You must check your own political bias, Pete. Never try to paint the absolutely false picture that Trump led media to promote Hydroxychloroquine against Covid. Just _because_ he (among so many others, experts and non-experts) talked optimistically about it, the media immediately began to trash him for that, as they did with exactly everything he ever said. If Hillary Clinton had talked favourably about Hydroxychloroquine, nobody should care.
@@philliprose1815 yeah, this makes sense considering he started the video with Donald Trump who's not a scientist whatsoever, like there is a political position to defend or offend. He did something similar on Gay's plagiarism video, showing the trial they had for her position regarding Jews and Palestinians and also implying that the accusations were because she was black even when one of the victims of her plagiarism is a black woman who is on the same political spectrum
Hello from France. I think the reason Raoult got so popular in the beginning of covid is that he was going against the alarmism of the media, comparing covid 19 to the H1N1 pandemic which was treated in the media as an apocalyptical threat to the human race but died off within a year with millions upon millions of euros misspent. He was also vocal against the lockdown which was definitely not a popular measure. Meanwhile the government was busy messing up at every corner. For example since H1N1, France built up a facemask reserve for future threats, but most of if was given away to china in the early days of covid, creating an artificial shortage. The prime minister at the time claimed on national TV that facemasks were of no use against covid weeks before enforcing mandatory wearing of said masks everywhere. With the price of facemasks skyrocketing It created a financial burden on the poorest among the population while fueling mistrust and complotists theories. There were also multiple instances of publicly funded large feast held by government officials for their peers with a complete disregard for rules enforced on everyone else. Thankfully we have a large community of skeptics doing the work the media should be required to do.
Agree. People were scared and wanted a simple treatment and answer. Currently in US, 1500 people still dies per week from COVID. Most of them are old people or ones with many medical issues.
Sounds like you describe the situation in Germany. Same here: Facemasks were given to China in the beginning of 2020 for free and then the health minister bought billions of facemasks for a heated price. That is, he ordered but then refused to pay, because much too many masks were delivered. Then facemasks were made compulsory.
Hello from France as well, Didier Raoult had a huge amount of criticism right from the start. It was well known that his big fan club was in Marseilles because he was the local chap making their town look like a center of medical authority. He got a lot of mockery from a few comedians on TV. President Macron went down to see him, giving him the benefit of the doubt and was quite criticised for this. Like many people he seemed to be thinking "Maybe he's right after all, even if it's not very scientific". Then it became known how Raoult was very authoritarian in his institute. He was on non-speaking terms with his own daughter who said her father could not stand being contradicted. At some point, even before his retirement his reputation started going south.
Just want to say that in medical research conducting non randomised trials and not including a paediatric population is not considered an ethical violation as long as the research methods and the rationale are clearly stated. Sometimes randomisation is not feasible.
If it's a drug that would not be used in a pediatric setting, probably. Like there would be little reason to test certain chemotherapies on kids, because some cancers are generally non existent in kids.
Not including children in clinical research is just practical. You need to get "informed consent" from the parents, and unless there is an immediate danger, the parents will refuse. Parents who consent would be a pre selected group. Just saying from the view of a retired pediatrician who worked in academic settings and also was on the hospital ethics committee, which is responsible for approving clinical studies. As for the randomized, double blinded, prospective studies, it's true that not all studies can be conducted this way, but if you are not an idiot, you know that you are conducting a seriously flawed study and the result of your study should be used to determine future studies, not change your clinicalapproach. You would be a fool to change your clinical approach based on such a study. The exception being if you don't have anything better to offer and even then, you should do it only temporarily until you can actually conduct a "good" study.
It is just that people don't understand the implications of a non-randomised trial being used as concrete evidence to make healthcare policies and decisions
"I am a scientist... You'll listen to me" Obviously that's not something any good scientists would ever say. I've heard plenty of Americans say that's what they hear, but the irony is that that group is more likely to believe in HQ...
Hi, I am french. Raoult had a lot of followers but also a lot of critics pretty fast. It was a divisive subject. I have a scientific background and spend quite some time explaining what was going wrong with him. This subject lead to huge disagreement inside the NGO I was working for (and that I founded). Fake news info have taken an huge part to the death of this NGO (Too long to explain how, sorry... Unless you ask for it ;) ). Fake news and charlatans really hurt.
As a pharmacist who worked the entire pandemic in front line- hydroxychloroquine has one of the most horrific side effect profiles out of every medication used in modern practice No other medication can destroy a given blood cell type (literally any of the WBC types) or has a 1 in 13 chance of blinding the patient (does not improve on cessation) It was incredibly frustrating having to care for the people who believed these snake oil salesmen
Multiple drugs can destroy blood cells. Phenytoin for example is a known culprit of agranulocytosis. This comment is not an endorsement of chloroquine for Covid
As someone who takes this medication for lupus, the side effects are actually very mild. I take much worse medications. The risk of vision loss is very rare and can be detected through imaging of the retina to view deposits, along with annual vision testing. If the dose is adjusted for weight it usually takes over 20 years before any evidence of potential eye damage may occur.
In my experience, it’s difficult and expensive to conduct clinical trials. All humans are biased and even a good health care provider can subconsciously affect which patients are enrolled in clinical trials. In addition to patients meeting the inclusion criteria, the records of those not enrolled must also be reviewed to ensure that patients who are more difficult to treat are not being subtly encouraged to not enroll. Double blinded randomized clinical trials are best but even they need diligent monitoring.
@@jackiekjono Which is why those providing patient care and those conducting the study should never be the same people. It is a conflict of interest. Therapeutic relationships have been shown repeatedly to introduce bias and induce ethical lapses in clinical trials.
It's interesting that they've somehow interpreted the criticism of academic malpractice as criticism of science in general. Which is literally the opposite of what they're supposed to take away.
This boy is working for the system. He has no courage to tell us the whole true story about Kariko and Weissmann, these Oberhauser and Mengele of the 21st century.
@MrFrexxia because science is intrinsically tied to the academics that practice it. I'm not sure how anyone with critical thinking skill wouldn't see it as a criticism of science itself. People in the highest echelons of science only so it for the grant money and seeing how many can't reproduce and/or lie about their results is absolutely staggering.
1. Randomized trials are not necessary for every conclusion. I don't need to make a randomized trial about the safety of parachutes 2. Shady practices about COVID were found everywhere, since everyone wanted to have the answer for the pandemic. I say this for the conclusions about HCQ and vaccines 3. 100 years ago there was a scientific conclusion that doctors did not need to wash their hands to deal with pregnant women and a physician who said this practice would decrease infections on these women lost his practice license. Also lobotomy was defended as scientific proved for 60 years (and renditioned a Nobel Prize). Research on health is not black or white, but shades of gray and sometimes people are called "shady" because they don't go with the stablishment 4. There is a principle in the scientific field in which a conclusion must be contextualized. There's plenty of articles talking about HCQ not being useful against COVID, nonetheless all of these conclusions are made about the stages in which the disease has already developed to the point of hospitalization. HCQ was never recommended for hospitalized people, but when the first symptoms showed up. I think this contextualization is important 5. One of the studies that showed HCQ did more harm than good with COVID patients was conducted here in Brazil and the methodology was, at least, weird. The dose of HCQ was higher than the recommended worldwide for any disease and the justification was that it should be because COVID was more deadly so they needed more (even deadly) doses. Also the study was conducted on hospitalized patients Before you accuse me of anything, just understand that I'm pointing out the issues not addressed in the video, not the claims that Raoult did scientific malpractice. I'm actually using the same arguments Judo used to stimilate critical thinking about any conclusion, not only the ones we don't want to have. There's tons of evidence of the issues of COVID vaccinations, for example, and people defending cheaper alternatives are being called antivaxxers. Astrazeneca's vaccine was banned in more than 5 countries before 1 year of application because of cardiologic problems found after its application, Pfizer's business was shady in lots of countries even demanding that if they did harm intentionally they wouldn't be charged and Moderna said that their studies did not test effectiveness for stopping the spread of the virus. I am not an antivaxxer, if you will to accuse me of such. What I am is skeptical of any conclusion without proper contextualization. Also I'm not saying that Raoult did not commit fraud, since if there's evidence he did then he probably did it and this has to be addressed. So this is not to say Judo is wrong, but to say that context is more important in health fields than conclusions
You can claim you're not an anti-vaxxer, but you're clearly an anti-vaxxer. You're not posting this because you're pro-science, you're posting this because you have an agenda to push.
Immediately my bullshit detector went off as soon as I saw your first point. It's a patently false analogy as parachutes clearly demonstrate their effectiveness visually. The human body and medicine are vastly different. You're unable to tell if the medicine actually worked or if your body simply recovered naturally unless you not only randomize, but also control for other factors and double, even triple blind the study. Simple anecdotes for a drug's effectiveness prove nothing, no matter how many you gather. On your "science was wrong before" comment... so what? On many occasions pseudoscientific beliefs were embraced as if they were fact, usually due to external political coercion. Science is wrong all the time. That's not a flaw, that's a feature. It constantly changes. It should change. That is- with high quality evidence. Past scientific blunders have no bearing on whether or not modern scientific claims are true or false. It sounds to me here that you are lending false credibility to quacks who make baseless claims. Finally, on the claim that "studies did not test for effectiveness for stopping the spread of the virus," this is misleading. Clinical trials were to test the safety and the efficacy in reducing symptomatic disease and nothing else. However, independent studies later found effectiveness in reducing the spread of the virus for vaccines. I think you could use some more work on reducing your use of logical fallacies before calling yourself a "skeptic." Otherwise, it makes your argument look very shallow.
Great video! I think your content is sooooo incredibly important to improve science. The drawback is that it draws in the conspiracy crowds who completely miss the point of what you’re doing.
@@alsmellz Call Fauci and talk to him - he knows the truth. But before you talk to him, don't forget to give him some good medicine like sodium thiopental.
