TRIBUNE : Mrs. Géraldine Woessner (journalist to the Point) and Mr. Laurent Neumann (writer to MFB-TV) the debate television is dead ?
To begin with, the title of the program where you come in on the 25th of June, broadcast live at 18h42 : ” Didier Raoult said-it really is the truth ?”. It is a catchy title, the false air of good-natured, falsely suggesting in a debate, a quality of another time, which would be based on arguments based on reason, or at least on an intellectual honesty. Recognizing simply that as political journalists you have neither the scientific expertise nor the in-depth knowledge of the intricacies of the pharmaceutical industry and its influence with decision-makers from public health, you would have elevated the debate and keeping an open mind.
However, you would prefer to reproduce and deliver unabashedly counter-truths, right and left, the fruits of the discussions are superficial with your peers in the microcosm of the medical stakeholders and scientists which the viewer knows nothing of the criteria that have enabled them to be selected by your media. From the first minutes the viewer has understood that once again a mass backstab was spoken, and that there was an attempt at a first-class funeral of Professor Raoult. It is for this that it’s tragi-comic to you,
Antoine Bristelle, a researcher at Science Po., announcement at minute 12:20, only 7% of the French have confidence in what to tell the media of television !… One is tempted to say ” What a joke ! “.
But, as the ridiculous does not kill, each has pursued quietly his ramblings on the board. Only Mr Neumann has attempted to amend it a little its about the beginning by saying that it was only a debate normal of professors of medicine, but that should not be brought to the attention of the public. In saying this he contradicts his role of a journalist is to keep people informed on a matter of public health that looks at them in the first place.
In fact the question of the debate much more relevant to a large number of viewers is not : “Didier Raoult, he said, the truth ?” but rather : “Geraldine Woessner and Laurent Neumann they say the truth ? “. Many of the criticisms that you wear against the Pr Raoult, could you characterize in the first place. The pupils of the elementary classes are all well aware, in the matter of slander : ” It is the one who said that is ! “
You are accusing the professor Raoult from don’t doubt at the same time you assénez against scientific truths of which you do not even have consciousness.
Minute 2:03 : the presenter of the program ” says Geraldine Woessner (all smiles on the plateau) has identified 4 lies of the Pr Raoult, of which the first would be that ” it says that all the randomized studies have shown the efficacy of hydroxychrloroquine, this is absolutely false “.
We think your way, as well as that of many other stakeholders, want to absolutely reduce the problem is very complex medical science to a judgment binary true-false, and the use of randomized trials as the only way of knowledge reveals your immaturity that unfortunately should not have its place on a tv tray for a debate on a subject as serious where the life of human beings is at stake.
The Pr Raoult, and other professors of medicine trying to explain in vain for months that the randomized trial is not the only scientific approach to judge the effectiveness of a treatment. Only the children want conclusive answers to the questions that the adults are in wrong answer, by what that they simply need to manage the connection to the reality of existence is much more complex than that of children…
First, we ask you, Madam, if you are aware of the randomized study indian published may 29, 2020, driving out of 751 members of the nursing staff (doctors and nurses), demonstrating a statistically very significant (with a power p < 0.001) than the risk of contracting the disease in close contact of patients hospitalized in intensive care was 25 times lower. Regularly taking hydroxychloroquine at a reasonable dose of 400 mg per week. (http://www.francesoir.fr/sites/francesoir/files/media-icons/IndianJMedRes000-7407721_203437.pdf), the protective effect was felt from the 5th week. Did you know this result indisputable that demonstrates the prophylactic efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and teaches us that the French nursing staff, which recorded a forty deaths, could have been better protected. Why such an information was never relayed on television ?
Secondly, are you aware of the article published on may 27, by a Pr of medicine at Yale, Harvey Risch ?
He defends rigorously the position of the Pr Raoult, saying in substance that :
He noted that : “The study of Marseille has been criticized on the basis of arguments which do not rise to science, the most exaggerated of them being the lack of randomization. This last criticism is of a general nature and does not apply to the situation of the epidemic presents.“
It conducts a scientific analysis very thorough results available on the treatment HCQ + AZT (2 studies published by the team of the IHU Marseille, france, editor’s NOTE) and concludes : “in Five studies, 2 controlled clinical trials, have demonstrated efficacy major for the treatment of patients in day hospital (that is to say, the patients who come to consult for the symptoms of COVID 19 but whose condition does not require hospitalization, ED.) Hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin has been used as standard care on more than 300,000 older adults with multiple comorbidities, including the estimated proportion who developed an arrhythmia due to drugs is 47/100.000 patients, of which only less than 20 %, that is to say, 9/100.000 died compared to the 10,000 americans dying now of the disease each week. “
Third : are you aware of the trial, observational AP-HP (Public Assistance-Hospitals of Paris), published on the website medRxiv of Cornell university ? We conducted an exhaustive analysis of this study (). Simply stop at the base or 35% of the patients are simply removed from the study without any scientific explanation or medical. 91 dead are removed on the grounds that they are deceased 24 hours after hospitalization.
