COVID-19 Research integrity

Didier Raoult fraud: “Je ne regrette rien”

One year on: more fake data, financial fraud and illegal and falsified clinical trials by the chloroquine guru Didier Raoult.

Version française ici

Exactly one year ago, almost to the day, I published my first article about that French microbiologist, Didier Raoult. The director of the IHU Méditerranée Infection research hospital and almighty professor at the Aix Marseilles University postulated in March 2020 for the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to be the cure for COVID-19.

The initial clinical study Gautret et al IJAA 2020, and everything which followed from IHU on HCQ topic, has been debunked right when it appeared. Chloroquine and HCQ were shown to be utterly ineffective in all properly run COVID-19 clinical trials, hardly anyone speaks of that drug these days, the world moved on to new quackeries. Elisabeth Bik found lots of falsified research data in Raoult’s publications. Old reports about Raoult’s own bullying and the sexual harassment he condoned at IHU surfaced.

Now Bik found even more research fraud, while a French doctor, Christian Lehmann, exposed a gigantic criminal scam Raoult had been running in order to fabricate his clinical trials with HCQ. This is what my anniversary article is about.


Read more:

  1. Raoult’s chloroquine trial and history of bullying and data manipulation
  2. Raoult’s attacks on his critics
  3. Chloroquine explainer by C. Lehmann
  4. Chloroquine friendship between Raoult and Christian Perronne
  5. How the International Society for Microbial Chemotherapy (ISAC) became a Raoultian chloroquine cult
  6. Racism, antisemitism, misogyny and military fetish at IHU

The megalomaniac Raoult sees himself as a cross between General Charles De Gaulle and Edith Piaf. The Chloroquine-Druid with a military fetish awards his loyal footsoldiers with medals of war on COVID-19 and he published a book, titled “Covid-19 War Diaries”. Raoult also sings “I have no regrets”.

Le Figaro, February 2021

Why should he regret anything, the French far-right politicians are all on his side. Didou and his HCQ gang at IHU are untouchable, because it seems it’s not just the fascists in politics, medicine and academia who support them, but likely also the French military. All attempts to draw Raoult to responsibility for his blatantly illegal clinical trials (which even involved children) failed, because this is how France apparently works.

But recently, Raoult has been finally kicked where it hurt. It was not the French medical authorities or politicians or god-forbid, academics, who did something, no. Nothing is to be expected from those corners, they are scared of Raoult and the brown army behind him. The hero is Christian Lehmann, one of the handful of French doctors resisting the Chloroquine Druid cult, who also previously honoured my site with a guest post.

Lehmann published on 10 March 2021 an investigative scoop in Liberation. Raoult’s rabid bulldog, the misogynous antisemite and French army officer, Eric Chabriere, promptly announced on Twitter to have Lehman killed. It remains to be seen if this will go as unpunished as Chabriere’s other murder threats. What Lehmann uncovered is truly explosive.

In brief, Raoult staged an illegal clinical trial with actual patients to prove that chloroquine works, which was published on 20 March 2020 as Gautret et al IJAA 2020, in the ISAC journal whose chief editor is Raoult’s IHU subordinate. There, the Marseille Guru provided thousands of mildly ill outpatients with HCQ, while declaring them hospitalised, for which he financially defrauded the French health insurance system and the patients themselves. These patients, who never lay in a hospital bed, were then compared with severely ill hospitalised COVID-19 patients elsewhere in France and declared as cured by Raoult’s magic combo of chloroquine/HCQ and the antibiotic azithromycin, which was then published as “observational” clinical trials in Raoult’s own Elsevier journals. Only that those clinical trials, which involved children and were even explicitly denied an ethics approval, were not observational, but very much interventional, if not for anything else, then because Raoult intervened by staging them. This is how he did it:

Lehmann got the scoop from the former patients of Raoult’s IHU. One of them felt COVID-19 symptoms in March 2020 and went to IHU, where he was tested positive with the coronavirus. The next day the patient was provided with a treatment: HCQ and azithromycin. The patient returned three times to get a blood test, another PCR test, two electrocardiograms. Some months later, he received a bill, €1264 euros for each visit, around €3800 in total, roughly ten times more than this kind of outpatient treatment usually costs.

