Organized lynching of chloroquine by the media, based on a study with neither verified nor verifiable data    original data in french

by DR Gerard Delépine  oncologist surgeon and statistician




Organized lynching of chloroquine by the media, based on a study with neither verified nor verifiable data

by delepine (his site)
Saturday, May 23, 2020



Organized lynching of chloroquine by the media, based on a study with neither verified nor verifiable data. Shameful.


Fireworks by AFP and almost all French newspapers about a pseudo-study funded by big pharma, claiming that chloroquine would increase the mortality of covid19!

Has journalism gone by the wayside and well-organized disinformation would replace it definitively? Journalism, deceased victim of Covid19, cremated without possible autopsy!

Since this Friday, May 21, almost all the French media (Le Figaro, Le Monde, Marianne, L’Obs, LCI, etc.), the written and audiovisual press, have engaged in a lynching in good standing of chloroquine, citing what they would consider it  »  the largest international study   » on the subject.

Obviously, they haven’t read it or don’t know what a scientific study is. The cited study is not even a macroanalysis (critical study of the medical literature, synthesizing international articles published on a reliable database, like PUBMED, and referenced on a subject). Here, in reality, we are dealing only with a large collection of unsupported data, based on non-verifiable elements, recovered by a private for-profit site.

Sadly, the publication in the LANCET of this heartbreaking text, to remain polite, seems to be enough for its laudators as proof of « exact science ». Poor science whose name has been so overused for three months that one hardly dares to pronounce it. The Lancet and our perception bias depending on the issuer, explains the JIM. The Lancet and so: forget that for 20 years and Big Pharma’s stranglehold on international medicine and its scientific journals, peer-reviewed journals are no longer what they used to be. For honest readers, it suffices to refer to the writings of Marcia Angell who was editor of the New England journal of medicine, resigned from it and wrote an explicit book in 2002.  »  The truth about the pharmaceutical industry Perverted our elites: how it deceives us and how to thwart them, was a first shock on what was going on and was going to get worse. His successor at the head of the newspaper resigned three years later for the same reasons of incompatibility of scientific ethics and submission to the merchants of Big Pharma.

Professors Even and Debré also alerted in France in silence, and were even prosecuted by the order of doctors, whose choices are clearly seen. The French were very wrong to despise these alerts. Their healthcare system in the hands of business collapsed and they only became aware of it with the Covid crisis. For how long ?


 Rather than take the Lancet mystifiers, who devalue themselves again, to take their word for it, let’s look at the facts.


Who are the main authors of this lying Lancet article?

Dr. Mandeep Mehra is a cardiologist in the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart and Vascular Center in Boston. Its main activity is to help drug companies sell drugs. Not voluntarily: he thus received emoluments from the laboratories Abbott, Medtronic, Janssen, Mesoblast, Portola, Bayer, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, NupulseCV, FineHeart, Leviticus, Roivant, and Triple Gene … It starts very strong!

Sapan S Desa SSD is a founding vascular surgeon of Surgisphere Corporation, a private firm, responsible for much of the data acquisition for this study.

Frank Ruschitzk is a cardiologist in Zurich; he was paid as a laboratory advisor, as responsible for therapeutic trials, and also for conferences and work paid by big pharma (for some on his university account).

None of the authors is an infectious disease specialist, none has treated a patient with Covid19. Very strong !


What are their sources?

Hospital registers (mainly American, as the population shows, 69% native American).

These registers are not published in international literature, nor accessible by internet, unlike the national registers on which we work regularly. Their medical values and data have never been verified by independent doctors. The article in question therefore constitutes only a sum of data of uncertain values, coming from sites whose selection is possibly biased. When it is known, moreover, that in many countries of the world, the patients suspected of Covid19 without proof were automatically classified Covid19 on the recommendation of the WHO, but also by financial interest of the institutions, since from American hospitals to Italians in passing by the French, German and Spanish, the patients classified covid19, without test most often, and on simple « impression » of the doctor,

How can such inaccuracies lead to such a dubious publication and its magnified echo in the media, misinforming the people? Obvious financial focus: since at the same time, we are told the beautiful story of Remdesivir which will in reality only do good to the shareholders of Gilead.

What patients are they talking about?

The article is only interested in hospitalized patients, while the aim of Professor Raoult’s treatment is precisely to avoid hospitalization by treating patients early in the course of the disease.

 This study on registers is retrospective, non-randomized, without a control group drawn by lot , all requirements repeated a hundredfold on the media to criticize the work of Raoult, which them at least were prospective.

If this Lancet study had aimed to study the fate of chloroquine failures according to the Marseille scheme, it could have had a meaning, provided that it did not draw generalities from all the patients treated by this scheme .

But to select only the failures of a treatment to supposedly assess its global interest, testifies to an unscientific method, completely biased. If we applied this method to judge the effectiveness of vaccination against measles by looking at hospitalizations during the last outbreaks of the disease in the USA, we would conclude that vaccination is ineffective, since the vast majority of patients have been vaccinated!


Their conclusion of chloroquine ineffectiveness is invalidated by their own figures!

Their conclusions on the ineffectiveness of the Raoult treatment are also contradicted by the low percentage of patients hospitalized after early dual therapy recommended by Raoult: of the 98,262 patients in the Lancet study, suffering from hospitalized covid19, only 6,211 (6%) received dual therapy within 48 hours of diagnosis, while the natural course of the disease requires hospitalization in 10% to 20% of cases according to the Ministry of Health. If the Raoult protocol were ineffective, we should find among hospitalized patients a percentage of patients equivalent to the whole group. However in the USA 50% of doctors use the Raoult scheme as a treatment for Covid. If this treatment were ineffective, the same proportion should be found among hospitalized patients,


Their conclusions on excess mortality after chloroquine are also biased by their sampling and / or their a priori.

Only a prospective study could assess the risk of mortality and the cardiac risk after Raoult treatment for Covid19.

The risk of heart rhythm disturbances of chloroquine alone has been known for 70 years and well below 1%. The possibility of increasing the risk by the association with azithromycin cannot be excluded in the elderly with heavy comorbidity, but has not been observed in pregnant women in malaria endemic countries where this association is frequently used .

Currently the largest prospective study published on this problem is that of Professor Raoult who has observed no fatal cardiac complications of chloroquine.

In conclusion it is a pity that so many newspapers repeat manifestly false conclusions without any critical inquiry into their validity. Are there still investigative journalists? Are they gagged by their shareholders?