Of course, the Pr Raoult has exaggerated his way, as he often does. But no one is perfect. It is the exasperation of the person who is not understood by report on the balance sheet of the institute… In this way, it makes you understand that you are not qualified, you the journalists, to give instructions to the Pr Raoult on the scientific method he must use to select a fast treatment acceptable and without risk to his patients. You think that it is arrogance on his part, it is you that I seem arrogant, or even a bad faith badge and especially inconsequentially,
Your lightness is the mark of a younger person in good health, feels safe from a serious development of the disease. Otherwise you afficheriez a different attitude. But don’t worry, Didier Raoult is supported in his approach by a significant number of physicians and researchers in France. If chance wanted that this epidemic was coming back, or another follows it, and affect you, you may benefit in spite of your mockery displayed the best care that people like him have to offer the sick, without offering to enter into a clinical trial with one in two chance of receiving no treatment. Which in principle is prohibited by the laws on the protection of patients participating in biomedical research but does not seem to move all of your colleagues, the experts in methodology of medical intervention on the trays télévision.(http://www.francesoir.fr/societe-sante/lessai-randomise-la-nouvelle-arme-mediatique-de-big-pharma-contre-lethique-dans-la)
We pass over your other accusations, and the claims of your colleagues as an article of 20 pages will not be sufficient to resume exhaustively all the arguments are false or inaccurate developed in the course of this show.
As to the immodestie alleged Didier Raoult, Alain Duhamel, the more cautious on the shelf, can not help to demonstrate that it has improperly listened to the interview of Didier Raoult by Ruth Elkrief and his young collaborator. When he says that the Pr Didier Raoult claims to be the best in France, it is false !
The public understands very well that under the guise of debate it is, in fact, an unpacking of approximations and untruths television lacklustre. It is well known that to become director of an institute of medical research and professor of medicine, requires the motivation of a lifetime of work, as well as a serious and skills without common measurement with those that can come enthroned atop a tv tray where
We refer you, therefore, Madam Geraldine Woessner but also Mr. Laurent Neumann and the many other stakeholders of the television set, which obviously have chosen denial in the face of their conscience, to the articles of France Soir on conflict of interest and oath d’Hippocrate(http://www.francesoir.fr/societe-sante/lessai-randomise-la-nouvelle-arme-mediatique-de-big-pharma-contre-lethique-dans-la). The elements hardly refutable that they will should put a flea in the ear about their attitude outrancièrement biased that in the end not mistaken that very little of the world and by which they discredit themselves plus they do not discredit the Pr Raoult, despite its flaws in communication which is no longer to describe. You are unfortunately for you in a medium, that is to say an ecosystem to paraphrase the Pr Raoult never fails to remind you with a hint of derision,
To conclude this chapter, we will review the writings of professor Risch of Yale university which echo those of the Pr Raoult, who says that in times of crisis pandemic very little controllable we cannot afford the luxury of a perfect knowledge on how to use it. In fact, if the Pr Raoult had waited for the result of the test Discovery , it would never have been able to help anyone at his institute !
In a general way and in the interest of the French, why do you spend in silence the following topics ?:
– the study Recovery in Britain has been the subject of overdoses of hydroxychloroquine, resulting in probably the death of hundreds of patients by overdose,
– the scandal of the study of French Discovery which has never published his results expected for several months, and now this study will be diluted in the study of european Solidarity or the dosages of hydroxychloroquine, are different. The assay of Solidarity being close to those used in the british study Recovery. This means that we are going to mix of the patients treated with hydroxychloroquine has regular doses with patients treated with doses 2 to 3 times higher than for Discovery (and 4 times higher for Recovery).
– the scandal that the EMA (European Agency of Medicine) authorizes yesterday a drug the Remdesivir who has never shown a therapeutic benefit significant side effects very important for health.
The IHU is trying to save people during the pandemic murderous, the other studies still seek to find a solution which remains bogged down in methodological problems, and lobbying festering of conflicts of interest.
Author(s): The Citizens ‘ group for FranceSoir