Covid and Didier Raoult (supporter of hydroxychloroquine): analyzes on the pandemic

[Obamot]

What “type” are you talking about ABC2019? Already you called him Dr while he is a professor, now it's right "a type"!

And respect?

And the Manichean vision that you approve (“pro-Raoult” VS your friends) frankly it's crazy what it is 'scientific' and argued!

[ABC2019]

What “type” are you talking about ABC2019? Already you called him Dr while he is a professor, now it's right "a type"!

And respect?

I don't know where I called him Dr (that he is too), but you give the title of Professor to all those who speak to say that they do not share Raoult's opinion?

And the Manichean vision that you approve (“pro-Raoult” VS your friends) frankly it's crazy what it is 'scientific' and argued!

So you think that you, Guy, Adrien, Vetuslignum, you defend the scientific line whereas me, Pedro, izentrop or Sicaitsimple are not on a scientific line, is that what you mean?

[Obamot]

As already said “your” Manichean vision (of seeing people 'pro' this or 'pro' so and so ... etc) is a fallacy:

If so-and-so said this ... then it's good that he's part of a group ...
If another says that ... It is therefore good that, he supports thing ..
If ... (etc)

Besides, taking sides should be banned from any scientific process, which nullifies the points raised by those who make these remarks ... What more do you want me to know?

[ABC2019]

As already said “your” Manichean vision (of seeing people 'pro' this or 'pro' so and so ... etc) is a fallacy:

If so-and-so said this ... then it's good that he's part of a group ...
If another says that ... It is therefore good that, he supports thing ..
If ... (etc)

Besides, taking sides should be banned from any scientific process, which nullifies the points raised by those who make these remarks ... What more do you want me to know?

that you tell me clearly if you think that you, Guy, Adrien, Vetuslignum, you defend the scientific line while me, Pedro, izentrop or Sicaitsimple are not on a scientific line? is that your position, yes or no?

[Obamot]

I can't put all the players in one basket, sorry ... I'm not going to make the same mistake.

If some had wanted to defend “a scientific line” still would it have been necessary that these people have a minimum of training in the medical field and / or research! You can't decently defend that ...

And the base of the base, it would have been necessary not to have mixed the brushes like the confusion between lethality and mortality ... And to have the humility to recognize its errors. Some stakeholders do not even have the capacity to make a correct synthesis of the data they are looking at. Others who defended one of the theses changed their opinion, how would you like to put them in one “camp” rather than another ...? We know who (?) Wondered who had funded this or that study to flush out conflicts of interest (one in two biased studies told us the Lancet ...) then the argument was shamefully returned: I don't think bad faith is one of the criteria for defending a “scientific line” ...

Then there is the political aspect of press releases from clinics and university hospitals (they play a big role in the reputation of their research centers, I could cite many anecdotes ...).

What exactly was your question ...

[Remundo]

yes of course, the subject drifts on conflicts between forumers etc ...

if we take height, we see that the Raoult approach was overall the most serious if not perfect.

Honestly, who offers better than HCQ + AZI + different adjuvants depending on the patient (zinc, anti-coagulant, immunomodulators ...)?

and who has screened better than the IHU?

Raoult did not invent everything,
1) he was inspired by the little we knew at the time (Asian publication)
2) he relied on his knowledge and his intuitions as a researcher-infectious disease specialist (and his teams)
3) he learned, learned a lot on the job, and through dialogue with other specialists.

So yes the character has annoying, brittle sides, and he may have had some awkward statements.

In the end, however, he is a great man who deserves respect, and who made his job as a doctor while responding to political media delusions that consumed him a lot of energy.

[sicetaitsimple]

..... or If it was simple, we are not on a scientific line?

I want you to stop quoting my nickname in this endless debate, which no longer really interests me, especially when I look at the current "World" figures.
I have always cited Professor Raoult as "Professor Raoult", I will certainly not deny his skills and his experience, I had to say 20 times that I was not a doctor and had no competence to judge. the effectiveness of his treatment, I also had to say that he had done a little too much for my taste in terms of announcements especially at the beginning (the "Chinese 3", the "scooter accidents", the "end party "). But hey, that's his style.

