The chloroquine quack, patient abuser, publisher of fake science and IHU Marseille sect guru Didier Raoult reported the image integrity sleuth Elisabeth Bik to the French state prosecutor, on phony charges of harassment and extortion. Psychologists call such behaviour “projection”. Raoult did this together with his IHU colleague Eric Chabriere, captain of French Army, antisemite and Twitter troll who loves issuing threats of violence.
Tweeting their criminal complaint was probably by far the stupidest act Chabriere ever committed (and the professor is not very smart to start with), without the secrecy their whole cunning plan to silence Bik went tits up. Right away, the scientific community and media, French and international, came to Bik’s defence, and Raoult seems to become a national liability. So the desperate chloroquine druid now openly threatens Bik with violence.
This was Chabriere’s tweet, the other person he and Raoult reported to state prosecutor was PubPeer co-founder and CNRS researcher Boris Barbour (for hosting Bik’s comments on PubPeer):
Various media reported, starting with Le Monde who even quoted IHU’s lawyer, Brice Grazzini. The French newspaper also mentioned that the Marseille prosecutor refused investigating Raoult for the illegal human experiments at IHU, because this is how well connected Raoult is. Maybe the corrupt prosecutor would have charged Bik with harassment and extortion instead, had Chabriere kept his trap shut. But now things truly exploded. The Guardian was next to report Raoult’s legal attack on Bik, even Nature and Science covered the affair. An Open Letter in support of Bik drew thousands of signatures by now:
Bik meanwhile continues exposing Raoult’s and Chabriere’s fake and unethical science, visit her blog for the whole gallery of fraud. The threats escalate. Many people claim to have solid evidence that this Twitter profile @LeProfessionne9, inciting violence against Bik and others, belongs to Chabriere:
Chabriere’s university thinks it’s funny. And so does the French army, which finances IHU.
Now even France’s Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS) issued a statement:
Courts are not laboratories
June 07, 2021
“The CNRS has learned with dismay in the press of the complaint allegedly filed by the IHU in Marseille against Elisabeth Bik, and Boris Barbour, a researcher at the CNRS, as manager of the PubPeer site.
The CNRS has always expressed the greatest reservations about the fact that PubPeer can publish anonymous reviews of scientific articles, and thus contributes to the abuses of certain social networks in which anonymous insult and accusation have become commonplace. The CNRS has made the fight against scientific fraud one of its battles, by creating the mission for scientific integrity. However, it does not accept anonymous accusations, while guaranteeing complete confidentiality to their perpetrators.
However, the CNRS cannot come to terms with the judicialization of criticism and scientific controversy, which are essential when they are constructive and well-argued. They are, and must remain, one of the fundamental principles of research. They are essential for the advancement of knowledge.
This judicialization can only lead to harmful drifts to the scientific approach. It can only refer to the lawsuit brought against Galileo when he dared to claim that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and not the other way around. The health crisis has reminded everyone how much we need science, as we need it to deal with issues of global warming, energy transition or loss of biodiversity. It would be tragic to suggest that scientific truth could be decided in the courts, or on television sets.
Scientific validation must remain above all based on that of peers. This is the current practice at the international level, and it is imperative. A courtroom is not a laboratory.”
Translated, it means CNRS never liked Bik and PubPeer (especially since it was Bik who posted on PubPeer some of the evidence against CNRS’ former chief biologist Catherine Jessus. But CNRS now dislikes Raoult even more, which means a lot.
Also, it is not entirely clear why CNRS seems to accuse Bik of commenting on PubPeer anonymously, she always signs her comments. But then, again, CNRS has an unhealthy fetish with anonymity. Its president Antoine Petit once considered to deploy secret intelligence technology to reveal the PubPeer users’ identities, while the CNRS report which whitewashed Jessus in full, while denouncing “slanderous bloggers“, was anonymous. It was then criticised by 10 anonymous French scientists, and CNRS went berserk demanding their heads on a platter. When a Le Monde journalist found out who actually wrote the Jessus report (her close associate Francis-Andre Wollman assisted by… Jessus herself), CNRS started a signature campaign to have the journalist sacked.
