Desperate Media Smear of Top Doctor Over Cheap CV-19 Cure
The French doctor who identified a cure for the coronavirus that saw immediate results, is now being targeted and smeared by those who want to cash in on a different more expensive drug made by Gilead.
This past week the New York Times released a report where they belittled “eminent French microbiologist Didier Raoult” and his claims for a quick and powerful cure for the China coronavirus:
When diagnosing the ills afflicting modern science, an entertainment that, along with the disparagement of his critics and fellow researchers, he counts among his great delights, the eminent French microbiologist Didier Raoult will lightly stroke his beard, lean back in his seat and, with a thin but unmistakable smile, declare the poor patient to be stricken with pride. Raoult, who has achieved international fame since his proposed treatment for Covid-19 was touted as a miracle cure by President Trump, believes that his colleagues fail to see that their ideas are the products of mere intellectual fashions — that they are hypnotized by methodology into believing that they understand what they do not and that they lack the discipline of mind that would permit them to comprehend their error. “Hubris,” Raoult told me recently, at his institute in Marseille, “is the most common thing in the world.” It is a particularly dangerous malady in doctors like him, whose opinions are freighted with the responsibility of life and death. “Someone who doesn’t know is less stupid than someone who wrongly thinks he does,” he said. “Because it is a terrible thing to be wrong.”
The hit piece attacks Dr. Raoult for recommending a cure for the China coronavirus – hydroxychloroquine:
It is in this spirit that, over the objections of his peers, and no doubt because of them, too, he has promoted a combination of hydroxychloroquine, an antimalarial drug, and azithromycin, a common antibiotic, as a remedy for Covid-19. He has taken to declaring, “We know how to cure the disease.” Trump was not the only one eager to embrace this possibility. By the time I arrived in Marseille, some version of Raoult’s treatment regimen had been authorized for testing or use in France, Italy, China, India and numerous other countries. One in every five registered drug trials in the world was testing hydroxychloroquine.
The NY Times Magazine hit piece uses the comments of another doctors and experts to refute Dr. Raoult’s exemplary success using hydroxychloroquine:
Other scientists disagreed with this characterization of the results. “The cure rate is almost identical to what’s been described about the natural course of the disease,” the virologist Christine Rouzioux told French radio.
The problems with the piece in the NY Times Magazine is that it is very biased and slanted. For example, the comments from virologist Christine Rouzioux are based on an BFM TV interview Christine Rouzioux gave on April 9th, which was based on Raoult’s interview on French France’s Radio Classique on April 1.
The NY Times Magazine is just amplifying the message that no other drug but Gilead’s Remdesivir will work. Gilead has connections to China and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where the China coronavirus is suspected of originating.
Read the full article at: www.thegatewaypundit.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Zoe Phin
| #
Even though its obvious that geothermal energy plugs the energy budget perfectly, I will be “debunked” according to GHG-warmers or mass-of-the-atmosphere-warmers.
This story summarizes things nicely. It’s a real shame.
Reply
geran
| #
Zoe, this article has nothing to do with you. Get over yourself.
“Reality” is what debunks you.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Reality: Earth is an infrared star, capable of producing/emitting its own energy.
Learn some science:
http://phzoe.com/2020/02/25/deducing-geothermal/
Reply
geran
| #
Reality: Solar arriving Earth surface is 1920A Joules/sec. Geothermal arriving Earth surface is less than 0.4A Joules/sec.
Sun provides 4800 times the energy of your “infrared star”.
But your understanding of science is funny. In fact, it’s hilarious.
More please.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
What are these strange numbers you’re citing?
Reply
geran
| #
I imagine science does look strange to you. See if you can find a good physics book, and start studying.
(THAT will never happen!)
CD Marshall
| #
Zoe,
Ice Ages…
Need I say more?
I don’t see the planet as an overwhelming source of self heating.
At some point geothermal does blow over, but in scale to humans lifespans that’s not very often.
Please don’t go insane over this. I love sane Zoe and I miss her.
Zoe Phin
| #
Chris,
Ice Ages don’t refute anything.
All I’m saying is that geothermal provides an average of ~330 W/m^2. Higher at the equator and less at the poles.
That’s barely above ice cube level. And below ice cube level for latitudes above ~35.
The sun adds to it. You do realize that Postma’s theory still claims the extra energy comes from the mass of the atmosphere?
But what supports that mass?
tom0mason
| #
Why not do an abbreviated double blind test to test the validity of the hydroxychloroquine, high dose vitamin D, and zinc as a PROPHYLACTIC treatment to mitigate against the worst effects of this virus?
As hydroxychloroquine, vit D, with zinc very inexpensive just go ahead and do a double bind test with groups of volunteers. Volunteers pretested and found not to be infected with COVID-19. Say 2500 (preferably more) volunteers representing the approximate range of gender, race, and age of the national population.
Explain to these volunteers that they are part of an experiment to test whether this treatment may, OR MAY NOT, provide some mitigation against the worst effect of the virus but probably WILL NOT STOP THEM CATCHING THE VIRUS. Explain what the side effects of the drug are, and allow anyone who wishes to bail-out to do so and be replaced. Ensure that all volunteers sign disclaimers (that are legally water tight) should anything happen — including their death from whatever cause. Additionally all volunteers when they test positive for the virus, are on a test, trace, and isolated (TTI) program for all their (the volunteer’s) contacts as part of the agreement contract.
Allow these all volunteers to go about their normal lives (whether they wish to be in lock-down or not). Continually monitor and test these volunteers daily. Note the cases of infection, what symptoms and the severity. When any volunteer tests positive for the virus they must go into lock-down but are still monitored. Any volunteer must be given normal access to medically treatments when and if the symptoms require it.
When more than 50%, and again at 90%, of all volunteers test positive for the virus (whether on the real medication or not) do intermediate reports stages. Continue to monitor and test all volunteers until the volunteers have had the infection and have recovered, or died. Final report, etc…
PROs —
1. The drugs are inexpensive.
2. IMO volunteers will be VERY easy to find! As volunteers are better treated as they are continuously monitored and tested, and hopefully will have better access to any required medical facilities.
The expensive part is getting the medical talent to streamline the monitoring, testing, and accurate reporting.
3. If the treatment works then the basic framework for better testing and treatment of this virus pandemic have been made. With luck building from these basics should be swift and effective.
CONs —
None that I can see — even if the treatment is shown to be ineffective as a prophylaxis, little if anything is lost! More people tested and monitored, more knowledge about how this virus evolves through the population is acquired.
Even a treatment failure is scientifically and medically a win for building better knowledge about this virus.
If the treatment works as an moderate to effective prophylaxis then it can be rolled out to the general public via doctors surgeries and clinics, with a special note that recipients much acknowledge and sign to the effect that long term effects of the treatment are not known, and that it may NOT be a cure. Also special notice must taken for those who do not tolerate hydroxychloroquine well for whatever reason.
With luck all westernized nations could do this in concert across each nation. Differences in outcome could then be analyzed with better treatments regimes formulated.
Who would sign-up to be a volunteer?
Yes, I would!
Could not a similar fast track test regimes also be made for hydroxychloroquine, vitamin D, azithromycin, and zinc, as a remedy for Covid-19?
Would this also mean that many furlowed medical staff could be usefully employed in running these fast track tests and monitoring programs?
Reply