I’m french and I was never a fan of Raoult just because he is so arrogant. He was wrong on the hydroxy stuff and he should have just took the L on that one BUT nevertheless I have 2 positive things to say about him: - He explained on his UA-cam channel and on TV that in general, viruses become less lethal with time but more transmissible (the evolutionary explanation he gave was that for a virus to survive it needs to spread more but kill less), that’s something « experts » on TV didn’t say a word about when he was saying so from the get go. Of course nobody wanted to talk about that since it would add another variable to the declining death rate situation that was explained only by the « vax ». Of course his prediction was validated by the different variants. - the second thing he did was refusing the orders from the government to stop treating patients and asking them to go home until they are really sick. The IHU in Marseille continued receiving patients, treating the symptoms before the infections got out of hand. In other hospitals they were following orders from bureaucrats who don’t know a thing about medicine and were refusing patients and only accepting them when they were on death’s door! So yes I don’t like Raoult but it wouldn’t be fair to only talk about the bad things he did. Another point: you said Elisabeth discovered the study was not randomised, well, wasn’t it in the title of the study ?! Again I don’t like the guy but you should have read what he said about the subject, that’s the ABC of journalism: according to him, when you are in a pandemic you don’t have the luxury to do everything by the book, you publish whatever you have to see if others see similar patterns. And by the way, Elisabeth was not the first to spot the problems with his article, it was a french/moroccan researcher who made couple of days after the publication a video on UA-cam showing everything that is wrong the methodology including the 6 excluded patients. Here is a video proposition for you, look in youtube for this video: “researcher blows the whistle ventavia” from the channel “The BMJ” Anyways do better.
@@MrHotdogz1234 I wouldn’t trust his research either. But honestly if you go deep enough into any researcher’s past you will find something wrong when he was young and wild. In his case, he made mistakes he shouldn’t have at his age. But again, he is an MD before being a researcher.
For your first point, this is something I learned in biology classes in university, it's not like a well-kept secret or anything, but most importantly it is not certain to happen. Mutations are random, once they happen yes there is an evolutionnary advantage to the less lethal - more contagious ones but you don't know when and where these mutations will emerge, if they ever do. So it is not something you can just count on and not take any course of action. Besides that, you think epidemiologists didn't take into account the lethality of new variants to estimate vaccines efficacy ? Last point, randomisation could be as easy as flipping a coin. Not randomising + excluding patients from the analysis was a blatant fraud to get the results they wanted.
@@user-lt5no1xt1zwell, he lost an election, and is now no longer president, so it seems his popularity and effectiveness did not stand the test of time.
If memory serves correct; there was a paper published in 2016-19 (I forget) that suggested that quercetin and HCQ acted as zinc ionophores, which further effected viral replication. I may have misremembered though 🤷♂️
The zinc ionophore effect occurs reliably in vitro, but due to biotransformation, volume of distribution, etc. (components of ADME), the dose required for therapeutic effect in the human body would be 100-200x more, which would be highly toxic.
Pete, I love your channel, the quality of your videos is superb. I would love to see a video on how you make the videos. Like how long does it take you to make each one? Do you write a script (and how long does that take you) and so on? Finding all those video clips must take ages?
Hahahaha. We’re you a hydroxy guy? Maybe an ivermectin guy? Maybe you were a soak your feet in piss and stare at the sun guy? I’ve heard a lot of good stories.
the video on the guy that fought for scientific best practices all covid long despite the stupidity of his whole country and president? I guess a video could be made, as a positive example
Love your channel, but I have to say, this video is a bit sus. At the end, you simply state that more reliable research came out, without actually evaluating that research. Being that covid was highly politicized, with big Pharma companies getting massive amounts of funding for products without any proven history of working. There were major incentives to not have a treatment, and instead count on the vaccine. Many researchers expressed frustration that they could not get papers published because of the biases of big Pharma.
There were, as I recall, some major issues with those latter studies (Recovery and WHO studies) that were negative for HCQ. Like giving extremely high doses (potentially lethal overdoses) to people who were already very sick and late in the disease progression. These were basically studies designed to fail. The fact that hundreds of billions of dollars was at stake for large pharmaceutical companies surely wouldn't have anything to do with it though.
I'm not against the covid vaccines myself, rushing them out was necessary given the unknowns of the time. But to be surprised that a video about a small subset of vaccines that have relatively large public disapproval, then seeing said public disapproving is rather odd. Also, subsequently grouping that group in with 'all' anti-vaxxers feels wilfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest?
@@henzoko5946 the whole point of vaccines is to give them to healthy people… that’s basically the entire point of all vaccines. They’re not treatments, if you’re sick it’s too late. Do you even understand what a vaccine is? Do you not give your ”healthy kids” polio vaccines because they don’t have polio? Don’t answer I already know. That’s why kids are suddenly dying from a preventable disease. Almost like we invented something called vaccines to prevent it.
Great video! It's not really surprising to learn that Raoult was shady, his obsession with HCQ despite evidence was always out of the norm, from the beginning. Just one question about IHU: doesn't this term describe a _kind_ of research hospital rather than one hospital/institute in particular? IHU means hospital-university institute, where a regular hospital is partnered with a university and students are placed there, as interns for example. As far as I can tell Raoult was linked to IHU Méditerranée in Marseille, but that's it. Other IHUs have nothing to do with him.
You'd think a younger control group would have the opposite skew given the pattern seen in COVID generally. Still not a good control set, but important if that's an opening critique. It seems like the various COVID trails are all looking even more dodgy than the usual state of clinical trials. The incentive structure seems a much bigger issue than individual trails in this area. I had a bad cardio reaction to the second AZ vaccine dose, very scary for a couple of weeks, irregular heatbeat and breathing difficulties. The doctor wouldn't see me for it. (They were only treating covid itself at that point). Thankfully eventually recovered. I'm not even sure if the UK yellow card system I had to find myself actually recorded my issue.
Some excellent points. Sorry to hear about your heart issues - a young friend of mine, a slim 19 year old male with fairly significant learning difficulties had a serious case of pericarditis "out of nowhere". The doctors were blaming it on anxiety and as far as I could tell, made zero connection to the multiple injections he'd had (he was front of the queue due to his learning difficulties). A second friend in the same small volunteer group died of a cardiac related issues - he was in his early 50's - he'd suffered a heart attack about 10 years before, so who knows if it was related 🤷♂️ If Pete wants to look for "shady science" re Covid, he needs to do a one-eighty from where he's started.
How about Simon Gold and the World Doctor's Alliance? It seems like there were quite a few voices making the case for HCQ. Joe Rogan's doctor prescribe it too. Serious question.
My father was a medic in the French military in the 70s and told me the base doctor treated every viral infection with a massive dose of Quinine. He thought it was odd but it seemed to work.
Yes, very relevant. This video is very odd in how it removes the context of existing research on the original SARS coronavirus and Chloroquine treatment. Hydroxychloroquine is a safer (and until 2020 widely available over the counter) drug that is an improvement on Chloroquine. The potential use of the very safe hydroxychloroquine for what was sold as a second SARS virus doesn't come from nowhere . Published: 22 August 2005: "Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread Martin J Vincent, Eric Bergeron, Suzanne Benjannet, Bobbie R Erickson, Pierre E Rollin, Thomas G Ksiazek, Nabil G Seidah & Stuart T Nichol"
This content goes from bad to utterly ridiculous. At one point a source you use is just "a guy called Amiel". It's ironic that all the alleged sources for scientific research brought to bear on HCQ have their own conflicts of interest on a massive scale. Entire books on this topic have been written which are superior and expose the lies and corruption.
I've been following Didier Raoult for a long time since covid. I have to say, a lot of the criticism comes from the methodology he and his teams used. No criticism on the mechanism of action of HCQ itself or azithromycin. but on ethics violation. All hail the RCT , even in times of covid, where it is more important to treat patient rather than have the most pristine, academically safe research. When Trump relayed Dr. Raoult and his team work with HCQ, he became a target for the media and the pharma industry. They wanted to take him down at any cost even though he is a renown professor. Waiting for a video on the side effects of the jab, efficacy of Remdesivir or paxlovid. Or the joint paper from the Lanclet claiming Covid didnt come from a lab.
_" a lot of the criticism comes from the methodology he and his teams used."_ Right. _"No criticism on the mechanism of action of HCQ itself or azithromycin."_ As they are still none. However, by using a bad methodology to pretend HCQ was effective against covid, while their studies where not showing such, they diverted lots of ressources toward a dead-end.
Raoult idea was to use HCQ for the elderly because at the beginning of the pandemic there was catastrophic rates of death whenever a virus would enter a nursing home, however, this idea was considered unethical by the French gov and never applied while not proposing an alternative The main trials that invalidated HCQ were, 1- The Lancet study which got retracted a week later because it was so obvious it was fake (unknown authors, data from hospitals from many countries, race data that you can't collect in Europe..) but still publicly promoted in the parliament by French health minister 2- The Recovery study that gave 4 times the safe dose of HCQ (2400mg compared to 500 for an adult male) and obviously found adverse effects at this dosage After that, what we got was the super expensive Remdesivir which Raoult was a critic from the start because of the serious adverse effects (25 % from own gilead preprint on their website) and ineffectiveness Basically he called to start treating patients with the main idea that HCQ was already used by billions of people worldwide so there was no major adverse effects
Obviously this is horrible research by a public institution, but the entire time I couldn’t help but wonder how ethical the research into the various vaccines were by private companies. Unlike the IHU companies like Pfizer can avoid most scrutiny because their drugs are proprietary. It’s well known many companies test drugs in Africa for example (not all drugs) and most of it is extremely shady. It’s done precisely because there are low or no standards. I’m not saying we should allow this cowboy research by the IHU - I just question how valid and ethical research into the early vaccines was. At least France has more ethical codes than the US does.