COVID-19 prescription by an IHU doctor, dated 9 September 2020 for HCQ, azithromycin and Zinc. Issued to an outpatient who likely was registered as hospitalised

Now, in Europe healthcare is public, 80% of these costs were covered by the national health insurance, the rest either by the additional private insurance of the patient, yet some patients may have paid the remaining 20% from their own pocket though. The money didn’t go to Raoult and IHU anyway, but to the regional public hospital network in Marseille. So why the charade then?

Simple: back in spring 2020, the French authorities only allowed HCQ treatment of hospitalised COVID-19 patients, a ministerial decree from March 2020 stipulated HCQ only “for severe hospitalised cases, by collegial decision of doctors and under strict medical supervision.” Prescribing it to outpatients to take at home unsupervised was explicitly illegal. This is why Raoult invented a system of “hospitalisations de jour”, where patients who spent no more than an hour at IHU, to get their quick tests and pick up the HCQ prescription, were declared as hospitalised with severe COVID-19.

On 27 May 2020, French rules changed according to new research data and it also became illegal to treat patients with HCQ even in the hospital setting. The law as always did not apply to Raoult and IHU, because yet another patient told Lehmann about being treated on outpatient basis at IHU with HCQ in October 2020, and receiving a bill for around €1200 for each visit.

With the help of a medical IT expert, Lehmann found online evidence that Raoult’s IHU had been billing outpatients for fake hospitalisations since the beginning of the pandemic. Every consultation was recorded as a short hospitalisation. In most of 2020, the Marseille region was much less affected by the pandemic compared to Paris and the north of France, yet it had 41% of France’s “hospitalisations de jour” for COVID-19.

It did not even go unnoticed. In May 2020, Dominique Martin, the director of National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (ANSM) arrived in Marseille to investigate Raoult’s activities. He wrote to the French medical authorities, the public health insurance services, and even the government that there seemed to be suspiciously many “hospitalisations de jour”:

In accordance with the decree of March 23, 2020 amended, applicable during the carrying out of these studies, and which reserved the use of hydroxychloroquine in hospital setting, Professor Raoult tells us that he hospitalized certain patients in hospitals on daily basis, which raises questions about the unjustified hospitalization costs associated with prescriptions.

It’s all in the Liberation article. But nothing happened so far, because of Raoult’s nationalist friends in high places. The Chloroquine Druid himself tweeted that it was all fake news anyway.

If this clinical trial with HCQ is not an intervention, what is? In any case, all data from that clinical trial is fabricated and obtained illegally, all possible rules were broken while money was massively embezzled. These are again the rules and laws Raoult broke:

  • Running a clinical trial without ethics approval, in fact against a negative ethics vote
  • Illegally prescribing HCQ to non-hospitalised COVID-19 patients
  • Falsifying hospital records
  • Defrauding health insurances and patients
  • Falsifying clinical research

Of course hydroxychloroquine was not the only COVID-19 drug IHU was peddling. Raoult’s rabid bulldog Chabriere had been touting ivermectin (and any other quack medicine he could think of, including homeopathy) for months, but surely they didn’t mean it seriously? They did.

Below is a highly illegal and likely also criminal ivermectin prescription issued by a doctor who used to be member of a secret Twitter chat group (called “CIA”) run by Chabriere and Raoult’s PR gnome Yanis Roussel (who also is behind Raoult’s Twitter account). That doctor, I was told, is Alexis Lacout, a Chronic Lyme Disease quack associate of Raoult’s new HCQ-peddling friend, Christian Perronne.

The information was revealed on Twitter by a former member of that chat group, @Acles__, who was also a recipient of that illegal prescription and whom Chabriere of course immediately threatened, also on Twitter. To be fair, neither Chabriere nor Roussel are medical doctors, but they are also totally devoted to Raoult who in turn is a control freak. It is likely, Raoult himself knew about the illegal ivermectin prescriptions and didn’t mind.

Raoult does not care about ethics vote or laws, but he is afraid of vaccines. A reliable source told me in January 2021 that the Guru previously announced in front of his IHU people not to get vaccinated against the coronavirus. In his pre-pandemic book on vaccines, Raoult decreed that DTP (diphtery, tetanus and polio) vaccines as unnessesary and measles vaccines are in his view “useless”.

