What exactly was it about Alexander's line of questioning that was inappropriate or rude?
First of all, here's a link to the full transcript for the press conference.
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-coronavirus-task-force-march-20-press-conference-transcript-trump-spars-with-reporters-in-fiery-briefingThis was a second question by Peter Alexander and followed up on a clear response to effectively the same question by the prior reporter, not to mention multiple references in the prepared remarks.
To Dr. Fauci, if I could? Dr. Fauci, as was explained yesterday, there has been some promise with hydroxychloroquine as potential therapy for people who are infected with coronavirus. Is there any evidence to suggest that, as with malaria, it might be used as a prophylaxis against COVID-19?
To which Fauci, responded:
No. The answer is no. The evidence that you’re talking about is anecdotal evidence. As the commissioner of FDA and the president mentioned yesterday, we’re trying to strike a balance between making something with a potential of an effect to the American people available at the same time that we do it under the auspices of a protocol that would give us information to determine if it’s truly safe and truly effective. But, the information that you’re referring to specifically is anecdotal. It was not done in a controlled clinical trial, so you really can’t make any definitive statement about it.
Now, by anecdotal, it seems all he means is that anything that is not a double blind clinical trial is anecdotal. Not sure if you've ever solved a problem in real life, but I'm pretty sure you've been able to figure out solutions without running double blind clinical trials. If any study of scale shows improvement at the rate of the French results on the combination.
And then Trump clarifies his position on exactly this issue:
I think, without seeing too much, I’m probably more of a fan of that, maybe, than anybody. I’m a big fan, and we’ll see what happens. We all understand what the doctor said is 100% correct. It’s early, but I’ve seen things that are impressive. We’ll see. We’re going to know soon. We’re going to know soon. Including safety. When you get that safety, this has been prescribed for many years for people to combat malaria, which was a big problem, and it’s very effective. It’s a strong drug.
And there's nothing there that's incorrect. Trump said that the doctors are right, but that he's hopeful. I think anyone rational is hopeful based on the "anecdotal" results, and given the proven history of the drug (it's literally been used for decades and the side effects are "well understood"), and the urgency of the health need expediting a trial - even if not double blind makes a lot of sense.
I mean honestly, per the FDA guidelines there "in no approved treatment" for an illness with a high fatality rate, how does that not justify running with the promising yet "anecdotal" results?
Then they continue, Faucci and Trump walking through exactly why it's "anecdotal" (i.e., not done in a clinical trial).
So then Peter gets his first question, which you'll note is already combative:
About the possible therapies, yesterday, Mr. President, you said that they were for “immediate delivery”. Immediate. We heard from..
To which the President gives a clear response about the orders and concludes with this: "We’ll see how it works out. I’m not saying it will, but I think that people may be surprised. By the way, that would be a game changer. We’re going to know very soon. We have ordered millions of units. It’s being ordered from Bayer, and there is another couple of companies also that do it"
Then we get this, from Peter:
For clarity, Dr. Fauci said there is no magic drug for coronavirus right now, which you would agree. I guess on this issue...
Which is a poor characterization of what Fauci said. All Fauci said is that the results are anecdotal and not the result of a double blind study, ergo he doesn't want to tout them too highly. He never gave any opinion on whether substantively the cocktail will work.
Peter did this characterization specifically to demean the solution and to force a reponse that either affirms a "magic drug" or that can be used to claim that Trump and Fauci disagree.
Trump handled that pretty well, "I think we only disagree a little bit. *** I disagree. Maybe and maybe not. Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t. We have to see. We’re going to known soon."
So what does Peter do? Tries again to build in an insult and DNC talking point into the question:
Is it possible that your impulse to put a positive spin on things may be giving Americans a false sense of hope and misrepresenting our preparedness right now?
That question is NOT AT ALL RESPONSIVE to what Trump actually said, which was in fact measured but hopeful and builds in multiple insults. Your "impulse" - ie you are impulsive and don't think things through, a common DNC talking point; "positive spin" - in context you're lying or overselling the results - not the case, the results are what they are notwithstanding the lack of an 18 month double blind study; "false sense of hope" - you're lying to Americans (even though he's literally not); "misrepresenting our preparedness" - DNC meme and a lie that America is not prepared - we were in fact rated most prepared country for a crisis of this nature in a recent study, and Trump's been very active in containment and actions (including those that Biden and the DNC claimed were "racist" even though they were the right call).
So yeah, Peter Alexander's questions were intended to be insults and phrased as insults, and if you watch them live you can pick it up even more from the tone.