I understand he didn’t get approval for a lot of the studies and they were or may have been unethical. But was the research sounds? Anything of use learned by studying all those human fluids and waste?
it doesn't really matter. We had scientific criteria to say a product is safe and effective [heretofore SNE] (and it takes like 5-10 years), and whatever was done, was done in under 1 year, so it is manifestly impossible that the criteria were satisfied, and the statement that it is SNE is not, cannot be (by definition), scientific. It could be true, it could be false, we may know in the within the next 5 years. Moreover, the definition of a "vax" has certain specifications that are not met by "a prophylactic", yet we use the former term, not the latter. This has the added benefit of labeling "people questioning the prophylactic" as anti-vaxxers, which is already a nut-job conspiracy group, who got started from a peer-reviewed (iirc) scientific publication that has since been retracted.
How does he misquote trump? And where should he have included fauci? This video is primarily about a specific scientist and covid just happens to be the context that he got exposed in.
I thought we were going to get a moment of honesty where you said one shouldn't judge Trump on the medias portrayal of his comment when there was a published paper in France and everyone else had thought it legit who didn't know any better also... Instead it was an add plug lol.
Once you start going down the COVID road you must admit that UA-cam will censor anything that doesn't come to a certain conclusion. This is not to say your video is incorrect. Just that if you stay in the area of COVID (and vaccines in general) then I have to assume you are not presenting both sides equally because there is a financial conflict of interest for you. This conflict need not be conscious.
@@lukasb2790science is not consensus. There most certainly more than one side inscience. Otherwise, the Earth would still be considered the center of the universe.
@@Fokker53....no, because science came to a fucking consensus that it wasn't. Science came to a consensus that germs cause disease which is why half of our accredited doctors don't also practice humeral medicine. We all agree that plants are alive nowadays! Or do you think there's debate among scientists on these things? Do you think there's equally weighted science claiming covid was caused by a virus and that it was caused by a fungus, for example, or can we agree that there's scientific consensus on which virus caused it? Consensus is EVERYWHERE in science, I don't know how you've managed to get so opinionated without knowing that. Do you live in a fantasy world? Why do you have such strong opinions on things you haven't bothered to think about for more than a second?
Not convinced… ethics rules are different in France… and his ad hoc approach was useful in an early phase… this must be separated from his public role…and on this he was refreshing and did publicly change his mind on occasion. Actually, it would be better if this channel stayed focused on areas in which the creator has sufficient understanding to form his own judgements… this story here is covered too superficially given the complex intersections of science, medicine and politics that surrounded it
"everybody knows that news can be biased, that's why I suggest you pay some random company to simply curate everything that you read instead, that way I can get a cut of the profit."
Ground news is an amazing aggregator, that includes all the full articles. It doesn't curate or hide anything from you, just allows to make all media managable.
I agree with Giomjava here, having tried the app before. It doesn't really "curate" news articles at all, but rather helps the reader get multiple sides of a story as a whole. It feels like OP here kind of just brushed it all off because it's sponsored.
Do you have a specific issue with his research, such as ethics or misrepresenting data? Perhaps his work on HIV or cancer? I'm guessing the answer is no and you just want some sort of lame retribution
He is not scared. To put it simple, he is working for the system as a controlled opposition. For the very same reason, he will never tell us the whole true story about Kariko and Weissmann, these Oberheuser and Mengele of the 21st century
@@ernestolynch1926jfc imagine being so terminally online that you're eating up memes created by manchildren basement dwellere and 14 year old degenerate weebs as gospel
D. Raoult actually was one of the only rare scientific to make reliable prediction during the pandemic and he never stop patient care. In time of emergency it is acceptable to start treatment even if evidences are lacking. Time matter. His treatment was safe, cheap, off label, off patent could scale fast therefore deployment make sense. There was no alternative.
I offered lemongrass shots for the treatment of HIV, Arthritis, back pain, headaches, Ebola, and COVID. And I NEVER stopped treating my patients. We are the same.
reliable prediction ? You mean, as when he said:« Le virus va "disparaître" au printemps 2020 » (the virus will disapear by spring 2020), or when he said:« Ça m’étonnerait qu’on arrive à 10 000 morts » (I would be surprised if we had 10000 deaths), or when he said:« Il n’y aura pas de 2e vague » (there will be no 2nd wave)… There are meme pages of bonkers statement that he made.
_"D. Raoult actually was one of the only rare scientific to make reliable prediction during the pandemic"_ Yeah, how many trotinettes? _"His treatment was safe"_ Was ineffective. Which is the main point.
that's not a reasonable take. When he was in office, he had a pressor every day with the nation's experts up front, and then said experts later said "they felt gagged", and can now speak freely (post '20)--I mean if POTUS was doing something wrong, then you bring your resignation letter to pressor, call him out, and walk out on live national TV. But that's if you have: integrity and courage. So don't fall for the BS. btw: Do you believe he said we should inject Clorox?
"Patient receiving unapproved treatment" well isn't what is supposed to happen during research? And well what is the death rate of those 21.000 patients? seem like it would be easy to know if there was harm of not?
They weren't part of the study. They were just patients seeking care. So no, they should not have received that drug. It's estimated here that 17,000 people died from taking hcq for COVID. They never should have received that before the research was finished on it. And look at the results. So many dead.
No that is not how it works. Clinical studies are extremely regulated in France (for good reason). The protocol has to be reviewed and approved. Giving a drug off label without a strict protocol will not allowed you to prove its efficacy correctly (even if it works) because you didn't control for a brunch of biases.
@@DB-ow5ye "No that is not how it works. Clinical studies are extremely regulated in France (for good reason). The protocol has to be reviewed and approved. Giving a drug off label without a strict protocol will not allowed you to prove its efficacy correctly (even if it works) because you didn't control for a brunch of biases." Total stupid during time of global pandemic crisis
@@arofhoof A global pandemic is not a good reason to go on national TV and declare a drug is working when you have no scientific proof, and then falsify your results to use as proof. Also, it doesnt have to take years for a protocol to be written and approved. COVID-19 related studies were prioritized during the pandemic, so I am pretty sure the approval process would have been faster than usual, and randomisation is easy to do, especially when you have this amount of patients, so there was no excuse. Also lets not ignore the fact that he did unauthorized studies well before the pandemic. What was the excuse ?
Yes,let's please have a thorough review of the approval process, liability release for producers of the shots, and current results of these efforts. I won't hold my breath.
A widely hailed study which purports to show that heart problems, blood clots, and other maladies caused by COVID vaccines are “rare,” is based on data that the authors say they cannot “share” contrary to bedrock principles of science. Established norms requires that data be made freely available to other researchers in order for the data to be validated and used to reproduce the results.
@@runderwo It's actually not that uncommon that you can't share data. The data in this case is probably private patient medical records. This isn't something you can just open to everyone.
Properly anonymized records raise no privacy concerns while providing sufficient research value. Anyone who continues to assert vague privacy concerns regarding anonymous records is simply obstructing.
I'm not sure how to feel about this one… One the one hand: he does seem a bit like an arrogant huckster who plays fast and loose with the basic principles of medical science. But on the other hand: It does also seem like a lot of these ethics requirements are somewhat egregious, and are being used for gatekeeping.
But the rules are the rules, and everybody in the field knows them. When you break them, like in this case, it is because your paper is not aimed at other experts in the field but rather at journalists and the world at large. Which again prompts the question, how did it get through peer review?
The title suggests Dr. Mengele, the actual content is shaky science done by a medical doctor high on his power during the pandemic. He collected sputum samples from homeless people and analyzed them for tuberculosis. Did he "experiment on homeless people"? The answer is yes for the very technical sense of "homeless people were part of the study". The answer is no for the most commonly held understanding of the term. You should have independent ethical reviews, but it might be the case, that ethical review bureaucracy is a bit over the top in general and not fit for the circumstance of a raging pandemic in particular.
Of all the "super dodgy" Covid scientists, you go after someone recommending early treatments? This is by far and away the absolute worst video I've seen from you, Pete. If this platform didn't remove or down-rank comments that mention specific information, I would point you in the direction of some shocking truths from the mainstream. Do your homework, Pete!
Is this Pete Judo doing his part to make sure we get four more years of the media asking what ice cream flavor ol’ Million Class Joe is eating? I mean, a Covid “exposé” in the election year 2024? 😂
This is interesting. I know that tons and tons of papers made it through the peer review process before retraction during the COVID pandemic. This is one of many such studies. Certainly, we need to respond to it and make sure it doesn't happen again. However, the fact that it happened is not surprising. The reason this unethical researcher ended up under a microscope is only because of the news coverage around the treatment. I would love to have seen the studies done correctly the first time. It's a shame they were not handled well. Something which had at least some promise at the time could have been properly tested and the anger machine avoided. This should have never happened. Everybody should have looked on the results with optimistic skepticism.
The hydroxychloroquine / erythromycin paper was pretty poor. My recollection from when it came out was that patients with heart problems were moved from the combination group, but not the other groups. So it was no surprise that the healthier combination group appeared to have better clinical outcomes. This was bad experimental design, and should have been picked up in peer-review. I am a bit concerned about the response to the paper though. Release any controversial result, and by all means that paper should be scrutinized more closely. But having people pour all over your previous unrelated papers looking for any sort of statistical anomalies (which is complained about as p-hacking in papers that you wish to criticise) seems to me to be a form of group harassment. It certainly seems to me to encourage group-think in published research.