On the other hand, what I have said many times is that we could not compare the results of a cohort of 43 or 45 years of mean age (1st or 2nd IHU cohort study) with a 72-year-old cohort of average age which was that of aggregated French hospitals (excluding EPHAD where it was 85 years), which obviously some on this forum had (and still have?) a little trouble understanding by rehashing comparisons of non-comparable figures.

That's it.

Edit: written without having seen Remundo's post

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

Apart from the redemsivir on which hovers an immense radio silence, everything else is only entitled to taunts.

After that, it's even more worthwhile to come and present graphics to save your money, it's useless.

Negative strategy in favor of a single objective: stifle the highlights of compromises and style all the subjects and posts that stray from the official line ...

I didn't think Econology was under such scrutiny.

Gilead's thing is ultimately used very little for Covid

I think you haven't followed the recent news too much ...

I don't know what you call it.
Me instead of Gilead I call it hitting the jackpot.
And not to have worked for nothing for 4 months doing everything in their power (most often dishonest) to slaughter hydroxychloroquine and azythromicine.
Admittedly, this is a masterful success which will most certainly be taught in all business schools from next year.
Beside Servier with his mediator looks like an altar boy and Sanofi's depakine is a kitten pee.

Coronavirus: United States buys global stock of remdesivir
Coronavirus: United States buys global stock of remdesivir

Coronavirus: remdesivir, the first treatment recommended by the European authorities
Coronavirus: remdesivir, the first treatment recommended by the European authorities

Coronavirus. Japan in turn approves remdesivir drug for Covid-19
Coronavirus. Japan in turn approves remdesivir drug for Covid-19

Australia's first COVID-19 treatment approved
Australia's first COVID-19 treatment approved
The TGA approval has granted remdesivir (“Veklury”, manufactured by Gilead Sciences Pty Ltd) provisional approval for use in adults and adolescent patients with severe COVID-19 symptoms who have been hospitalized.

We must return to earth there: it is a global success at least in the rich countries.

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

You have to see your reaction when you find something out of the order established by Gilead.

I do not consider that there is an established Gilead order. Pro-Raoults have been screaming at the plot for 6 months. We are just starting to be able to use it and with caution when we have passed the epidemic peak.
I don't hear many people defending it in the media. Most of those I have heard, Karine Lacombe, Eric Caumes, are critical of him. But I didn't follow everything, there are surely some who defend it as some defend others.
There have been 200 studies on HCQ and only 15 studies on remdesivir. If Gilead had had his arm so long, they would have multiplied their studies (even if it meant rigging them). In addition, there are more than twenty other treatments being tested (see post above).

Apart from the redemsivir on which hovers an immense radio silence, everything else is only entitled to taunts.

No, the debate is centered on Raoult / HCQ.
For my part, Remdesivir is hardly more credible than the HCQ

NB: For the anecdote, when several authorities made stocks of HCQ at the beginning of the crisis (in case), some pro-Raoult advanced this as a proof of the effectiveness of the treatment. Now that the USA has requisitioned the stock of Remdesivir, the argument no longer has the same value ...

Same answer as in Perseus ...

For my part, Remdesivir is hardly more credible than the HCQ

Well, you have to tear the words out of your mouth and again it's a little more credible than the HCQ is to say ....

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

the benefit / risk ratio of the Raoult protocol is favorable, period.

Yes according to a military principle:

Rule # 1: The Chef is always right.
Rule n ° 2: in case he is wrong, the first rule applies.

In medicine it's a little more serious than that

Whoever said that even in the absence of efficacy demonstrated today, the benefit / risk ratio is considered favorable, about redemsivir and whom I have cited several times is a Gilead lobbyist whose drug has been validated and bought by the world's major powers ... including all of Europe

As you say so well In medicine it's a little more serious than that