# "The Hype Cycle for Chloroquine Is Eerily Familiar"

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-hype-cycle-for-chloroquine-is-eerily-familiar/10636>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Science, Communication\
**Created:** [May 4, 2020, 3:27pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-hype-cycle-for-chloroquine-is-eerily-familiar/10636 "2020-05-04T15:27:12Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![cwhenderson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/cwhenderson/32/72_2.png) [@cwhenderson](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/cwhenderson)\
**Post date:** [May 4, 2020, 3:27pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-hype-cycle-for-chloroquine-is-eerily-familiar/10636/1 "2020-05-04T15:27:13Z")

</div>

Is there a better way to weed out bad science from the literature?

> **[The Hype Cycle for Chloroquine Is Eerily Familiar](https://www.wired.com/story/the-hype-cycle-for-chloroquine-is-eerily-familiar/)**
>
> As with modern vaccine skepticism and the panic over cancer-causing power lines, the idea was hatched in a well-respected scientific journal.