No, doing bad work and then having people check and be sure the rest of your work is fine should be how science works. I'm sorry the idea of scientific rigor (even if after the fact) offends you, but most people who do bad work once to prove an ideological point have done it before and will do it again. You don't get the benefit of the doubt after that. Also, nice little dig at p-hacking there, really driving home that you would rather people be polite than do basic methodology or statistical analysis. This isn't inconsequential stuff. You could ruin lives by screwing this stuff up as badly as he did, and you don't get to get away with bad data just because you feel like 'it's mean when people criticize bad data uwu why can't you just be nice?' Science isn't about being nice, polite and not stepping on toes. It's about not increasing human suffering and finding ways to help people. You shouldn't expect people to roll over and say 'well you hurt people once but golly it must have been a mistake! We'll just let you get away with everything you did before now!' because that's how we get people trying to fake elements and millions of dollars wasted on fake blood machines and Alzheimer's plaques. It is not harassment to check someone's work to make sure they aren't hurting people. Get a grip
@@dweebicusmaximus you completely fail to understand my point. I feel like writing an essay, so... 1) "Doing bad work, and having people check and be sure the rest of your work is fine should be how science works." Science is supposed to work by having your work reviewed as you are publishing. You know, peer review. Not by angry mob. Not everybody has all of their previous works reviewed and publicly criticised. This is special treatment, which causes additional stress to the recipient. You don't seem to be a very empathic person, so I guess you'll never understand that unless it happens to you. So what do you mean by "bad work"? If you are referring to plagiarism and falsification of data, then I'm 100% with you. Audit that sucker. This is because the intent was to deceive, and this could easily have been missed in the peer review of the previous papers. The problem with this paper does not appear to have been intentional. It was sloppy experimental design. I'm not in medicine, but I see sloppy experimental design in maybe 50% of the papers I have to review (I just reject them instead of hounding them to the end of the earth). This one just happened to get through peer review. My argument is that if you are going to choose this as a threshold for holding an inquisition, why not do this for every paper with poor experimental design? You know, like a randomized trial, instead of deciding which errors to prosecute, and which to just ignore based on ideology instead of science,. Which is what appears to me to be happening here.
@@dweebicusmaximus here is Part 2 of my essay: "I'm sorry the idea of scientific rigor (even if after the fact) offends you," That does not offend me. If mistakes are found in old publications, by all means they should be corrected if possible. "but most people who do bad work once to prove an ideological point have done it before and will do it again. You don't get the benefit of the doubt after that." Ah. I think this is the crux of our difference of opinion. It is not clear to me that there was any intent, or even ideology to push at the time this paper was submitted. I thought it pre-dated Trump's comments on Invermectin. The paper even reported that Invermectin by itself showed no effect on Covid. I have seen no evidence that this paper was intentionally fraudulent, unlike some later papers which praised Invermectin. I am angrier at the reviewers than I am at the authors. "Also, nice little dig at p-hacking there, really driving home that you would rather people be polite than do basic methodology or statistical analysis." I'm not sure what your point is here. You do know what p-hacking is, and why it is bad right? My point was based on a quote by Cardinal Richelieu which was: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." and that seemed to be what was happening here. I chose to express this in a way that was more suitable to this UA-cam channel.
@@dweebicusmaximus Part 3 of the essay: "This isn't inconsequential stuff. You could ruin lives by screwing this stuff up as badly as he did" Yes. The paper should have been retracted, and an investigation of some sort into how this happened. Why did the reviewers accept? Was there any in-house experimental review of the protocol to specifically identify problems in the method before the study even started? If not, why not? "and you don't get to get away with bad data" I do not believe anyone has claimed that the data was bad. It was real data. It was just not useful for determining the efficacy of the Invermectin/Erythromycin combination. It might be useful in measuring effectiveness of solo Invermectin and solo Erythromycin (both of which were negative). "just because you feel like 'it's mean when people criticize bad data uwu why can't you just be nice?'"" This was not my argument. The error seems to have been unintentional. I do not think someone should be publicly called out as a fraud for an unintentional error.
@@dweebicusmaximus Part 4/4 of essay: "Science isn't about being nice, polite and not stepping on toes." I never said it was. It also isn't about kicking them in the bollocks if they say something you disagree with. "You shouldn't expect people to roll over and say 'well you hurt people once but golly it must have been a mistake! "" Indeed. The mob must have blood. I prefer to be more civilized. I have seen lots of mistakes in papers just like this. We should strive to reduce these mistakes without the need of sacrificing them to the masses. "We'll just let you get away with everything you did before now!" It's not clear to me that they did anything especially nefarious before now. They used an in-house ethics panel instead of the preferred one. Doesn't really concern me. They used a blanket ethics approval for covering human sample collection and analysis. It's the same collection procedure regardless of study, so again why is this a problem? What seemed to be absent was any allegation of fraudulent data, despite copious analysis. "because that's how we get people trying to fake elements and millions of dollars wasted on fake blood machines and Alzheimer's plaques." You get that from fakery, not from being incorrect. If they had wanted to fake the data, they could just as easily have said they were using a randomized trial when they were not. The fact they said they weren't suggests they were not trying to hide anything. "It is not harassment to check someone's work to make sure they aren't hurting people. Get a grip" That's true. What I would consider harassment is publicly making allegations of fakery based on methodology that might be just as bad as those in the paper that initiated the investigation. In summary, I do not think that this video did a good job of outlining specific reasons for thinking the paper's author should be publicly excoriated. For me, just being unintentionally wrong is not a big enough reason. I saw no evidence of intent to falsify anything, or any damning wrong-doing. There might be more evidence I don't know about, but I will change my mind only when I see it.
@@churblefurbles Well, he could report on the bad trials, and also on doctors successfully treating Covid with ivermectin. There's one lawsuit going on right now.
Go to ground.news/pete to stay fully informed. Subscribe through my link to get 40% off unlimited access this month only.
6th dose for a sammich, are you in?
If you are a scientific influencer why is that your sponsor is about political compass? This is pretty weird in my opinion
You must check your own political bias, Pete. Never try to paint the absolutely false picture that Trump led media to promote Hydroxychloroquine against Covid. Just _because_ he (among so many others, experts and non-experts) talked optimistically about it, the media immediately began to trash him for that, as they did with exactly everything he ever said. If Hillary Clinton had talked favourably about Hydroxychloroquine, nobody should care.
@@kalebyee I'd say the mask is off.
@@philliprose1815 yeah, this makes sense considering he started the video with Donald Trump who's not a scientist whatsoever, like there is a political position to defend or offend. He did something similar on Gay's plagiarism video, showing the trial they had for her position regarding Jews and Palestinians and also implying that the accusations were because she was black even when one of the victims of her plagiarism is a black woman who is on the same political spectrum
Hello from France.
I think the reason Raoult got so popular in the beginning of covid is that he was going against the alarmism of the media, comparing covid 19 to the H1N1 pandemic which was treated in the media as an apocalyptical threat to the human race but died off within a year with millions upon millions of euros misspent. He was also vocal against the lockdown which was definitely not a popular measure.
Meanwhile the government was busy messing up at every corner. For example since H1N1, France built up a facemask reserve for future threats, but most of if was given away to china in the early days of covid, creating an artificial shortage. The prime minister at the time claimed on national TV that facemasks were of no use against covid weeks before enforcing mandatory wearing of said masks everywhere. With the price of facemasks skyrocketing It created a financial burden on the poorest among the population while fueling mistrust and complotists theories. There were also multiple instances of publicly funded large feast held by government officials for their peers with a complete disregard for rules enforced on everyone else.
Thankfully we have a large community of skeptics doing the work the media should be required to do.
Agree. People were scared and wanted a simple treatment and answer. Currently in US, 1500 people still dies per week from COVID. Most of them are old people or ones with many medical issues.
Great observations :)
And not only in France but in other EU-countries exactly the same obeservation 1:1 can be made.
@@user-sc5rc1mb6n no, 1500 die per eeek who happen to have covid, not from
Sounds like you describe the situation in Germany. Same here: Facemasks were given to China in the beginning of 2020 for free and then the health minister bought billions of facemasks for a heated price. That is, he ordered but then refused to pay, because much too many masks were delivered. Then facemasks were made compulsory.
Hello from France as well,
Didier Raoult had a huge amount of criticism right from the start.
It was well known that his big fan club was in Marseilles because he was the local chap making their town look like a center of medical authority. He got a lot of mockery from a few comedians on TV. President Macron went down to see him, giving him the benefit of the doubt and was quite criticised for this. Like many people he seemed to be thinking "Maybe he's right after all, even if it's not very scientific".
Then it became known how Raoult was very authoritarian in his institute. He was on non-speaking terms with his own daughter who said her father could not stand being contradicted.
At some point, even before his retirement his reputation started going south.
Just want to say that in medical research conducting non randomised trials and not including a paediatric population is not considered an ethical violation as long as the research methods and the rationale are clearly stated. Sometimes randomisation is not feasible.
Not even when discerning the effectiveness of specific drugs against others?
If it's a drug that would not be used in a pediatric setting, probably. Like there would be little reason to test certain chemotherapies on kids, because some cancers are generally non existent in kids.
Not including children in clinical research is just practical. You need to get "informed consent" from the parents, and unless there is an immediate danger, the parents will refuse. Parents who consent would be a pre selected group. Just saying from the view of a retired pediatrician who worked in academic settings and also was on the hospital ethics committee, which is responsible for approving clinical studies. As for the randomized, double blinded, prospective studies, it's true that not all studies can be conducted this way, but if you are not an idiot, you know that you are conducting a seriously flawed study and the result of your study should be used to determine future studies, not change your clinicalapproach. You would be a fool to change your clinical approach based on such a study. The exception being if you don't have anything better to offer and even then, you should do it only temporarily until you can actually conduct a "good" study.
That means you can't use it as evidence for a pediatric population and that's what they did
Not all trials include pediatric patients.
I’m confused, doesn’t the title of the paper say it’s non-randomized? If that’s the case then how was it a shocking discovery? What am I missing ?
It is just that people don't understand the implications of a non-randomised trial being used as concrete evidence to make healthcare policies and decisions
"I am a scientist... You'll listen to me"
Obviously that's not something any good scientists would ever say. I've heard plenty of Americans say that's what they hear, but the irony is that that group is more likely to believe in HQ...
Like Fauci said? "I am the science" as I recall?
@@vyor8837There can be more than one bad person you know
Elizabeth is like dragon slyer.
Is a dragon slyer someone who smooth talks dragons
Hi, I am french. Raoult had a lot of followers but also a lot of critics pretty fast. It was a divisive subject. I have a scientific background and spend quite some time explaining what was going wrong with him. This subject lead to huge disagreement inside the NGO I was working for (and that I founded). Fake news info have taken an huge part to the death of this NGO (Too long to explain how, sorry... Unless you ask for it ;) ). Fake news and charlatans really hurt.