Extra irony: Raoult himself attacked Jessus in this blog article from 2018, protesting against her data manipulations. Prior to that, CNRS withdrew its funding of IHU due to Raoult’s bullying and the sexual harassment he allowed to happen. Even if the research misconduct affair of Petit’s predecessor Anne Peyroche made CNRS hate PubPeer and its commenters even more, especially nowadays CNRS seems to hate Raoult even more.
Btw, Galileo was put on trial for insulting the Pope and the church censorship, not for discussing heliocentricity as such (read Thony Christie’s blog in this regard). This is how versed CNRS is in basic facts of science and history.
While CNRS leadership is still undecided whom they hate more, CNRS’ own Office for Research Integrity (COMETS) issued its own statement in defence of Bik and PubPeer:
Statement by COMETS on the complaint filed by Professors Didier Raoult and Éric Chabrière against Elisabeth Bik and Boris Barbour
At the initiative of Professor Didier Raoult and his colleague, Professor Éric Chabrière, legal proceedings were opened against two scientists, Elisabeth Bik and Boris Barbour, for harassment. Let us clarify the facts: a microbiologist by training, specialist in vaccines and microbiomes, Elisabeth Bik has been tracking down misconduct in scientific research for several years. As such, she noted anomalies (in particular duplicated images) and raised questions about the methodology used in several publications signed by Didier Raoult and his colleagues; she then submitted them, transparently, to the PubPeer online discussion forum for scientific papers. The administrator of PubPeer, himself CNRS research director, Boris Barbour, is accused of complicity in having relayed these questions, by hosting them on his site.
Scientific articles made public are intended to transmit research results and be the subject of discussion in the research community; it is thus, by accumulating and questioning scientific results that science has always progressed and continues to do so. As long as they are based on hard factual data, discussing hypotheses and challenging evidence procedures are part of the normal activity of researchers. By asking Didier Raoult and Éric Chabrière to report on the articles they wrote, Elisabeth Bik and Boris Barbour are just doing their job. Controversy is indeed a matter of scientific activity, as long as it obeys the rules of intellectual debate and is based on objectifiable facts.
The complaint filed by Didier Raoult and Éric Chabrière follows a number of threats they (or their supporters) have launched on social networks. These processes are unacceptable strategies of intimidation. COMETS would like to express its concern over such practices, which should be strongly condemned.
Beyond that, COMETS deplores the progressive judicialization of questions of integrity in research, which above all fall under scientific expertise and authority.
“Treatment with [hydroxychloroquine- azithromycin], used in 1,270 patients, was an independent protective factor against death (0.68 [0.52 – 0.88]), including in the subgroups of patients for which the treatment was contraindicated, or refused or not proposed.”
The anonymous commenter asks:
“Can the authors of this study tell us how their treatment may have had any effect on patients who were not treated with it?”
Simple, silly: either Raoult’s research fraud or his divine radiance!
On a less funny note, Raoult now spoke on video directly threatening Bik with violence:
Here a translation by one of Bik’s Twitter followers:
“You have noticed, harassment is everywhere, it doesn’t prevent me from sleeping, but that being the case, you mustn’t imagine that it can go on forever insulting me or rolling me in the mud without it being risky business. There is a risk.
You don’t know when it will happen. And you know everything we do has consequences. So you have to be careful. My mother used to say one thing, because I lived for a long time in Africa, when I was a kid and I was acting stupid, she used to tell me “Didier, you hunt buffaloes, they are the most dangerous animals in the bush”. You have to be careful.
So I tell you, don’t bother me too much because you are hunting the buffalo. And so I’m [not?] going to let it happen and the actions that you have [done?] will have consequences that will come when they come, in the from that they will come [five unintelligible words]. But you can’t imagine that I’m going to get beaten up and I’m going to say thank you. That’s it.”
Consequences for Raoult and Chabriere so far: zero. Interesting country, France.
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). Your generous patronage of my journalism will be most appreciated!