Talk:Didier Raoult

Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus

A note on WP:MEDRS: Per this Wikipedia policy, we must rely on the highest quality secondary sources and the recommendations of professional organizations and government bodies when determining the scientific consensus about medical treatments.

1. Ivermectin: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) suggest Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID-19. In all likelihood, ivermectin does not reduce all-cause mortality (moderate certainty) or improve quality of life (high certainty) when used to treat COVID-19 in the outpatient setting (4). Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized as: Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials. (May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH)
2. Chloroquine & hydroxychloroquine: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) demonstrate that neither is effective for treating COVID-19. These analyses accounted for use both alone and in combination with azithromycin. Some data suggest their usage may worsen outcomes. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized: Neither hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings. (July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH)
3. Ivmmeta.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19hcq.com, hcqmeta.com, trialsitenews.com, etc: These sites are not reliable. The authors are pseudonymous. The findings have not been subject to peer review. We must rely on expert opinion, which describes these sites as unreliable. From published criticisms (1 2 3 4 5), it is clear that these analyses violate basic methodological norms which are known to cause spurious or false conclusions. These analyses include studies which have very small sample sizes, widely different dosages of treatment, open-label designs, different incompatible outcome measures, poor-quality control groups, and ad-hoc un-published trials which themselves did not undergo peer-review. (Dec 2020, Jan 2021, Feb 2021)

Which pages use this template?

Last updated (diff) on 27 February 2023 by Sumanuil (t · c)

Discussion on RSN related to recent revert

I removed content sourced to pubpeer.com, and opened a discussion on the Reliable sources noticeboard. Schazjmd (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The RSN discussion resulted in clear consensus that peerpub.com comments are not reliable sources for a WP:BLP. Schazjmd (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Incomprehensible

"On May 5, 2021, just after the announcement by Didier Raoult's lawyer that Elisabeth Bik, who specializes in identifying manipulated images in scientific papers, and raised concerns about dozens of Raoult’s papers—including ethical, procedural, and methodological problems in a March 2020 paper reporting success in a small hydroxychloroquine trial a scientific integrity consultant was being accused of harassment and blackmail and sued by Raoult[50], the French non profit association Citizen4Science made of scientists and citizens, published a press release[51] including a link to a petition denouncing the harassment of scientists and defenders of science integrity, specifically mentioning Elisabeth Bik and calling on French authorities to intervene and journalists to look into the matter."

I do not understand what this sentence is trying to say. It is just too long, garbled, and unclear. Please cut it apart in several sentences. And make clear who harassed who according to who. Is Citizen4Science on the side of Raoult or Bik? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, tried to clean this up, let me know if you think it reads better now...--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Better, but since Raoult was accusing Bik of harassment, it was not clear if Citizen4Science was defending Raoult against alleged harassment by Bik or Bik against pretty obvious harassment by Raoult. I clarified that by replacing "mentioning Bik" by "defending Bik", after checking the sources. (I did not have much time when I saw this first.) I also turned a passive-voice sentence into an active-voice one but am unhappy with the grammar. Maybe that last one was not such a great idea after all. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

why isn't there even a mention of the retracted lancet paper?

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext 79.167.184.100 (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

17.000 killed

17.000 deaths in just 6 countries attributable to hydroxychloroquine: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S075333222301853X

See also https://www.sudouest.fr/sante/coronavirus/covid-19-selon-une-etude-l-hydroxychloroquine-serait-responsable-de-pres-de-17-000-morts-dont-199-en-france-18011353.php (in French).

--Randykitty (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

We've got a bit of a sourcing problem to state that in the article, because "Hy, recommended by Dr. DR, caused the deaths" is simultaneously a medical claim and a BLP claim. The science direct source is perhaps WP:MEDRS-compliant, but doesn't mention DR; the other source mentions DR but is not MEDRS. Combining the two has WP:SYNTH problems... but this is something we should keep an eye on. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• You're right, I went a bit too fast here. But perhaps these references can be used in the hydroxychloroquine article? I don't often edit medicine-related articles, so I'm not familiar enough with MEDRS to do this myself. --Randykitty (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  That is a possibility, and you should raise it there (that's not a page that I work on.) And to be clear, I'm not saying that the first source is absolutely MEDRS, just that it passes a first-level sniff test for that. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)