As a pharmacist who worked the entire pandemic in front line- hydroxychloroquine has one of the most horrific side effect profiles out of every medication used in modern practice
No other medication can destroy a given blood cell type (literally any of the WBC types) or has a 1 in 13 chance of blinding the patient (does not improve on cessation)
It was incredibly frustrating having to care for the people who believed these snake oil salesmen
Pharmacists don't directly work with patients lmao. Nice lie
"The front lines of covid" so was everyone else. You sat at a desk. Get a grip
So whats the downside?
Pharmacists don't directly work with patients and everyone was on the Frontline. Get a grip, you weren't that important lol. A robot could do your job
Multiple drugs can destroy blood cells. Phenytoin for example is a known culprit of agranulocytosis. This comment is not an endorsement of chloroquine for Covid
As someone who takes this medication for lupus, the side effects are actually very mild. I take much worse medications. The risk of vision loss is very rare and can be detected through imaging of the retina to view deposits, along with annual vision testing. If the dose is adjusted for weight it usually takes over 20 years before any evidence of potential eye damage may occur.
Pete, thanks for your work highlighting these frauds. This quickly became one of my favorite youtube channels.
In my experience, it’s difficult and expensive to conduct clinical trials. All humans are biased and even a good health care provider can subconsciously affect which patients are enrolled in clinical trials. In addition to patients meeting the inclusion criteria, the records of those not enrolled must also be reviewed to ensure that patients who are more difficult to treat are not being subtly encouraged to not enroll. Double blinded randomized clinical trials are best but even they need diligent monitoring.
It can be hard - especially if the research subjects are the regular patients of the doctors conducting the study and there is a relationship there.
@@jackiekjono Which is why those providing patient care and those conducting the study should never be the same people. It is a conflict of interest. Therapeutic relationships have been shown repeatedly to introduce bias and induce ethical lapses in clinical trials.
Intriguing, your videos on academic dishonesty have drawn an antivax audience. I think your success had some unintended consequences
It's interesting that they've somehow interpreted the criticism of academic malpractice as criticism of science in general. Which is literally the opposite of what they're supposed to take away.
This boy is working for the system. He has no courage to tell us the whole true story about Kariko and Weissmann, these Oberhauser and Mengele of the 21st century.
@@ernestolynch1926Quality apophenia
@@MrFrexxia That's a nice strawman for you to believe.
@MrFrexxia because science is intrinsically tied to the academics that practice it. I'm not sure how anyone with critical thinking skill wouldn't see it as a criticism of science itself. People in the highest echelons of science only so it for the grant money and seeing how many can't reproduce and/or lie about their results is absolutely staggering.
1. Randomized trials are not necessary for every conclusion. I don't need to make a randomized trial about the safety of parachutes
2. Shady practices about COVID were found everywhere, since everyone wanted to have the answer for the pandemic. I say this for the conclusions about HCQ and vaccines
3. 100 years ago there was a scientific conclusion that doctors did not need to wash their hands to deal with pregnant women and a physician who said this practice would decrease infections on these women lost his practice license. Also lobotomy was defended as scientific proved for 60 years (and renditioned a Nobel Prize). Research on health is not black or white, but shades of gray and sometimes people are called "shady" because they don't go with the stablishment
4. There is a principle in the scientific field in which a conclusion must be contextualized. There's plenty of articles talking about HCQ not being useful against COVID, nonetheless all of these conclusions are made about the stages in which the disease has already developed to the point of hospitalization. HCQ was never recommended for hospitalized people, but when the first symptoms showed up. I think this contextualization is important
5. One of the studies that showed HCQ did more harm than good with COVID patients was conducted here in Brazil and the methodology was, at least, weird. The dose of HCQ was higher than the recommended worldwide for any disease and the justification was that it should be because COVID was more deadly so they needed more (even deadly) doses. Also the study was conducted on hospitalized patients
Before you accuse me of anything, just understand that I'm pointing out the issues not addressed in the video, not the claims that Raoult did scientific malpractice. I'm actually using the same arguments Judo used to stimilate critical thinking about any conclusion, not only the ones we don't want to have. There's tons of evidence of the issues of COVID vaccinations, for example, and people defending cheaper alternatives are being called antivaxxers. Astrazeneca's vaccine was banned in more than 5 countries before 1 year of application because of cardiologic problems found after its application, Pfizer's business was shady in lots of countries even demanding that if they did harm intentionally they wouldn't be charged and Moderna said that their studies did not test effectiveness for stopping the spread of the virus.
I am not an antivaxxer, if you will to accuse me of such. What I am is skeptical of any conclusion without proper contextualization. Also I'm not saying that Raoult did not commit fraud, since if there's evidence he did then he probably did it and this has to be addressed. So this is not to say Judo is wrong, but to say that context is more important in health fields than conclusions
You can claim you're not an anti-vaxxer, but you're clearly an anti-vaxxer. You're not posting this because you're pro-science, you're posting this because you have an agenda to push.
Immediately my bullshit detector went off as soon as I saw your first point. It's a patently false analogy as parachutes clearly demonstrate their effectiveness visually. The human body and medicine are vastly different. You're unable to tell if the medicine actually worked or if your body simply recovered naturally unless you not only randomize, but also control for other factors and double, even triple blind the study. Simple anecdotes for a drug's effectiveness prove nothing, no matter how many you gather.
On your "science was wrong before" comment... so what? On many occasions pseudoscientific beliefs were embraced as if they were fact, usually due to external political coercion. Science is wrong all the time. That's not a flaw, that's a feature. It constantly changes. It should change. That is- with high quality evidence. Past scientific blunders have no bearing on whether or not modern scientific claims are true or false. It sounds to me here that you are lending false credibility to quacks who make baseless claims.
Finally, on the claim that "studies did not test for effectiveness for stopping the spread of the virus," this is misleading. Clinical trials were to test the safety and the efficacy in reducing symptomatic disease and nothing else. However, independent studies later found effectiveness in reducing the spread of the virus for vaccines.
I think you could use some more work on reducing your use of logical fallacies before calling yourself a "skeptic." Otherwise, it makes your argument look very shallow.
Great video! I think your content is sooooo incredibly important to improve science. The drawback is that it draws in the conspiracy crowds who completely miss the point of what you’re doing.
the conspiracy crowds who were one hundred percent correct ??
@@FatMenace When the system cannot fight the truth, it calls it a “conspiracy.”
@@ernestolynch1926 *when it’s not testable*
@@alsmellz Call Fauci and talk to him - he knows the truth. But before you talk to him, don't forget to give him some good medicine like sodium thiopental.
really? The conspiracy crowd? That's a conspiracy theory right there.
I’m french and I was never a fan of Raoult just because he is so arrogant. He was wrong on the hydroxy stuff and he should have just took the L on that one BUT nevertheless I have 2 positive things to say about him:
- He explained on his UA-cam channel and on TV that in general, viruses become less lethal with time but more transmissible (the evolutionary explanation he gave was that for a virus to survive it needs to spread more but kill less), that’s something « experts » on TV didn’t say a word about when he was saying so from the get go. Of course nobody wanted to talk about that since it would add another variable to the declining death rate situation that was explained only by the « vax ». Of course his prediction was validated by the different variants.
- the second thing he did was refusing the orders from the government to stop treating patients and asking them to go home until they are really sick. The IHU in Marseille continued receiving patients, treating the symptoms before the infections got out of hand. In other hospitals they were following orders from bureaucrats who don’t know a thing about medicine and were refusing patients and only accepting them when they were on death’s door!
So yes I don’t like Raoult but it wouldn’t be fair to only talk about the bad things he did.
Another point: you said Elisabeth discovered the study was not randomised, well, wasn’t it in the title of the study ?! Again I don’t like the guy but you should have read what he said about the subject, that’s the ABC of journalism: according to him, when you are in a pandemic you don’t have the luxury to do everything by the book, you publish whatever you have to see if others see similar patterns.
And by the way, Elisabeth was not the first to spot the problems with his article, it was a french/moroccan researcher who made couple of days after the publication a video on UA-cam showing everything that is wrong the methodology including the 6 excluded patients.
Here is a video proposition for you, look in youtube for this video: “researcher blows the whistle ventavia” from the channel “The BMJ”
Anyways do better.
Ever heard of McGregor the Builder?
100% agree with this comment, it's illogical to go by the book all the time, especially in a pandemic.
He is a shady researcher and he is not fit to take advice from.
@@MrHotdogz1234 I wouldn’t trust his research either. But honestly if you go deep enough into any researcher’s past you will find something wrong when he was young and wild. In his case, he made mistakes he shouldn’t have at his age. But again, he is an MD before being a researcher.
For your first point, this is something I learned in biology classes in university, it's not like a well-kept secret or anything, but most importantly it is not certain to happen. Mutations are random, once they happen yes there is an evolutionnary advantage to the less lethal - more contagious ones but you don't know when and where these mutations will emerge, if they ever do. So it is not something you can just count on and not take any course of action. Besides that, you think epidemiologists didn't take into account the lethality of new variants to estimate vaccines efficacy ?
Last point, randomisation could be as easy as flipping a coin. Not randomising + excluding patients from the analysis was a blatant fraud to get the results they wanted.
Thanks for another great video. Love this channel.
Here in Brazil we still have to deal with this bullshit of cloroquine, which was enthusiastically promoted by our former president
Yup,thanks to our good doctor Raoult!
Bolsonaro was a good president, right? I thought people liked him in Brazil?
@@user-lt5no1xt1zwell, he lost an election, and is now no longer president, so it seems his popularity and effectiveness did not stand the test of time.
@@adamgreenspan4988 he won the election, he was then defrauded out of office
If memory serves correct; there was a paper published in 2016-19 (I forget) that suggested that quercetin and HCQ acted as zinc ionophores, which further effected viral replication. I may have misremembered though 🤷♂️
Interesting, thanks for the share !
The zinc ionophore effect occurs reliably in vitro, but due to biotransformation, volume of distribution, etc. (components of ADME), the dose required for therapeutic effect in the human body would be 100-200x more, which would be highly toxic.
@@caliguy1260This is also the case with ivermectin. Sounds promising in vitro, but that doesn't translate well to the body.
Lack of ethics approval is a red herring. The question is, are the results wrong. That's what we need to know.
The Fauch got the same star treatment from our media.
Cool story
Even so, you'll need something concrete to accuse him of anything
@@samsonsoturian6013 His signature is on the lab grant.
Pete, I love your channel, the quality of your videos is superb. I would love to see a video on how you make the videos. Like how long does it take you to make each one? Do you write a script (and how long does that take you) and so on? Finding all those video clips must take ages?
When is the fauci video coming
Exactly. Or a video on jab side effect or lab leaks.
Hahahaha. We’re you a hydroxy guy? Maybe an ivermectin guy? Maybe you were a soak your feet in piss and stare at the sun guy? I’ve heard a lot of good stories.
I doubt they will ever arrive
I think you’re on the wrong channel ?
the video on the guy that fought for scientific best practices all covid long despite the stupidity of his whole country and president? I guess a video could be made, as a positive example
My honest rebuttal was deleted. Keep that in mind about this video before trusting it
There are some pretty gaping hopes in the arguments he presents. You should try reposting your rebuttal; I’m sure many would be interested to read it.
i’d be interested in reading it as well, maybe censoring a few words to appease the yt algorithm would work
"Yeah; but he meant well" isn't much of a defense.
Also, knowingly doing bad science isn’t meaning well
This is all the source for a movie.❤❤❤
Love your channel, but I have to say, this video is a bit sus. At the end, you simply state that more reliable research came out, without actually evaluating that research. Being that covid was highly politicized, with big Pharma companies getting massive amounts of funding for products without any proven history of working. There were major incentives to not have a treatment, and instead count on the vaccine. Many researchers expressed frustration that they could not get papers published because of the biases of big Pharma.
There were, as I recall, some major issues with those latter studies (Recovery and WHO studies) that were negative for HCQ. Like giving extremely high doses (potentially lethal overdoses) to people who were already very sick and late in the disease progression. These were basically studies designed to fail. The fact that hundreds of billions of dollars was at stake for large pharmaceutical companies surely wouldn't have anything to do with it though.
@@Gumbatron01 But good researchers like even Pete can be fooled by the rhetoric put out there.
Does Bik have a website or something to that effect where she publishes her analysis on these frauds and such?
If that guy wasn't wearing a labcoat, he could easily be mistaken for a lunatic hermit with a shack in the woods.
What on earth is going on with the comment section on this video?
Suddenly all the anti-vaxxers are coming out of the woodwork
we never left
@@FatMenace : Sadly.
I'm not against the covid vaccines myself, rushing them out was necessary given the unknowns of the time. But to be surprised that a video about a small subset of vaccines that have relatively large public disapproval, then seeing said public disapproving is rather odd. Also, subsequently grouping that group in with 'all' anti-vaxxers feels wilfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest?
Why is everything anti giving the covid vaccine to healthy adults and kids anti-vax??? What kind of tard logic is that?
@@henzoko5946 the whole point of vaccines is to give them to healthy people… that’s basically the entire point of all vaccines. They’re not treatments, if you’re sick it’s too late. Do you even understand what a vaccine is? Do you not give your ”healthy kids” polio vaccines because they don’t have polio? Don’t answer I already know. That’s why kids are suddenly dying from a preventable disease. Almost like we invented something called vaccines to prevent it.
Seems strange for a country to ban treatment with a nearly 100-year-old drug that’s essentially just synthetic quinine …
Great video! It's not really surprising to learn that Raoult was shady, his obsession with HCQ despite evidence was always out of the norm, from the beginning. Just one question about IHU: doesn't this term describe a _kind_ of research hospital rather than one hospital/institute in particular? IHU means hospital-university institute, where a regular hospital is partnered with a university and students are placed there, as interns for example. As far as I can tell Raoult was linked to IHU Méditerranée in Marseille, but that's it. Other IHUs have nothing to do with him.
Peter lying about liars lying.
You'd think a younger control group would have the opposite skew given the pattern seen in COVID generally. Still not a good control set, but important if that's an opening critique.
It seems like the various COVID trails are all looking even more dodgy than the usual state of clinical trials. The incentive structure seems a much bigger issue than individual trails in this area.
I had a bad cardio reaction to the second AZ vaccine dose, very scary for a couple of weeks, irregular heatbeat and breathing difficulties. The doctor wouldn't see me for it. (They were only treating covid itself at that point). Thankfully eventually recovered.
I'm not even sure if the UK yellow card system I had to find myself actually recorded my issue.
Its easier to attack Raoult rather than AZ , where big money lies.
Some excellent points.
Sorry to hear about your heart issues - a young friend of mine, a slim 19 year old male with fairly significant learning difficulties had a serious case of pericarditis "out of nowhere". The doctors were blaming it on anxiety and as far as I could tell, made zero connection to the multiple injections he'd had (he was front of the queue due to his learning difficulties).
A second friend in the same small volunteer group died of a cardiac related issues - he was in his early 50's - he'd suffered a heart attack about 10 years before, so who knows if it was related 🤷♂️
If Pete wants to look for "shady science" re Covid, he needs to do a one-eighty from where he's started.
I thought it was rushed. And I thought there was too much political pressure to take the stuff. I thank gawd I did not take it.
How about Simon Gold and the World Doctor's Alliance? It seems like there were quite a few voices making the case for HCQ. Joe Rogan's doctor prescribe it too.
Serious question.
What about the study of NY Grossman on this medicine? March 2020.
2:37 I'd say "this claim", because a fact it ain't.
My father was a medic in the French military in the 70s and told me the base doctor treated every viral infection with a massive dose of Quinine. He thought it was odd but it seemed to work.
Yes, very relevant. This video is very odd in how it removes the context of existing research on the original SARS coronavirus and Chloroquine treatment. Hydroxychloroquine is a safer (and until 2020 widely available over the counter) drug that is an improvement on Chloroquine. The potential use of the very safe hydroxychloroquine for what was sold as a second SARS virus doesn't come from nowhere .
Published: 22 August 2005:
"Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread
Martin J Vincent, Eric Bergeron, Suzanne Benjannet, Bobbie R Erickson, Pierre E Rollin, Thomas G Ksiazek, Nabil G Seidah & Stuart T Nichol"
Kinda what Fauci did with the vaccines...
Making a medical argument with ethical concerns is non sequitur.
Even when those ethical concerns are the fact that he just lied about the (medical) science?
This is amazing. I knew it was bullshit, but I had no idea there was all this bullshit BEHIND the fallacious claims.
Pretty based dude not gonna lie. Support Raoult
"Ethical gray" starts to approach "fraud."
And the moral of the story: crime pays out ....
He reminds me of some German doctors 🥼 during the second war 😢!!!!
Hey! I like your contents. Could you please also talk about Nobel prize winner Thomas Sudhof?
The letter H is spelt Aitch. There is no leading H sound, just as we don't say Lell, Memm, and Nenn.
Some people in the UK pronounce it Hay-tch. It's an accepted alternate pronunciation.
This content goes from bad to utterly ridiculous. At one point a source you use is just "a guy called Amiel". It's ironic that all the alleged sources for scientific research brought to bear on HCQ have their own conflicts of interest on a massive scale. Entire books on this topic have been written which are superior and expose the lies and corruption.
Go away troll.
Brilliantly done, Pete!
Thank you
I've been following Didier Raoult for a long time since covid. I have to say, a lot of the criticism comes from the methodology he and his teams used.
No criticism on the mechanism of action of HCQ itself or azithromycin.
but on ethics violation.
All hail the RCT , even in times of covid, where it is more important to treat patient rather than have the most pristine, academically safe research.
When Trump relayed Dr. Raoult and his team work with HCQ, he became a target for the media and the pharma industry.
They wanted to take him down at any cost even though he is a renown professor.
Waiting for a video on the side effects of the jab, efficacy of Remdesivir or paxlovid. Or the joint paper from the Lanclet claiming Covid didnt come from a lab.
_" a lot of the criticism comes from the methodology he and his teams used."_
Right.
_"No criticism on the mechanism of action of HCQ itself or azithromycin."_
As they are still none.
However, by using a bad methodology to pretend HCQ was effective against covid, while their studies where not showing such, they diverted lots of ressources toward a dead-end.
Raoult idea was to use HCQ for the elderly because at the beginning of the pandemic there was catastrophic rates of death whenever a virus would enter a nursing home, however, this idea was considered unethical by the French gov and never applied while not proposing an alternative
The main trials that invalidated HCQ were,
1- The Lancet study which got retracted a week later because it was so obvious it was fake (unknown authors, data from hospitals from many countries, race data that you can't collect in Europe..) but still publicly promoted in the parliament by French health minister
2- The Recovery study that gave 4 times the safe dose of HCQ (2400mg compared to 500 for an adult male) and obviously found adverse effects at this dosage
After that, what we got was the super expensive Remdesivir which Raoult was a critic from the start because of the serious adverse effects (25 % from own gilead preprint on their website) and ineffectiveness
Basically he called to start treating patients with the main idea that HCQ was already used by billions of people worldwide so there was no major adverse effects
Go away troll.
Obviously this is horrible research by a public institution, but the entire time I couldn’t help but wonder how ethical the research into the various vaccines were by private companies. Unlike the IHU companies like Pfizer can avoid most scrutiny because their drugs are proprietary. It’s well known many companies test drugs in Africa for example (not all drugs) and most of it is extremely shady. It’s done precisely because there are low or no standards. I’m not saying we should allow this cowboy research by the IHU - I just question how valid and ethical research into the early vaccines was. At least France has more ethical codes than the US does.