Same source heard that Raoult recently claimed that chloroquine can even cure some forms of lymphoma, which is a cancer. Maybe Raoult is entering dementia?

And then of course, there was research fraud. One year after her first scoop and undeterred by constant threats against her from Chabriere and even Raoult himself, Elisabeth Bik had another look at Didou’s publication output. She found more fraud.

For starters, Raoult and his IHU subordinates (e.g., Eric Chabriere, Philippe Parola, HCQ evangelist on French TV and in charge of “conflicts of interests” at IHU, Philippe Gautret, first author of the HCQ studies, Jean-Marc Rolain, Editor-in-Chief of the ISAC journal those were published, Bernard Davoust, veterinary professor in the rank of army general) had been running various clinical studies with homeless people in the Marseille area. Microbiological swabs were taken from all possible bodily orifices. But was there an ethics approval? Bik noticed:

Surprisingly, the IRB approval number listed in this paper (2010-A01406-33) is used for at least 17 studies, including this one. Although all of them involve homeless persons recruited from Marseille shelters, the studies themselves vary in terms of study protocols and treatment/sample collection. The studies vary from collecting lice, treating subjects with drug-impregnated underwear, filling out questionnaires, medical exams, to nasal and pharyngeal sampling, skin swabbing, blood draw, rectal samples, sputum collection, and chest X rays. Moreover, the studies were performed from 2011 to 2020, spanning almost 10 years. […]

There is also confusion about which institution or ethical board approved the study. Some papers state that the study was approved by “our institutional review board”, suggesting that this was a number referring to IRB approval by the Aix-Marseille Université and/or Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection, both listed as author affiliations.

But in other papers, the IRB approval number appears to be an ANSM RCB authorization ID, as per “Informed consent was obtained from these subjects, and the study was approved by the ‘‘Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud Mediterranée’’ on January, 12, 2011 (ID RCB: 2010-A01406-33)“”

As I was informed, there is a simple yet sinister reason for this confusion. Until 2010, Raoult used to obtain his ethical approvals from the local Marseille office of ‘‘Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud Mediterranée’’, who (probably literally) had been licking his rectal orifice. But in 2010, a new law in France stipulated that ethics approvals for clinical studies must be obtained externally, from a randomly assigned Comité in France. So what did Raoult do? Starting from 2010, he simply used that same old 2010-A01406-33 ethics approval for all new clinical trials. The crook never had any real ethics approval for all these many studies he did with the homeless people, for a decade!

Is this illegal? Yes. Can one go to jail for it? Yes. Does this apply to Didier Raoult? No, of course not, this is France after all.

At some point, Raoult stopped giving a flying toss about pretending to apply for ethics approvals. He became his own authority.

This paper, was published in another Raoult-controlled Elsevier journal where the last author Gautret is associate editor.

Thi Loi Dao, Van Thuan Hoang, Tran Duc Anh Ly, Amal Magmoun, Naomie Canard, Tassadit Drali, Florence Fenollar, Laetitia Ninove, Didier Raoult, Philippe Parola, Johan Courjon, Philippe Gautret Infectious disease symptoms and microbial carriage among French medical students travelling abroad: A prospective study Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease (2020) doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2019.101548

This is the study’s description:

A monocentric prospective cohort survey was conducted between June and August 2018 among medical students from the Faculty of Medicine of Aix Marseille University, France, who were planning to undertake an internship abroad during the summer months. Recruitment was done on a voluntary basis, during their vaccination and pre-travel consultation at the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranéee Infection,which is on the Marseille University medical campus. Participants were asked to sign a written informed consent form…

The students had to provide microbiology swabs from all orifices, vagina and rectum included. The ethics statement goes:

The protocol was approved by our Institutional Review Board (2019–006). It was performed in accordance with the good clinical practices recommended by the Declaration of Helsinki and its amendments. All participants gave a written informed consent.

Translation: there never was any proper ethics approval, the trial is simply illegal. And even if Raoult calls his student participants volunteers, it strongly smells of power abuse and even coercion. No wonder Marseille students hate Professor Raoult.

Maybe it kind of makes sense that the relevant French ethics forum La Conférence Nationale des Comités de Protection des Personnes published in February 2021 a position paper denouncing the illegality of using children for clinical trials with HCQ without an ethics approval. Raoult was however never mentioned in the entire 3 page letter. They are all still afraid of him.

