Didier Raoult is going after Elisabeth Bik.

A world-renowned Dutch expert in identifying scientific misconduct and error, Dr Elisabeth Bik, has been threatened with legal action for questioning the integrity of a study promoting the drug hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid-19.

The case, filed with the French state prosecutor by controversial infectious diseases physician Dr Didier Raoult, has prompted hundreds of scientists from across the world to publish an open letter calling for science whistleblowers to be protected.

In March 2020, Bik published a blog post analysing a paper led by Raoult. His paper claimed the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine was effective in treating Covid infections, especially when given in combination with an antibiotic.

Bik raised questions about the paper’s methodology, including that the researchers had failed to control for confounding factors. In strong clinical trials, the control group (who are given a placebo) and the treatment group (who are given the drug) should be as similar as possible so scientists can be confident any effects are from the medication alone.

Bik pointed out that patients should be of similar age and gender ratio, be equally sick at the start of treatment, and analysed in the same way, with the only difference being whether they received treatment or not. She said the treatment and placebo groups in Raoult’s study differed in important ways that could have affected the results.

Six patients enrolled in the treatment group at the beginning of the study were not accounted for by the end, missing from the data.

“What happened to the other six treated patients?” Bik said.

“Why did they drop out of the study? Three of them were transferred to the intensive care unit, presumably because they got sicker, and one died. It seems a bit strange to leave these four patients who got worse or who died out of the study, just on the basis that they stopped taking the medication … which is pretty difficult once the patient is dead.”

Despite questions being raised by Bik and other scientists, the then US president Donald Trump promoted Raoult’s paper and the use of hydroxychloroquine for Covid, helping the French doctor gain attention.

In July, France’s Infectious Diseases Society filed a complaint against Raoult that said it was unethical to promote hydroxychloroquine during a pandemic given there was little evidence it worked against Covid. The International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents raised similar concerns.

Evidence from multiple strong and properly conducted studies has since found hydroxychloroquine has little to no impact on illness, hospitalisation, or death from Covid.

Bik, who is hired as a consultant by scientific institutions worldwide to analyse data and identify research misconduct, went on to identify image duplication and potential ethical issues in 62 published articles from Raoult and his institute.

Raoult and his supporters have relentlessly attacked Bik since, calling her a “nutcase” and a “failed researcher” on Twitter and in media interviews, and publishing her contact details online. This is despite Bik also exposing errors in papers that found hydroxychloroquine provided no benefit to Covid patients.

Raoult’s colleague, Prof Eric Chabriere, revealed on Twitter that he and Raoult have filed a complaint against Bik and Boris Barbour, who helps run a not-for-profit website called PubPeer which allows scientists to analyse and provide feedback on each other’s work.

The legal complaint alleges harassment over Bik exposing data errors on PubPeer, and extortion because she has a Patreon account where people can donate to her work. She has responded to Raoult’s calls on Twitter to declare who is funding her by sharing links to her Patreon.

Lol, this should be good. What you got Snook’s?

She must have gone beyond mere professional criticism if she is being sued. What’s the basis?

I like how the Gruaniad link for “Evidence from multiple strong and properly conducted studies” just goes to a WHO page containing a meme that says that. No evidence needed, just corrupt authority. I wonder what an independent analysis of the WHO’s conflicts of interest would reveal?

Look out, Morgon is having a go too! Kicked a few anthills with this announcement it seems.

BULLSHIT!

Did you just define professionalism as something that can be measured based on whether or not you’ve ever been sued?

Fucking really?

Stop swearing, learn how to read and answer the question.

There’s been more than one study. How coincidental that hydroxychloroquine as an effective treatment gets revoked by the FDA clearing the way for the new ‘vaxxes’ since experimental procedures are outlawed in cases where known effective treatments already exist.

Look out, the nutcase squad is in attack mode, because someone who actually knows something about professional integrity has burst their bubble.

Ooh, here they all go, the crack reserve of butthurt warriors.

And you claim to argue in ‘good faith’ LOL AD HOMS FROM THE GET GO ROFL

1 Like

What you quoted from me…

She must have gone beyond mere professional criticism if she is being sued.

What I actually said…

She must have gone beyond mere professional criticism if she is being sued. What’s the basis?

Rather than have a stroke based on preconceived ideas and selective quoting, why don’t you try having a discussion. Perhaps answer that question, if you have any information. Point to the legal basis for professional A being able to sue professional B for presenting valid, even if flawed, analysis of their work.

Or just admit that you are taking everything a face value.

Anyone can see where the butthurt lies, and it’s not with me or Snookoda.

How about you make clear supported points if you have any such points to make.

Yeah, not a hint of butthurt. Nothing to see here. Please disperse.

Projection

What’s the basis?

Which of the three words are you having difficulty with?

This is like high school debating, the primary school version, except not that smart.

Haven’t heard a damn thing about Elisabeth Bik yet. Not a damn word.

It’s okay to say that you don’t know. I don’t know either.

I’m asking you if you know.

Lol, I’m still waiting for you to provide some sort of backup for that clear and egregious failure of logic and common sense.

Go on, defend that statement. I dare you.

That was a very short paragraph containing a questioning statement and a clarifying, direct question. Selectively quote the first part all you like, it doesn’t change the actual context or intention.

What’s the basis?