By not designing his studies in such a way that they are able to provide meaningful results, he might be helping his own patients while depriving many others of a possible treatment because it’s not actually evident that the treatment works, so other doctors won’t use it.
What we need is good data, especially now because when hospitals are overwhelmed it will be much harder to get,
5 Likes
Whatever happened to “first, do no harm”?
The history of medicine is replete with cures which were worse than the disease, placebo effects, and unintended consequences, which is why double blind, staged evaluation became the gold standard. Think thalidomide. Some loosening may be justifiable in desperate times, but we have to stay tethered.
2 Likes
Yes. And in addition to the article you are referring to that shows the effect of the HCQ + Z combo in patients, Raoult’s team also released a second paper showing the effect of the same treatment in vitro!
He knows that of course, and he’s faithful to it. Don’t forget that his has already prescribed Hydroxychloroquine to more than 3000 of his patients these last 30 years. As I said, probably no one in the world has more experience with this drug than he does.
I’am sorry, but this appears nonsense to me.
I find that understandable. 
1 Like
He published his cure. He is absolutely presenting as a medical scientist, which in itself is fine. All the medical community is asking for is a degree of rigor. Why should this not be required, and why should this not be provided?
3 Likes
I believe you.
Because time is missing and too much lives are at stake. If Raoult, based on his huge experience, has the conviction that his treatment can save lives NOW, it would be unethical for him to wait several weeks for the results of methodologically perfect studies.
Until his “cure” ends up killing some people. How unethical is that?
Looks like another extremely weak paper to me. Why is he publishing in vitro results with Ns of 3 for each test? One of the whole points of in vitro testing is that scale is much easier than in vivo! Why was this study not done with Ns at least in the 10s?
To be clear, essentially the whole study rests on figure 2b (below), where the second column of the A5H5 treatment is higher than the second column in the positive control. When you realise that these bars are based on 3 samples and 4 samples respectively, and look at the variation in the other columns, I just don’t see how it’s significant.
4 Likes
Actually, surprisingly, chloroquine is not terribly toxic to most people. You have to monitor for EKG changes, but rheumatologists and even primary care do this. It is in tonic water in low doses. We took it as children in Africa to prevent malaria (tasted more bitter than any thing I can describe. They don’t use it now as a preventative given resistance). I do agree that there is a narrow therapeutic range, but most people tolerate it well in that range. Also, I do not think it should be prescribed for Covid by pcps on an outpatient basis. Pharmacists refuse to dispense it for that reason (appropriately). My suspicion from the studies is it doesn’t really help much, if at all. Thanks.
2 Likes
Hi Randy
Can you explain how you reached this conclusion?
1 Like
It is unethical for doctors to make unilateral decisions which have the potential to harm their patients, simply on the basis of a conviction. An ethical doctor, who is actually concerned about the Hippocratic Oath, follows the scientific method. A ethical doctor does not urge a treatment based on a single study of their own, which was not only poorly executed but shows indications of deliberate misrepresentation.
You are explicitly attempting to defend actions which are based on studies you now acknowledge are methodologically flawed and provide no sound basis for the treatment under question. This position is both intellectually and ethically impoverished.
7 Likes
David Gorski’s take on that recent study of Raoult’s that lacked a control group:
2 Likes
Apples and oranges. Pasteur conducted rigorous studies before he published.
3 Likes
Dangit!! There goes another irony meter.
If we all blindly agreed with Dr. Raoult, wouldn’t that be group think and conformism?
3 Likes
That would be conformism and group think. In science, people aren’t protected from criticism because someone thinks they have a certain level of experience.
3 Likes
While I also generally look for the best motives in people, in this case, where the data are so weak and the scientific design of the study so poor, I ask myself about other motivations. Medical scientists can also be tempted by press and fame, which he has received in spades.
6 Likes
There’s a new Chinese study out that’s almost as bad and just as inconclusive…