First point on the methodology : unlike many others I do not oppose the idea of blunt testing without comparison ; it is a pandemic and you don’t want to leave some patients without a trial (if you expect the answer to work !).
But, the product itself does not prove at all convincing. First, I want to mention the comments of Prof. Mathieu Molimard, pharmacologist responsible of an experimental pharmacology lab @ Bordeaux University Hospital, who explained how, in the first study of Prof Raoult with 80 subjects, few had fever, which is a KEY symptom of nCoV-19. So as he said the patients were kind of mild cases… very, very insufficient test panel.
Second, I am copying the very interesting Twitter comments of Lu Chen, NCATS data scientist (the NCATS is a subpart of the NIH) :
(1/n) Raoult’s team reported the result of hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin trial to treat COVID19 for > 1k patients. mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uplmediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/upl Once again, data is broken, and I smelled their anxiety several days ago. twitter.com/houndcl/status Threads
(2/n) I closely monitor IHU’s COVID-19 website since the birth on 3/26. mediterranee-infection.com/covid-19/ This website reports the number of COVID positives & death in APHM/IHU, and num of positives & death with >3d treatment. Some major discrepancies have been found.
I think the most important is tweet number 4, where the hypocrisy of the Raoult team becomes blatant, it’s obvious they decided to manipulate the data after their treatment started to fail. I add the next tweets as well…
Lu Chen doesn’t say it entirely, but tweet number 4 implied it. Prof Raoult manipulated his research to fit the claim!
Third, a comment by Prof. Gilbert Deray, head of nephrology service @ Hôpital La Pitié-Salpêtrière in Paris : the death rate in the HCQ / AZT test sample, for an average age of 43,8 y is exactly the death rate of non-treated patients in Spain, proving the inefficiency of the drug