Home » World » “Didier Raoult asserts truths without evidence”

“Didier Raoult asserts truths without evidence”

INTERVIEW

Wednesday Professor Didier Raoult, infectious disease specialist in Marseille and fervent defender of hydroxychloroquine against Covid-19, was interviewed by the deputies on the health crisis. PCR tests, links of interest between members of the Scientific Council and private laboratories: the professor recalled his positions with confidence.

Karine Lacombe, head of infectious diseases at the Saint-Antoine hospital in Paris, was also interviewed the next day. She returns to Europe 1 on her vision of the health crisis, in total opposition to Didier Raoult. “It is not because we assert with virulence and gesturing certainties that we want to pass for truths that it is true,” tackled the infectious disease specialist.

On the tests: “why was there no solidarity on French territory?”

Point by point, it returns to the assertions of Professor Didier Raoult, in particular to the PCR tests. He says that France should have tested more because “it is an extremely simple, trivial examination, everyone is capable of doing it”. In Marseille, the University Hospital Institute for Infectious Diseases (IHU) quickly organized test campaigns.

“We can come back to the way the screening was done in Marseille, the screening was centralized at the IHU. The question of the North hospital arose very quickly. The North hospital had no tests “, recalls Karine Lacombe. “Where do these tests come from? If there were so many tests in Marseille, why was there no solidarity on French territory?”

Links of interest between doctors and laboratories: “a process of intention”

Karine Lacombe also explained the supposed links of interests between doctors and private laboratories. She herself assumes to have participated in conferences or expert opinions paid by laboratories. “Indeed, some of its benefits could pass for households. For my part, I always took care when I accepted this type of benefit that it would serve my scientific interest, because I needed to share information on drugs in development. Or to share my expertise, so that we can promote knowledge and build networks of professionals in the discipline. ” According to the infectious disease specialist, this contact between the field doctor and the pharmaceutical laboratories is necessary to develop new treatments.

“Without this contact between the laboratories and the medical practitioners, there can be a complete disconnection between what the laboratory thinks is good and what we doctors, we know how to be good for the patients we treat. Which is extremely important is that these links of interest are diverse, and not concentrated on a single laboratory, “she explains.

“And then that these links of interest are completely framed, which is the case with the 2017 anti-gift law. And absolutely transparent.” The infectious disease specialist denounces a “trial of intent” by the professor from Marseille, in response to questions about his methods for demonstrating the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine. “Since the beginning of the epidemic, Professor Didier Raoult has been telling truths without evidence. No one promoted a drug more than another. He promoted hydroxychloroquine more than the rest, “she criticizes.

French research is “united”

Prof. Didier Raoult’s statements, which received a lot of media attention, could have suggested that French research was divided on the treatments to be used to combat Covid-19. “There is only one disagreement, on the effectiveness or not of chloroquine. We had large trials which were rather united on the national territory”, retorts Karine Lacombe. “It is not all the doctors who spent their time hanging on to each other, it was the Marseille community led by Didier Raoult and the rest of the scientists.”

It also denounces the methodology used to demonstrate the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine. “When you think that the treatment does not have much effect, to show that it does better than nothing at all, you need a lot of patients. The problem here (in the work of Didier Raoult) is that “There are few patients, who are not even compared to a group where we could see the difference. And these patients are sorted out,” says Karine Lacombe, explaining having discussed with Marseille professors. “Patients who had few symptoms were treated, those with many symptoms were not treated. Because by treating those with many symptoms you could take the risk that they would not heal.”

“This will leave a trace of what not to do in terms of clinical research,” she says. The researcher nevertheless highlights some improvements necessary in the event of future epidemics. “There have been a lot of clinical trials. Perhaps in the future, when we have a pandemic of this magnitude, and especially a pandemic in which we have to move quickly, there will need to be better central coordination of research . “

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.