , but the scientists at the time didn ’ t what purpose they served .
Then in 2007 , researchers studying the Streptococcus bacteria used to make yogurt discovered these sequences are part of how bacteria resist infections from viruses .
When a bacterium fights off a virus , it keeps a small section of the virus ’ genetic material as a souvenir , storing the information from the fragment in the spaces between CRISPR segments in its own genome .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bacteria produces an enzyme called Cas9 .
It uses the stored bits of viral genetic material in CRISPR spaces as sort of a mugshot .
When it identifies a matching strand , it cuts it into pieces .
This thwarts a virus from replicating .
In 2011 , Charpentier and Doudna figured out that they could replace the template that Cas9 uses to snip genetic material with a synthetic code of their choosing .
The enzyme then would search for a match to the new template and cut that out instead .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make cuts in a genome at any place they wanted .
The researchers published their findings in a 2012 paper in the journal Science .
The science of gene editing is advancing much faster than the ethics While genetic-editing techniques have been around for decades , the CRISPR/Cas9 system introduced a new level of precision .
It ’ s also fast and cheap , condensing genetic manipulation that previously took months and cost thousands of dollars into a system that can work in hours from a kit that you can buy online @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you don ’ t need anything else but water and a microwave , ” it advertises ) .
The potentially lucrative applications of CRISPR/Cas9 have fueled an ongoing patent dispute between a team at the Broad Institute led by Feng Zhang and Doudna ’ s team at Berkeley .
In 2013 , Zhang , showed in a paper in Science that CRISPR/Cas9 could be used to edit the genomes of cultured mouse cells or human cells .
The growing use of such a sophisticated genetic manipulation tool has also proven controversial , especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushed forward with using it in human embryos despite an international consensus that it was too soon ( outside of a serious medical need ) .
In 2018 , He Jiankui , a researcher in China , announced that he had already used CRISPR to edit the genomes of the embryos of a pair of twin girls , marking the first time human embryos have been genetically edited .
The story generated international outcry and calls for stricter regulations on using this kind of genetic manipulation .
He was later sentenced to three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forging ethics review documents and misleading the doctors involved about the nature of his experiment .
In a 2018 statement responding to He ’ s announcement , Doudna called for constraints on how CRISPR is used in humans .
“ The work as described to date reinforces the urgent need to confine the use of gene editing in human embryos to cases where a clear unmet medical need exists , and where no other medical approach is a viable option , as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences , ” she wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ September put out a report assessing the state of genetic manipulation and concluded that such techniques are still not ready for use in humans .
“ No attempt to establish a pregnancy with a human embryo that has undergone genome editing should proceed unless and until it has been clearly established that it is possible to efficiently and reliably make precise genomic changes without undesired changes in human embryos , ” according to the report .
“ These criteria have not yet been met and further research and review would be necessary to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 Nobel Prizes : • Andrea Ghez and Reinhard Genzel shared the Nobel Prize in physics for leading teams who made revolutionary observations of black holes .
• Harvey J .
Alter , Michael Houghton , and Charles M. Rice shared the Nobel Prize in medicine for discovering hepatitis C. Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Mushrooms that don’t brown. A treatment for sickle-cell anemia. Driving malaria-carrying mosquitoes to extinction. Resurrecting the woolly mammoth. Editing genes in human embryos to make them less susceptible to HIV. These are just a handful of the possibilities of the versatile gene editing tool known as CRISPR that scientists have explored in the few years since its discovery.
On Wednesday, the 2020 Nobel Prize in chemistry was awarded to the pair of scientists who discovered the CRISPR gene-editing mechanism, also known as CRISPR/Cas9. It acts as a pair of “genetic scissors” to precisely make cuts and insertions in genomes, creating the possibilities of treating genetic maladies, as well as introducing new heritable traits into living organisms.
Emmanuelle Charpentier, director of the Max Planck Unit for the Science of Pathogens in Berlin, Germany, and Jennifer Doudna, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, will split the $1.1 million prize evenly, marking the first time two women scientists have been awarded the chemistry Nobel without a male collaborator.
“This year’s prize is about rewriting the code of life,” Göran K. Hansson, Secretary General of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said on Wednesday.
