Deputies, who intend to “learn the lessons” from the health crisis in France, questioned Professor Didier Raoult on Wednesday to find out his views on the health crisis linked to the coronavirus. The Marseilles researcher did not mince his words to slow down the authority’s lead.
His interlocutors were expecting prominent excursions, they were not disappointed. The controversial Professor Didier Raoult heard on Wednesday, June 24, before the National Assembly’s Inquiry Commission on the management of the crown virus crisis hard against the organization, according to him “completely archaic”, of tests for Covid-19 in France, centralized around the Institute Pasteur.
“I am not a prophet, though I am a beard.” Didier Raoult also disappointed the deputies who wanted to know the “feeling” about the future of the Covid-19 epidemic from Marseille’s researchers, who on the other hand had stifled crisis management by the authorities and conflicts of interest in the research.
FR NW SOT 2 RAOULT AND CHLOROQUINE 19H
Possible tests to do according to the party concerned
“The idea that we couldn’t perform the tests wasn’t true,” said the microbiologist who specializes in infectious diseases, who intended to test massively at his institute, including people without symptoms, contrary to the official strategy at the time.
By multiplying difficult to verify claims, historical slowdowns, and philosophical quotes, Didier Raoult repeatedly made the three hours of hearing “conflict of interest” within the medical research bodies and the Science Council created on March 11 to inform the government’s decision.
A short-term member of this council, he explained that he left him because the issues discussed there, such as the accommodation, “did not concern him”, and regretted that the choice of therapeutic recommendations was made outside this instance.
CONFLICT OF iNTERESTS
The researcher also questioned the excessive use of mathematical modeling, a “belief (…) that ends up being religion”.
Professor Raoult also renewed before the Investigative Commission the assertion that certain hydroxychloroquine detectors are economically linked to the Gilead Laboratory, the manufacturer of strap divider, another molecule whose efficacy is tested in the treatment of Covid-19.
“I’m not saying they were bought for it,” he cured, referring to “an ecosystem,” “trust relationships” “likely to change the assessment of things.”
He said he himself had been threatened by “the one who had received the most money from Gilead in six years”, without naming him.
Instead of the request for clarification from alternates, the microbiologist referred them specifically to consultation with the Transparency Health database, where the lists are interesting between companies and actors in the health sector.
>> See: Drawing news: hydroxychloroquine, Donald Trump and Professor Raoult
“Extremely Serious Accusations”
“You have made extremely serious allegations,” summarized Eric Ciotti (LR), draftsman for the committee, and assured that its members would “explore this path” and “draw all the consequences.” Unknown to the public a few months ago, this researcher who easily presents himself as an “anti-system” has become widespread in the media and on social networks since he declared on February 25 that antimalarial chloroquine was “probably the cheapest and easiest treatment to treat coronavirus. “
An optimism that is far from being shared by health authorities and a large majority of researchers, who emphasize that this molecule has not been shown to be effective in the treatment of Covid-19 and warns of its undesirable effects.
“Medical decisions” (…) “in advance of politics”
During his interrogation, the Marseilles scientist, who is currently exchanging his eternal white blouse for a gray jacket and checkered shirt, complained that in this health crisis, “medical decisions” had become “preceded by policy”, citing the ban on prescribing hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of Covid-19 for city doctors. The ban was extended since May 27 in hospitals, except in connection with clinical trials.
“Whoever said we couldn’t use it, he made a mistake. (…) The state grabs data that is common health care on the site of doctors and forbids them things that are trivial, I disagree,” he argued .
Didier Raoult got a little rushed at this point, while several members of the commission of inquiry publicly supported his “protocol” which linked hydroxychloroquine, a derivative of chloroquine commonly used to treat autoimmune diseases, and the antibiotic azithromycin.
The last deputy to ask him, the geneticist Philippe Berta (MoDem) almost managed to get him out of his hinge by asking him about his “pseudo-therapeutic trials that are not allowed by anyone”. “I am a great researcher, I know what an essay is,” the researcher exclaimed.