I understand he didn’t get approval for a lot of the studies and they were or may have been unethical. But was the research sounds? Anything of use learned by studying all those human fluids and waste?
i guess soon you'll be reviewing fauci as well? :p
I want to see the video on the Covid vaccine studies.
it doesn't really matter. We had scientific criteria to say a product is safe and effective [heretofore SNE] (and it takes like 5-10 years), and whatever was done, was done in under 1 year, so it is manifestly impossible that the criteria were satisfied, and the statement that it is SNE is not, cannot be (by definition), scientific. It could be true, it could be false, we may know in the within the next 5 years.
Moreover, the definition of a "vax" has certain specifications that are not met by "a prophylactic", yet we use the former term, not the latter.
This has the added benefit of labeling "people questioning the prophylactic" as anti-vaxxers, which is already a nut-job conspiracy group, who got started from a peer-reviewed (iirc) scientific publication that has since been retracted.
The.definition of "trust me bro; I'm a scientist".
Admittedly better than “trust me bro; I barely got a GED and read a facebook post” because the Scientist should know better than the simple person.
Sounds like Fauci to me
Too scared to do Fauci?
So you misquote Trump and ignore Fauci. Now that’s sus
How does he misquote trump? And where should he have included fauci? This video is primarily about a specific scientist and covid just happens to be the context that he got exposed in.
Bleach in the brain 🧠 🤔????
How does something with "non-randomized" in the title even get published?
I guess the "non-randomized" in the title was an post publication edit.
When you publish in your friend journal... you can publish anything
If every study in Medicine had to be randomized, and controlled, very few studies would even be possible. There would be a lot fewer medical journals.
How is collecting data from voluntary subjects unethical? Specifically excluding them would be unethical because it would be bad science.
I thought we were going to get a moment of honesty where you said one shouldn't judge Trump on the medias portrayal of his comment when there was a published paper in France and everyone else had thought it legit who didn't know any better also...
Instead it was an add plug lol.
Bleach in the brain 🧠 🤔????
@@LukVik algorithmic people emulator?
@@Loreweavver 🥹😅😂🤣🥲 I, robot 🤖!!!
@@LukVik la le lu li lo
Try cutting down on the emoji.
Either you are a robot or you're too young to be on the internet.
@@Loreweavver An emoji is worth a thousand words 😉!!!
Raoult’s hair is so gross
Nice job Pete. Thank you!
Once you start going down the COVID road you must admit that UA-cam will censor anything that doesn't come to a certain conclusion. This is not to say your video is incorrect. Just that if you stay in the area of COVID (and vaccines in general) then I have to assume you are not presenting both sides equally because there is a financial conflict of interest for you. This conflict need not be conscious.
There are not "both sides". We have only one science
@@lukasb2790science is not consensus. There most certainly more than one side inscience. Otherwise, the Earth would still be considered the center of the universe.
@@Fokker53....no, because science came to a fucking consensus that it wasn't. Science came to a consensus that germs cause disease which is why half of our accredited doctors don't also practice humeral medicine. We all agree that plants are alive nowadays! Or do you think there's debate among scientists on these things? Do you think there's equally weighted science claiming covid was caused by a virus and that it was caused by a fungus, for example, or can we agree that there's scientific consensus on which virus caused it?
Consensus is EVERYWHERE in science, I don't know how you've managed to get so opinionated without knowing that. Do you live in a fantasy world? Why do you have such strong opinions on things you haven't bothered to think about for more than a second?
@@lukasb2790 Wherever you stand that statement is errant nonsense.
@@lukasb2790your statement here confirmed that you are not a stem scholar
Not convinced… ethics rules are different in France… and his ad hoc approach was useful in an early phase… this must be separated from his public role…and on this he was refreshing and did publicly change his mind on occasion. Actually, it would be better if this channel stayed focused on areas in which the creator has sufficient understanding to form his own judgements… this story here is covered too superficially given the complex intersections of science, medicine and politics that surrounded it
Exactly
Spot on
Yes, I think so, too.
I totally thought this was Harold Bornstein when I saw his photo until you mention he's French and his name. Two quacks who almost look related.
Your arguments are very weak and limited to ethical concerns.
You totally miss the main issue: Does HCQ work or not?
I really love your videos!!
Exactly how evolution is explained. The carbon dating data can be found as accurate and honest as this (science)
Now do Ivermectin
You think? YT seems quite upset about the analysis just like they did with the Harvard analysis.
Why do you only get a producer credit on this piece? Didn’t you research, write, and star in it as well? You need to get a better agent, dude.
Trump’s marionette hands get me every time 😂
It's still during the pandemic. Just because governments have given up doesn't mean it's ended.
Pete… you have found your stride on YT. You are doing an excellent job with these videos. Keep going! 🎉🎉🎉
"everybody knows that news can be biased, that's why I suggest you pay some random company to simply curate everything that you read instead, that way I can get a cut of the profit."
Having tried it, I don't think Ground News is even a curator at all, it's more of a news comparison service.
🙄
Ground news is an amazing aggregator, that includes all the full articles.
It doesn't curate or hide anything from you, just allows to make all media managable.
I agree with Giomjava here, having tried the app before. It doesn't really "curate" news articles at all, but rather helps the reader get multiple sides of a story as a whole. It feels like OP here kind of just brushed it all off because it's sponsored.
Would love to see a fauci video too. Or are you too scared for that?
Do you have a specific issue with his research, such as ethics or misrepresenting data? Perhaps his work on HIV or cancer? I'm guessing the answer is no and you just want some sort of lame retribution
He is not scared. To put it simple, he is working for the system as a controlled opposition. For the very same reason, he will never tell us the whole true story about Kariko and Weissmann, these Oberheuser and Mengele of the 21st century
@@ernestolynch1926jfc imagine being so terminally online that you're eating up memes created by manchildren basement dwellere and 14 year old degenerate weebs as gospel
@@emily_8687 keep drinking the Kool aid👍
@@emily_8687 claiming no gain of function research even though there was?
Great, now lets do the quality of stides used tonpromote COVID shots and lockdowns!
D. Raoult actually was one of the only rare scientific to make reliable prediction during the pandemic and he never stop patient care.
In time of emergency it is acceptable to start treatment even if evidences are lacking. Time matter.
His treatment was safe, cheap, off label, off patent could scale fast therefore deployment make sense. There was no alternative.
I see how you say D. Raoult to try and give him an air of credibility because the man is in fact not a doctor and was actually wrong.
I offered lemongrass shots for the treatment of HIV, Arthritis, back pain, headaches, Ebola, and COVID. And I NEVER stopped treating my patients. We are the same.
reliable prediction ? You mean, as when he said:« Le virus va "disparaître" au printemps 2020 » (the virus will disapear by spring 2020), or when he said:« Ça m’étonnerait qu’on arrive à 10 000 morts » (I would be surprised if we had 10000 deaths), or when he said:« Il n’y aura pas de 2e vague » (there will be no 2nd wave)…
There are meme pages of bonkers statement that he made.
He lied
_"D. Raoult actually was one of the only rare scientific to make reliable prediction during the pandemic"_
Yeah, how many trotinettes?
_"His treatment was safe"_
Was ineffective. Which is the main point.
When you put your life on the line only because you've heard stories ... 😂
Because everyone who took the experimental mRNA shots totally understood all of the related science.
that's not a reasonable take. When he was in office, he had a pressor every day with the nation's experts up front, and then said experts later said "they felt gagged", and can now speak freely (post '20)--I mean if POTUS was doing something wrong, then you bring your resignation letter to pressor, call him out, and walk out on live national TV. But that's if you have: integrity and courage. So don't fall for the BS. btw: Do you believe he said we should inject Clorox?
"Patient receiving unapproved treatment" well isn't what is supposed to happen during research?
And well what is the death rate of those 21.000 patients? seem like it would be easy to know if there was harm of not?
They weren't part of the study. They were just patients seeking care. So no, they should not have received that drug. It's estimated here that 17,000 people died from taking hcq for COVID. They never should have received that before the research was finished on it. And look at the results. So many dead.
No, you still need approval
No that is not how it works. Clinical studies are extremely regulated in France (for good reason). The protocol has to be reviewed and approved. Giving a drug off label without a strict protocol will not allowed you to prove its efficacy correctly (even if it works) because you didn't control for a brunch of biases.
@@DB-ow5ye "No that is not how it works. Clinical studies are extremely regulated in France (for good reason). The protocol has to be reviewed and approved. Giving a drug off label without a strict protocol will not allowed you to prove its efficacy correctly (even if it works) because you didn't control for a brunch of biases."
Total stupid during time of global pandemic crisis
@@arofhoof A global pandemic is not a good reason to go on national TV and declare a drug is working when you have no scientific proof, and then falsify your results to use as proof. Also, it doesnt have to take years for a protocol to be written and approved. COVID-19 related studies were prioritized during the pandemic, so I am pretty sure the approval process would have been faster than usual, and randomisation is easy to do, especially when you have this amount of patients, so there was no excuse. Also lets not ignore the fact that he did unauthorized studies well before the pandemic. What was the excuse ?
Maybe you could ward off the conspiracy crowd by making a few videos about mRNA vaccines and other such things, until they get tired and unsubscribe
Yes,let's please have a thorough review of the approval process, liability release for producers of the shots, and current results of these efforts. I won't hold my breath.
@@Fokker53 Oh what a wonderful idea! Yes, yes!
You should have a look at the retrospective observational study in the latest issue of "Vaccine", K Faksova lead author.
A widely hailed study which purports to show that heart problems, blood clots, and other maladies caused by COVID vaccines are “rare,” is based on data that the authors say they cannot “share” contrary to bedrock principles of science. Established norms requires that data be made freely available to other researchers in order for the data to be validated and used to reproduce the results.
@@runderwo It's actually not that uncommon that you can't share data. The data in this case is probably private patient medical records. This isn't something you can just open to everyone.
Properly anonymized records raise no privacy concerns while providing sufficient research value. Anyone who continues to assert vague privacy concerns regarding anonymous records is simply obstructing.