It’s hard to overstate the impact of Charpentier and Doudna’s discovery. In 2011, there were fewer than 100 published papers on CRISPR. In 2020, there were more than 35,000. Dozens of companies have sprung up to develop products from this technique, from therapies for genetic diseases to engineered crops. Scientists have even developed a CRISPR-based test to detect SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19.
All this from an ancient defense mechanism found in common bacteria.
The CRISPR/Cas9 technique has managed to simultaneously improve the precision and speed of genome editing, while also lowering the cost of this manipulation. Despite all the progress to date, there may be many more discoveries built on this foundation that lie ahead.
With the Covid-19 pandemic raging around the world, Charpentier and Doudna will not be able to accept their prizes in person this year and will instead participate in a digital ceremony in December. “I can guarantee you that Doctors Charpentier and Doudna will receive their awards before the end of the year, and that they will be our guests of honor next time we can celebrate Nobel week with the traditional festivities here in Stockholm,” Hansson said.
How CRISPR sequences and the Cas9 enzyme work to edit genomes
The roots of the discovery date back to 1987, when Japanese researchers looking at E. coli found a strange section of DNA in the bacteria. There were short, repeating clusters of the DNA sequence that could be read in the same way forward and backward, forming palindromes.
They named these sequences Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, or CRISPR, but the scientists at the time didn’t know what purpose they served.
Then in 2007, researchers studying the Streptococcus bacteria used to make yogurt discovered these sequences are part of how bacteria resist infections from viruses.
When a bacterium fights off a virus, it keeps a small section of the virus’ genetic material as a souvenir, storing the information from the fragment in the spaces between CRISPR segments in its own genome.
If a similar virus attacks again, the bacteria produces an enzyme called Cas9. It uses the stored bits of viral genetic material in CRISPR spaces as sort of a mugshot. When it identifies a matching strand, it cuts it into pieces. This thwarts a virus from replicating.
In 2011, Charpentier and Doudna figured out that they could replace the template that Cas9 uses to snip genetic material with a synthetic code of their choosing. The enzyme then would search for a match to the new template and cut that out instead. This demonstrated that they could harness this mechanism to make cuts in a genome at any place they wanted.
The researchers published their findings in a 2012 paper in the journal Science.
The science of gene editing is advancing much faster than the ethics
While genetic-editing techniques have been around for decades, the CRISPR/Cas9 system introduced a new level of precision. It’s also fast and cheap, condensing genetic manipulation that previously took months and cost thousands of dollars into a system that can work in hours from a kit that you can buy online for less than $200 (“you don’t need anything else but water and a microwave,” it advertises).
The potentially lucrative applications of CRISPR/Cas9 have fueled an ongoing patent dispute between a team at the Broad Institute led by Feng Zhang and Doudna’s team at Berkeley. In 2013, Zhang, showed in a paper in Science that CRISPR/Cas9 could be used to edit the genomes of cultured mouse cells or human cells.
The growing use of such a sophisticated genetic manipulation tool has also proven controversial, especially as a small number of scientists have pushed forward with using it in human embryos despite an international consensus that it was too soon (outside of a serious medical need). In 2018, He Jiankui, a researcher in China, announced that he had already used CRISPR to edit the genomes of the embryos of a pair of twin girls, marking the first time human embryos have been genetically edited.
The story generated international outcry and calls for stricter regulations on using this kind of genetic manipulation. He was later sentenced to three years in prison by Chinese authorities for forging ethics review documents and misleading the doctors involved about the nature of his experiment.
In a 2018 statement responding to He’s announcement, Doudna called for constraints on how CRISPR is used in humans. “The work as described to date reinforces the urgent need to confine the use of gene editing in human embryos to cases where a clear unmet medical need exists, and where no other medical approach is a viable option, as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences,” she wrote.
The National Academy of Sciences in September put out a report assessing the state of genetic manipulation and concluded that such techniques are still not ready for use in humans.
“No attempt to establish a pregnancy with a human embryo that has undergone genome editing should proceed unless and until it has been clearly established that it is possible to efficiently and reliably make precise genomic changes without undesired changes in human embryos,” according to the report. “These criteria have not yet been met and further research and review would be necessary to meet them.”
Further reading about the 2020 Nobel Prizes: