16 ms·

Didier Raoult is one of the brightest scientists in the world. Period. There’s no “major” flaw in his studies as people keep repeating. He was studying viral

by rq1 6y ago

Didier Raoult is one of the brightest scientists in the world. Period. There’s no “major” flaw in his studies as people keep repeating. He was studying viral load in patients and excluded those who were in ICU because they did not have enough virus left. Thus suggesting his cocktail as an early treatment. There is indeed pseudoscientists and corrupt ones who published the famous now but ridiculous study in “the lancet” and who promote remdesivir. Edit: https://c19study.com/ https://c19study.com/

singemonkey 6y ago
I genuinely feel sorry for you. I have no idea what it's like to be so disconnected from reality, but I hope you find your way back one day. (Downvotes = proof I am right. Period)
- dang 6y ago
  We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. Please don't create accounts to do that with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - singemonkey 6y ago
    No worries, dang. You carry on keep enabling the mana-vaxx deniers, and tone policing. I'll make as many accounts as I want to.
jcelerier 6y ago
> There’s no “major” flaw in his studies as people keep repeating. ah, yes, it's all perfect. smh https://www.les-crises.fr/the-tremendous-ethical-and-methodological-flaws-in-the-raoult-clinical-trial-analysis-by-olivier-berruyer/ https://www.les-crises.fr/the-tremendous-ethical-and-methodo...
- rq1 6y ago
  I guess other studies are perfect and survived this level of scrutiny. Especially the "recovery" one, praised by everybody where the inclusion criteria was: "having flu like symptoms", without PCR. This is true science indeed. https://www.les-crises.fr/the-tremendous-ethical-and-methodological-flaws-in-the-raoult-clinical-trial-analysis-by-olivier-berruyer/#ancre7 https://www.les-crises.fr/the-tremendous-ethical-and-methodo... 1. Why is this a major flaw? 2. As stated by the title. Remark: (Well conducted) RCTs introduce way too much variance. As a statistician I care about a good trade-off between bias and variance. OTOH, you don't need RCTs when you measure a physical property of a system. 3-6,8. Valid points. Especially as of publication date. As of today, they updated the study with 3000+ patients. 7. This is not ethical. 9. Object of the study: measure viral load. After the cytokine storm, you don't care much about the virus. 10. We should ask DR directly about it, this is grave. 11-13. Irrelevant. They did PCRs to everyone, the important measure is the CT. 14. This is not good indeed. 15. PCR tests are reliable. 16. Why is it a flaw? 17-18. They published a lot of other papers on their work, and updated the early study.
  - orwin 6y ago
    > As of today, they updated the study with 3000+ patients. Yes, this update was around July. They found an IFR of .7% with patient treated with HCQ. Lower than the 1.2% mortality rate in eastern France. But wait! In august, the IFR of eastern France was calculated again and was found to be around .7% (+-.3%) too? SO since august, the narrative changed: HCQ soes not prevent people from dying at all, but prevent them to carry a viral load important enough to contaminate other people as much. With no real study, as doing so would be unethical. Convenient. Honestly if you followed the story as much as i did (and i did buy HCQ early on, as my boss was a fan and sold me on Raoult with daily update), it became more and more ridiculous, with the organ point was the IFR recalculation in august, when i told myself i should be ashamed to have willingly believed something this early, coming from someone who, as Bergame started dying and Colmar was being infected, stated that the virus would not be coming to France, then, as my cousin bagged the 18th body in his hospital, posted a video called "Coronavirus: Game Over!", later edited and renamed.
steeve 6y ago
The cherry on top is the c19study link, which is a well known website in the conspiracy theorists sphere, and was debunked time and time again.
- rq1 6y ago
  I'm not aware of any "theory" nor "conspiracy" or whatever. The website lists all kind of studies, you can get the data if you want and build your own website. :) If you have no argument, just put "conspiracy theory" etiquette on your opponent. Huge win.
- florianp 6y ago
  Could you please elaborate on this (links)? I am looking for discussion about how this would be inaccurate or biased? Thanks

by rq1 6y ago

singemonkey 6y ago

I genuinely feel sorry for you. I have no idea what it's like to be so disconnected from reality, but I hope you find your way back one day. (Downvotes = proof I am right. Period)

dang 6y ago
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. Please don't create accounts to do that with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- singemonkey 6y ago
  No worries, dang. You carry on keep enabling the mana-vaxx deniers, and tone policing. I'll make as many accounts as I want to.

jcelerier 6y ago

> There’s no “major” flaw in his studies as people keep repeating. ah, yes, it's all perfect. smh https://www.les-crises.fr/the-tremendous-ethical-and-methodological-flaws-in-the-raoult-clinical-trial-analysis-by-olivier-berruyer/ https://www.les-crises.fr/the-tremendous-ethical-and-methodo...

rq1 6y ago
I guess other studies are perfect and survived this level of scrutiny. Especially the "recovery" one, praised by everybody where the inclusion criteria was: "having flu like symptoms", without PCR. This is true science indeed. https://www.les-crises.fr/the-tremendous-ethical-and-methodological-flaws-in-the-raoult-clinical-trial-analysis-by-olivier-berruyer/#ancre7 https://www.les-crises.fr/the-tremendous-ethical-and-methodo... 1. Why is this a major flaw? 2. As stated by the title. Remark: (Well conducted) RCTs introduce way too much variance. As a statistician I care about a good trade-off between bias and variance. OTOH, you don't need RCTs when you measure a physical property of a system. 3-6,8. Valid points. Especially as of publication date. As of today, they updated the study with 3000+ patients. 7. This is not ethical. 9. Object of the study: measure viral load. After the cytokine storm, you don't care much about the virus. 10. We should ask DR directly about it, this is grave. 11-13. Irrelevant. They did PCRs to everyone, the important measure is the CT. 14. This is not good indeed. 15. PCR tests are reliable. 16. Why is it a flaw? 17-18. They published a lot of other papers on their work, and updated the early study.
- orwin 6y ago
  > As of today, they updated the study with 3000+ patients. Yes, this update was around July. They found an IFR of .7% with patient treated with HCQ. Lower than the 1.2% mortality rate in eastern France. But wait! In august, the IFR of eastern France was calculated again and was found to be around .7% (+-.3%) too? SO since august, the narrative changed: HCQ soes not prevent people from dying at all, but prevent them to carry a viral load important enough to contaminate other people as much. With no real study, as doing so would be unethical. Convenient. Honestly if you followed the story as much as i did (and i did buy HCQ early on, as my boss was a fan and sold me on Raoult with daily update), it became more and more ridiculous, with the organ point was the IFR recalculation in august, when i told myself i should be ashamed to have willingly believed something this early, coming from someone who, as Bergame started dying and Colmar was being infected, stated that the virus would not be coming to France, then, as my cousin bagged the 18th body in his hospital, posted a video called "Coronavirus: Game Over!", later edited and renamed.

steeve 6y ago

The cherry on top is the c19study link, which is a well known website in the conspiracy theorists sphere, and was debunked time and time again.

rq1 6y ago
I'm not aware of any "theory" nor "conspiracy" or whatever. The website lists all kind of studies, you can get the data if you want and build your own website. :) If you have no argument, just put "conspiracy theory" etiquette on your opponent. Huge win.
florianp 6y ago
Could you please elaborate on this (links)? I am looking for discussion about how this would be inaccurate or biased? Thanks