A hit piece on Trump. Great. Try Fauci's "science." Oh, don't want to investigate that? Then I'll unsubscribe. Bye.
it looks like a hit piece against misinformation,
Why were you here in the first place? This channel is about real science, which you hate.
I'm not sure how to feel about this one… One the one hand: he does seem a bit like an arrogant huckster who plays fast and loose with the basic principles of medical science. But on the other hand: It does also seem like a lot of these ethics requirements are somewhat egregious, and are being used for gatekeeping.
But the rules are the rules, and everybody in the field knows them. When you break them, like in this case, it is because your paper is not aimed at other experts in the field but rather at journalists and the world at large. Which again prompts the question, how did it get through peer review?
Are you joking 🙃????
The title suggests Dr. Mengele, the actual content is shaky science done by a medical doctor high on his power during the pandemic.
He collected sputum samples from homeless people and analyzed them for tuberculosis. Did he "experiment on homeless people"? The answer is yes for the very technical sense of "homeless people were part of the study". The answer is no for the most commonly held understanding of the term.
You should have independent ethical reviews, but it might be the case, that ethical review bureaucracy is a bit over the top in general and not fit for the circumstance of a raging pandemic in particular.
Great video
@Pete Judo: Hey, how about you tell us the true story about Fauci? 🤔
Shut up
This is bad but not as bad as Fauci. Kind reminder: you're not a horse, y'all!
Of all the "super dodgy" Covid scientists, you go after someone recommending early treatments?
This is by far and away the absolute worst video I've seen from you, Pete.
If this platform didn't remove or down-rank comments that mention specific information, I would point you in the direction of some shocking truths from the mainstream. Do your homework, Pete!
I suspect you're an anti-vaxxer?
He did his homework, you didn't.
I suspect you're one of Fauci's fans.
He did his homework: he is one of the controlled opposition. Sapienti sat.
@@ernestolynch1926 : Opposition to what controlled by what? Thanks.
I think this is what they call Gell-Man Amnesia 🤣🤣 !!
Is this Pete Judo doing his part to make sure we get four more years of the media asking what ice cream flavor ol’ Million Class Joe is eating?
I mean, a Covid “exposé” in the election year 2024? 😂
Good video.
I'm surprised by the amount of conspiracy theorists in the comments. I think you should moderate the section a bit more.
Yes, just leave only those comments that make your heart happy.
Case in point: while replying to theangledsaxon6765 on another comment on this video, Ernestolynch here compared Kariko to Mengele.
@@_human_1946 Ouch! Are you a lawyer or what?
@@_human_1946 Are you sure you are "human"?
@@_human_1946 "Case in point:" _human_1946 is a vaccine-lover.
Doesn't surprise me that Raoult is accused of a copy and paste job when it comes to research.
Subscribed
This is interesting. I know that tons and tons of papers made it through the peer review process before retraction during the COVID pandemic. This is one of many such studies. Certainly, we need to respond to it and make sure it doesn't happen again. However, the fact that it happened is not surprising. The reason this unethical researcher ended up under a microscope is only because of the news coverage around the treatment.
I would love to have seen the studies done correctly the first time. It's a shame they were not handled well. Something which had at least some promise at the time could have been properly tested and the anger machine avoided.
This should have never happened. Everybody should have looked on the results with optimistic skepticism.
The hydroxychloroquine / erythromycin paper was pretty poor. My recollection from when it came out was that patients with heart problems were moved from the combination group, but not the other groups. So it was no surprise that the healthier combination group appeared to have better clinical outcomes. This was bad experimental design, and should have been picked up in peer-review.
I am a bit concerned about the response to the paper though. Release any controversial result, and by all means that paper should be scrutinized more closely. But having people pour all over your previous unrelated papers looking for any sort of statistical anomalies (which is complained about as p-hacking in papers that you wish to criticise) seems to me to be a form of group harassment. It certainly seems to me to encourage group-think in published research.
No, doing bad work and then having people check and be sure the rest of your work is fine should be how science works.
I'm sorry the idea of scientific rigor (even if after the fact) offends you, but most people who do bad work once to prove an ideological point have done it before and will do it again. You don't get the benefit of the doubt after that. Also, nice little dig at p-hacking there, really driving home that you would rather people be polite than do basic methodology or statistical analysis.
This isn't inconsequential stuff. You could ruin lives by screwing this stuff up as badly as he did, and you don't get to get away with bad data just because you feel like 'it's mean when people criticize bad data uwu why can't you just be nice?'
Science isn't about being nice, polite and not stepping on toes. It's about not increasing human suffering and finding ways to help people. You shouldn't expect people to roll over and say 'well you hurt people once but golly it must have been a mistake! We'll just let you get away with everything you did before now!' because that's how we get people trying to fake elements and millions of dollars wasted on fake blood machines and Alzheimer's plaques. It is not harassment to check someone's work to make sure they aren't hurting people. Get a grip
@@dweebicusmaximus you completely fail to understand my point. I feel like writing an essay, so...
1) "Doing bad work, and having people check and be sure the rest of your work is fine should be how science works."
Science is supposed to work by having your work reviewed as you are publishing. You know, peer review. Not by angry mob.
Not everybody has all of their previous works reviewed and publicly criticised. This is special treatment, which causes additional stress to the recipient. You don't seem to be a very empathic person, so I guess you'll never understand that unless it happens to you.
So what do you mean by "bad work"? If you are referring to plagiarism and falsification of data, then I'm 100% with you. Audit that sucker. This is because the intent was to deceive, and this could easily have been missed in the peer review of the previous papers.
The problem with this paper does not appear to have been intentional. It was sloppy experimental design. I'm not in medicine, but I see sloppy experimental design in maybe 50% of the papers I have to review (I just reject them instead of hounding them to the end of the earth). This one just happened to get through peer review.
My argument is that if you are going to choose this as a threshold for holding an inquisition, why not do this for every paper with poor experimental design? You know, like a randomized trial, instead of deciding which errors to prosecute, and which to just ignore based on ideology instead of science,. Which is what appears to me to be happening here.
@@dweebicusmaximus here is Part 2 of my essay:
"I'm sorry the idea of scientific rigor (even if after the fact) offends you,"
That does not offend me. If mistakes are found in old publications, by all means they should be corrected if possible.
"but most people who do bad work once to prove an ideological point have done it before and will do it again. You don't get the benefit of the doubt after that."
Ah. I think this is the crux of our difference of opinion. It is not clear to me that there was any intent, or even ideology to push at the time this paper was submitted. I thought it pre-dated Trump's comments on Invermectin. The paper even reported that Invermectin by itself showed no effect on Covid. I have seen no evidence that this paper was intentionally fraudulent, unlike some later papers which praised Invermectin. I am angrier at the reviewers than I am at the authors.
"Also, nice little dig at p-hacking there, really driving home that you would rather people be polite than do basic methodology or statistical analysis."
I'm not sure what your point is here. You do know what p-hacking is, and why it is bad right? My point was based on a quote by Cardinal Richelieu which was:
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
and that seemed to be what was happening here. I chose to express this in a way that was more suitable to this UA-cam channel.
@@dweebicusmaximus Part 3 of the essay:
"This isn't inconsequential stuff. You could ruin lives by screwing this stuff up as badly as he did"
Yes. The paper should have been retracted, and an investigation of some sort into how this happened. Why did the reviewers accept? Was there any in-house experimental review of the protocol to specifically identify problems in the method before the study even started? If not, why not?
"and you don't get to get away with bad data"
I do not believe anyone has claimed that the data was bad. It was real data. It was just not useful for determining the efficacy of the Invermectin/Erythromycin combination. It might be useful in measuring effectiveness of solo Invermectin and solo Erythromycin (both of which were negative).
"just because you feel like 'it's mean when people criticize bad data uwu why can't you just be nice?'""
This was not my argument. The error seems to have been unintentional. I do not think someone should be publicly called out as a fraud for an unintentional error.
@@dweebicusmaximus Part 4/4 of essay:
"Science isn't about being nice, polite and not stepping on toes."
I never said it was. It also isn't about kicking them in the bollocks if they say something you disagree with.
"You shouldn't expect people to roll over and say 'well you hurt people once but golly it must have been a mistake! ""
Indeed. The mob must have blood. I prefer to be more civilized. I have seen lots of mistakes in papers just like this. We should strive to reduce these mistakes without the need of sacrificing them to the masses.
"We'll just let you get away with everything you did before now!"
It's not clear to me that they did anything especially nefarious before now. They used an in-house ethics panel instead of the preferred one. Doesn't really concern me. They used a blanket ethics approval for covering human sample collection and analysis. It's the same collection procedure regardless of study, so again why is this a problem? What seemed to be absent was any allegation of fraudulent data, despite copious analysis.
"because that's how we get people trying to fake elements and millions of dollars wasted on fake blood machines and Alzheimer's plaques."
You get that from fakery, not from being incorrect. If they had wanted to fake the data, they could just as easily have said they were using a randomized trial when they were not. The fact they said they weren't suggests they were not trying to hide anything.
"It is not harassment to check someone's work to make sure they aren't hurting people. Get a grip"
That's true. What I would consider harassment is publicly making allegations of fakery based on methodology that might be just as bad as those in the paper that initiated the investigation.
In summary, I do not think that this video did a good job of outlining specific reasons for thinking the paper's author should be publicly excoriated. For me, just being unintentionally wrong is not a big enough reason. I saw no evidence of intent to falsify anything, or any damning wrong-doing. There might be more evidence I don't know about, but I will change my mind only when I see it.
The only pandemic here is moral pandemic
You’re right, the 3 million that passed away was not from covid
Yep, the experiment conducted by NWO was a success: the entire world can be manipulated.
Do ivermectin.
He can't, all the trials were deliberatey bad.
@@churblefurbles Well, he could report on the bad trials, and also on doctors successfully treating Covid with ivermectin. There's one lawsuit going on right now.
Pete, I hope you're up to date on your Covid boosters, otherwise you'll be demonetized!😮