After all that, Raoult’s image fakeries seem like poppycock. And yet, Elisabeth Bik persisted.

At one point, Raoult and his IHU colleagues nicked a picture off Wikipedia, re-arranged it, and then passed it off as different things, twice. It was published in Frontiers, which kind of fits.

Kalliopi Georgiades, Didier Raoult Defining pathogenic bacterial species in the genomic era Frontiers in Microbiology (2011) doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2010.00151

Bik: “Boxes of the same color focus attention on API tests that appear to look similar within the same test strip or across the two test strips. Of note, all bottom test wells appear to have been derived from the top strip. In one case – the bottom TDA test – some blurring appears to have been applied.

Then one Bik-follower (@Sgrol) noticed that the original image came from Wikipedia, uploaded in 2007. Here it is, the E. coli API test Raoult used 1:1 as Figure 5A(i):

Even assuming the Wikipedia user Philippinjl was one of the two paper’s authors or an IHU technician, which might have justified the recycling of the top panel unacknowledged, the second row of the figure (5A(ii)) is the same as 5A(i) but re-arranged, digitally falsified and passed off as a dysentery bacteria test. That is outright research fraud, plus possible plagiarism.

Update 24.03.2021. The original author of the Wikipedia image, Jean-Louis Philippin, contacted Bik via Twitter. He confirmed the misappropriation and declared he never had any collaboration with IHU. Georgiades and Raoult stole his work.

Now have a look at this book chapter Raoult contributed just last year.

Pierre-Edouard Fournier, Didier Raoult Tick-Borne Spotted Fever Rickettsioses Hunter’s Tropical Medicine and Emerging Infectious Diseases (2020) doi: 10.1016/b978-0-323-55512-8.00069-7 

Bik: “Red boxes: The high MW bands in the RHEL lanes in blots A and C appear to look very similar. Looking at the marker lanes, these appear to be different blots, so this might not be explainable by e.g. stripping and reprobing.

This is also outright fraud. What looks like pictures of strips of blotting membrane, are actually Photoshop fakeries. In a new textbook for the students of infectious diseases.

Another Bik find:

E. Botelho-Nevers, F. Gouriet, H. Lepidi, A. Couvret, B. Amphoux, P. Dessi, D. Raoult Chronic nasal infection caused by Klebsiella rhinoscleromatis or Klebsiella ozaenae: two forgotten infectious diseases International journal of infectious diseases (2007) doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2006.10.005

Bik: “Red boxes: Panels b (cross adsorption with K. ozaenae) and c (cross adsorption with K. pneumoniae) look remarkably similar, albeit shown in a different aspect ratio.

Raoult never gave a toss about what he publishes, the fabricated garbage only had to be sufficiently paper-shaped. Thanks to his system of editorial networks and peer review rings, the academic equivalent to mutual masturbation, anything that Druid of Fraud submitted to certain “peer reviewed” journals got published not just unchecked, but apparently even unread. Like this, the oldest Raoult paper Bik exposed so far:

Didier Raoult, J. C. Laurent, M. Mutillod Monoclonal antibodies to Coxiella burnetii for antigenic detection in cell cultures and in paraffin-embedded tissues American Journal of Clinical Pathology (1994) doi: 10.1093/ajcp/101.3.318

Bik: “Figure 1 and Figure 2 look remarkably similar. Based on the legends, Figure 2 maybe should have shown something else. Could the authors please check?
They might also want to check the spelling of the affiliated city, “Marrseille”.

Another old paper shows how data falsification happened at IHU aven before Photoshop. In this paper, figures were faked by the old glue-scissors-paper method.

W Xu , D Raoult Production of monoclonal antibodies against Rickettsia massiliae and their use in antigenic and epidemiological studies Journal of Clinical Microbiology (1997) doi: 10.1128/jcm.35.7.1715-1721.1997

Bik: “Figure 4 shows five panels that each represent different blots, incubated with different monoclonals.

One sees the splicing edges, because apparently gel images were printed out, and assembled with scissors and glue the photographed again as “new” results and labelled in the final figure as different antibody stainings. Maybe in those days, it was Raoult himself who did the creative job?

Even Bik cannot catch everything. In his long career of scientific bullshittery, Raoult published 3,000 of papers via his private journal system. Some of his coauthored studies may be actually good, because IHU is a big place where good people may have once productively worked before they were bullied, harassed, abused sexually and racially, and finally chased out, while the IHU director Raoult put his name on everything coming out of his institute. Also, research fraudsters are very good in stealing, this is what makes some of their work reproducible. But it seems the bulk of Raoult’s studies is either garbage, fraud or recycling of old stuff which is likely also fraudulent. Like this, reusing the exact figure from an earlier paper Angelakis et al Plos One 2012:

Carole Eldin, Emmanouil Angelakis, Aurélie Renvoisé, Didier Raoult Coxiella burnetii DNA, but not viable bacteria, in dairy products in France American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (2013) doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.12-0212

The above was flagged by a Twitter user and posted on PubPeer by François-Xavier Coudert. The identical figures refer to very different infectious bacteria, Coxiella in 2013 and Rickettsia in 2012 (one of these, Rickettsia raoultii, was indeed named after you know whom). The 2012 paper has 5 authors, only Raoult and Emmanouil Angelakis are the common authors between the two publications. This constitutes both research fraud and plagiarism.

Here more Raoult shenanigans found by Bik which I already added as update to my old article.

Patricia Renesto, Pierre Dehoux, Edith Gouin, Lhousseine Touqui, Pascale Cossart, Didier Raoult Identification and Characterization of a Phospholipase D–Superfamily Gene in Rickettsiae The Journal of Infectious Diseases (2003) doi: 10.1086/379080

Do you see those recycled gel bands and lane fragments, copy-pasted to mask some undesired antibody signal? This is research fraud. Here by same first and last authors:

P Renesto, J Gouvernet, M Drancourt, V Roux, D Raoult Use of rpoB gene analysis for detection and identification of Bartonella species Journal of Clinical Microbiology (2001) doi: 10.1128/jcm.39.2.430-437.2001

Boxes of the same color show areas (some including bands) that look more similar to each other than expected.

And finally, this one:

Jérôme Dellacasagrande, Eric Ghigo, Sarah Machergui-El, Hammami, Rudolf Toman, Didier Raoult, Christian Capo, Jean-Louis Mege alpha(v)beta(3) integrin and bacterial lipopolysaccharide are involved in Coxiella burnetii-stimulated production of tumor necrosis factor by human monocytes Infection and Immunity (2000) doi: 10.1128/iai.68.10.5673-5678.2000

“Similar to what

The first author Jerome Dellacasagrande explained on PubPeer that all concerns were misguided. Even if one can clearly see splice edges where paper printouts of gel bands were glued together. Worth noting that the last author Jean-Louis Mège is in charge of research ethics and “moral” at IHU.

And now, a very interesting case of data manipulation, the last author is Bernard La Scola who is in charge of student affairs and teaching at IHU (basically, the one who deals with student complaints).

Yuefei Yu, Malgorzata Kowalczewska, Philippe Decloquement, Claude Nappez, Bernard La Scola Production of monoclonal antibodies to Tropheryma whipplei and identification of recognized epitopes by two-dimensional electrophoresis and mass spectrometry Journal of Clinical Microbiology (2006) doi: 10.1128/jcm.01714-06

Bik: “The legend states the 2 monoclonals recognized the same spot, but the blots also look similar to each other.”
Bik: “Surprisingly, one of the author names has been removed some time between the acceptance of the paper and the final publication.”

How come Raoult’s name fell off between the accepted manuscript and the published paper? I think I can explain.

In that same year 2006, the publisher of that journal, the American Society for Microbiology (ASM), caught Raoult and his 4 IHU coauthors on data fakery and banned them all for one year from publishing in all of ASM journals (details here and here). Which meant an already accepted paper by Raoult would have to be withdrawn, which was avoided by removing him from the authors list. Stupid for ASM now that this Yu et al 2006 paper also proved to contain manipulated data.

Chabriere reacted by claiming that Bik has been extorting IHU for money. He is lying of course, it is all part of his and Raoult’s game to raise a violent neo-Nazi mob to attack their critics.

At which point will it be enough?

Update 27.03.2021

More illegal clinical studies, here Castelli et al Insights into Imaging 2020, which Raoult and his Marseille colleagues retrospectively approved locally, breaching all French laws:

This is so disrespectful from Hoya camphorifolia, especially since the last author Michel Drancourt is Raoult’s Adjunct Director at IHU:

Toïdi Adïkambi, Skandar Ben Salah, Mohamed Khlif, Didier Raoult, Michel Drancourt Survival of environmental mycobacteria in Acanthamoeba polyphaga Applied and Environmental Microbiology (2006) doi: 10.1128/aem.03075-05 

Bik: “Figure 4C *Areas in the same photo look more similar than expected
Bik: “The experiments in the two papers appear slightly different.
Hoya c: “Amoeba C is a regular guest on Fox News.”

I forgot to mention that the president of IHU’s scientific council is Laurence Zitvogel, wife of Raoult’s personal friend, Guido Kroemer– the man whom I believe to be the center of data fudgery universe. Both Zitvogel and Kroemer have many papers on PubPeer with falsified data (17 and 67 respectively, 10 of these together).


Donate!

If you are interested to support my work, you can leave here a small tip of $5. Or several of small tips, just increase the amount as you like (2x=€10; 5x=€25). Imagine you are IHU and I am extorting money from you.

€5.00

31 comments on “Didier Raoult fraud: “Je ne regrette rien”

  1. Martha Bay

    ” It was published in Frontiers, which kind of fits.”

    Thanks for bringing some good humour into this tragedy of science 🙂

    Like

  2. I contacted you a few months ago to discuss frauds during covid19 crisis and lies by “experts” (on the modelling side, which you seemed not to know well), but I was not expecting that you would fall in all silly obsession of low level agressive haters .. (Lehmann is obsessive, very despiteful, and tells mostly his point of view, rather than “truth”). This is extra-ordinary disappointing to see that you do not check seriously your data and have not seriously followed international studies on topics you write about. Very very disappointing. Regards.

    Like

  3. Pingback: Tutto in pubblico - Ocasapiens - Blog - Repubblica.it

  4. Another unethical clinical trial. Raoult now declared himself King of Marseille and established his own medical ethics council at IHU. Following the proclamation of independence, French laws ceased to apply.

    Maxime Castelli, Arnaud Maurin, Axel Bartoli, Michael Dassa, Baptiste Marchi, Julie Finance, Jean-Christophe Lagier, Matthieu Million, Philippe Parola, Philippe Brouqui, Didier Raoult, Sebastien Cortaredona, Alexis Jacquier, Jean-Yves Gaubert; Paul Habert , Prevalence and risk factors for lung involvement on low-dose chest CT (LDCT) in a paucisymptomatic population of 247 patients affected by COVID-19, Insights into Imaging (2020)
    doi: https://insightsimaging.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13244-020-00939-7

    This was a single-centre prospective study conducted from the 18th to the 30th of March 2020. [..]The protocol was approved by the local institutional review board.
    Ethics statement:
    IRB approval was obtained for the study from “comité d’éthique méditéranée infection 2020 0002 the 01/04/2020”.

    The study was approved retrospectively, and by Raoult’s own private ethics committee at IHU, a body is not only illegal but which probably doesn’t even exist anyway.

    Like

  5. Jacob Friedman

    His study is nearly useless anyway.
    It isn’t the HCQ that halts the virus’ replication.

    It’s the simple (and very inexpensive) Zinc.
    HCQ is just an ionophore that behaves as the delivery system. (Zinc alone does not adequately penetrate the infected cells.)

    Zinc was not included in this trial/study.
    So Dr. Raoult, and his detractors, either way, prove nothing.

    There are plenty of studies online that demonstrates that the combo of HCQ and Zinc is astonishingly effective in preventing hospitalizations and death.

    However, the HCQ+Zinc therapy (with proper doses, as advised by N.Y’s Dr, Zelenko) must begin to be administered within the first 5 days of symptoms.
    Seven days at the most.
    After that, it’s efficacy diminishes day-by-day.

    Furthermore, the foolish French establishment only allowed Hydroxychloroquine studies in a “Hospital setting”.
    Which is typically considerably later than the 7th day.

    Therefore, in conclusion, Dr. Raoult’s study, and this article, is basically a saga of ‘The blind, chasing the blind’.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Wrong, Jacob.
      It’s not HCQ which delivers Zinc, and not even ivermectin.
      It’s Oleandrin. You are one of the blind led by the blind, but I see the light.
      Dr Carson is a medical doctor, a genius one. And he says oleadrin saved his life.
      https://www.forbes.com/sites/elanagross/2020/11/19/ben-carson-says-he-took-oleandrin-an-fda-rejected-supplement-touted-by-mypillow-founder-as-coronavirus-treatment/
      Oleandrin works. You all oppose it because it’s so cheap and available, even straight from the plant, without prescription in a gardening center.

      Like

      • Jacob Friedman

        Sir,
        I cannot be opposed to Oleandrin.
        I had/have no knowledge or information regarding Oleandrin, therefore no opinion.

        However, if Oleandrin is indeed effective, that does not contradict, in any way, the peer-reviewed studies (and my own personal experience) vis-a-vis HCQ+Zinc.

        Footnote:
        I do suspect you may also be correct about many influential people “…oppose it because it’s so cheap and available”.

        That theory also applies quite rationally to HCQ+Zinc.

        Incidentally, I paid 20 US dollars for 10 tablets of Hydroxy.
        And 5 Zinc tablets (220mg) cost a fraction of that amount.

        Like

      • I think the sarcasm went unnoticed 😉

        Liked by 1 person

      • I’m guessing your post was tongue-in-cheek, but it could inspire a weak minded person to go to their local gardening center for a cure (i.e. fish tank cleaner):
        “Nerium oleander is a highly toxic plant from the Apocynaceae family. Though renowned for its beauty and use in landscaping, this Mediterranean shrub is responsible for cases of accidental poisoning across the globe. All parts of the plant are poisonous. If eaten, it causes cardiac arrhythmias, or irregular heart rates, and can be lethal to both humans and animals.
        Oleandrin is the chemical that causes the plant’s lethal toxicity. It is known by scientists as a cardiac glycoside, a class of organic compounds with a common feature: They exhibit powerful effects on heart tissue, often with deadly consequences.”
        https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/oleandrin-is-a-deadly-plant-poison-not-a-covid-19-cure

        I don’t know how/if the pillow man rendered it safe in the laboratory, but fresh out of a garden center would not be advisable.

        Like

      • Where do you get that HCQ has no effect in the assimilation of Zinc? Can you give a paper on that point?

        Like

  6. HCQ is a zinc ionophore, just as are quercetin and ECGC. They are all cheap enough to not need to bother going to a garden center. At $.34 per pill HCQ won’t likely break most people’s bank accounts. Regarding HCQs efficacy I don’t likely need to post the video of Dr. Brian Tyson again, who treated 1900 elderly and high-risk patients with HCQ, with 0 deaths and only one hospitalization of 4 days.
    You rail against Raoult as if he is the only guy who used HCQ when thousands of doctors (tens of thousands?) around the world have treated, I’m going to guess by now millions of patients with it. It has excellent efficacy when administered immediately upon the presentation of symptoms or clinical suspicion of covid-19 (without waiting for the results of a ridiculously inaccurate PCR test). Besides the testimonies of doctors that have been in the trenches, that have been using it since the beginning of the pandemic with at or near 100% success, studies confirm its efficacy in EARLY outpatient treatment:

    There are 219 trials listed at this site. Any done on HCQ outside of the outpatient setting are largely irrelevant, unless it was administered immediately upon admittance to the hospital of subjects with mild to moderate symptoms, because antivirals become ineffective since the virus stops replicating fairly early as the body goes into an inflammatory reaction to dead viral debris.https://c19study.com/#early

    Countries that treated early with HCQ have about a 75% lower death rate than countries that have limited or late use like the U.S., Mexico, France and the U.K.https://hcqtrial.com/

    However Ivermectin seems to hold more promise since demonstrates efficacy throughout all stages of the disease than HCQ, but as with any response to a virus, the earlier the better. Even Tamiflu says it is for use within the first 2 days of symptoms.https://c19ivermectin.com/

    The NIH’s answer to treatment a year into the “pandemic”? Do nothing until you turn blue and have to go on oxygen and languish in the hospital until you drown in your own body fluids with an IV of Remdesivir stuck in your arm.https://www.covid-19forum.org/index.php?topic=390.0

    But then the illness industry in the U.S. does profit to the tune of an average of $73,300 per COVID patient, so it’s no wonder Fauci’s advice is to “go home and isolate”, until a person has to be hospitalized. Half a million Americans and millions of people around the world died completely unnecessary and horrific deaths, almost all of whom could have been saved with early treatment. Indeed a person would be hard pressed to bring me a single example of a person that was treated within the first few days of symptoms with the increasingly popular protocols, that didn’t make a full recover. And the misery I mentioned includes some long haulers that will perhaps have a lifetime of discomfort and doctor visits.

    Like

    • Smut Clyde

      “Countries that treated early with HCQ have about a 75% lower death rate than countries that have limited or late use”

      Brazil and India, for instance.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Smut Clyde

      I feel compelled to point out that most of the links in Brian’s comment were set up in the middle of last year by the same anonymous person or persons, to create an impression of independent support. Brian’s pretense that this sockpuppetry represents some sort of groundswell is not good-faith commentary.

      As well as hcqtrial.com and c19study and c19ivermectin.com, the same person or persons also set up c19ly.com, c19hcq.com, c19stat.com, hcqmeta.com and a few others to get their message out without fear of encountering counter-arguments. If I may plagiarise someone else’s comment:

      This family of websites – including c19study.com, c19hcq.com, hcqmeta.com, and hcqtrial.com – is odd on many levels. For one, why have an entire family of websites run by the same person/people to say basically the same thing?

      Version 1.0 of hcqtrial.com (available on Internet Archive at https://web.archive.org/web/20200805140535/https://hcqtrial.com/) purported to conduct a “country-randomized clinical trial.” Needless to say no such thing exists, much less one where country data was being derived from – among other sources – Twitter posts. Subsequent versions walked back that claim.

      The websites are all anonymous, claiming to be published by “PhD scientists” who are published “in journals like Science and Nature,” but who can’t say their names because of some vast conspiracy against hydroxychloroquine. Oh. All righty, then!

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Hi Mr. Schneider,

    Thanks for this article.
    I would like to get some clarification on the military support M. Raoult (“it’s not just the fascists in politics, medicine and academia who support them, but likely also the French military”). Could you point me some references where i can get more info?
    Also concerning the medical authorities, it is worth precising that there are disputes and legal actions denouncing M. Raoult going on.

    Regards

    Jeffrey

    Like

  8. Pingback: Tutto in pubblico – ocasapiens

  9. Pingback: Die with a smile: antidepressants against COVID-19 – For Better Science

  10. Pingback: Didier Raoult s’est-il rempli les poches? | goudaille

  11. Holy crumbles how darest thou utter :
    “The hero is Christian Lehmann, one of the handful of French doctors resisting the Chloroquine Druid cult,”
    Handful ?
    A clear overwhelming hospital bases docs (I don’t know for my private practice colleagues) were appalled by the hydro-thing “not even a study”

    Like

  12. Pingback: Prof Jean Busquet’s Sauerkraut Therapy – For Better Science

  13. Pingback: Contro il metodo – ocasapiens

  14. Pingback: Remember Charles-Henri Lecellier? – For Better Science

  15. Paolo Pagliaro

    Doctor Raoult is among the most respected scientist in the field in the world. He was threatened for this research, as you can check easily, by a man exceedingly linked with the pharma company Gilead. The Lancet published a dismal article against HCQ, which was then grotesquely retired when asked for the data source, without giving any plausible explanation or apology (only a vague “we had problem with the data source”) – as dishonest people and groups do.
    Roult is very credible, you are only politically motivated.

    Like

  16. Pingback: Dirty Old Man harasses Elisabeth Bik – For Better Science

  17. Pingback: L'idrossiclorochina non ha funzionato | Biologi per la Scienza

  18. You are full of Shiite nobody will believe your trashy puky rant, just tell us how much you got from big pharma to write this trash? One of your sources, mme Bik ( is she a sister of yours?) trashy “work” has been completely debunked, so pack your bags and let the people finally be treated by the doctors who care, you are certainly not one of them!

    Like

  19. Pingback: Ivermectin now against COVID-19, because – For Better Science

Leave a Reply to jeffreyajJeffrey Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: