| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Didier Raoult article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
 |
 | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
.svg){kind=small} |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus
A note on WP:MEDRS: Per this Wikipedia policy, we must rely on the highest quality secondary sources and the recommendations of professional organizations and government bodies when determining the scientific consensus about medical treatments.
-
Ivermectin: The highest quality sources (
1
2
3
4) suggest Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID-19. In all likelihood, ivermectin does not reduce
all-cause mortality (moderate certainty) or improve
quality of life (high certainty) when used to treat COVID-19 in the outpatient setting (
4). Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized as:
Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials.
( May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) ( WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH) -
Chloroquine &
hydroxychloroquine: The highest quality sources (
1
2
3
4) demonstrate that neither is effective for treating COVID-19. These analyses accounted for use both alone and in combination with
azithromycin. Some data suggest their usage may worsen outcomes. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized:
Neither hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings.
( July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) ( WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH) - Ivmmeta.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19hcq.com, hcqmeta.com, trialsitenews.com, etc: These sites are not reliable. The authors are pseudonymous. The findings have not been subject to peer review. We must rely on expert opinion, which describes these sites as unreliable. From published criticisms ( 1 2 3 4 5), it is clear that these analyses violate basic methodological norms which are known to cause spurious or false conclusions. These analyses include studies which have very small sample sizes, widely different dosages of treatment, open-label designs, different incompatible outcome measures, poor-quality control groups, and ad-hoc un-published trials which themselves did not undergo peer-review. ( Dec 2020, Jan 2021, Feb 2021)
I removed content sourced to pubpeer.com, and opened a discussion on the Reliable sources noticeboard. Schazjmd (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- The RSN discussion resulted in clear consensus that peerpub.com comments are not reliable sources for a WP:BLP. Schazjmd (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
"On May 5, 2021, just after the announcement by Didier Raoult's lawyer that Elisabeth Bik, who specializes in identifying manipulated images in scientific papers, and raised concerns about dozens of Raoult’s papers—including ethical, procedural, and methodological problems in a March 2020 paper reporting success in a small hydroxychloroquine trial a scientific integrity consultant was being accused of harassment and blackmail and sued by Raoult[50], the French non profit association Citizen4Science made of scientists and citizens, published a press release[51] including a link to a petition denouncing the harassment of scientists and defenders of science integrity, specifically mentioning Elisabeth Bik and calling on French authorities to intervene and journalists to look into the matter."
I do not understand what this sentence is trying to say. It is just too long, garbled, and unclear. Please cut it apart in several sentences. And make clear who harassed who according to who. Is Citizen4Science on the side of Raoult or Bik? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
-
Hob Gadling, tried to clean this up, let me know if you think it reads better now...--
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕) 22:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Better, but since Raoult was accusing Bik of harassment, it was not clear if Citizen4Science was defending Raoult against alleged harassment by Bik or Bik against pretty obvious harassment by Raoult. I clarified that by replacing "mentioning Bik" by "defending Bik", after checking the sources. (I did not have much time when I saw this first.) I also turned a passive-voice sentence into an active-voice one but am unhappy with the grammar. Maybe that last one was not such a great idea after all. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext 79.167.184.100 ( talk) 09:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
17.000 deaths in just 6 countries attributable to hydroxychloroquine: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S075333222301853X
See also https://www.sudouest.fr/sante/coronavirus/covid-19-selon-une-etude-l-hydroxychloroquine-serait-responsable-de-pres-de-17-000-morts-dont-199-en-france-18011353.php (in French).
-- Randykitty ( talk) 17:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- We've got a bit of a sourcing problem to state that in the article, because "Hy, recommended by Dr. DR, caused the deaths" is simultaneously a medical claim and a BLP claim. The science direct source is perhaps WP:MEDRS-compliant, but doesn't mention DR; the other source mentions DR but is not MEDRS. Combining the two has WP:SYNTH problems... but this is something we should keep an eye on. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 17:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- You're right, I went a bit too fast here. But perhaps these references can be used in the
hydroxychloroquine article? I don't often edit medicine-related articles, so I'm not familiar enough with MEDRS to do this myself. --
Randykitty (
talk) 19:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- That is a possibility, and you should raise it there (that's not a page that I work on.) And to be clear, I'm not saying that the first source is absolutely MEDRS, just that it passes a first-level sniff test for that. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 19:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- You're right, I went a bit too fast here. But perhaps these references can be used in the
hydroxychloroquine article? I don't often edit medicine-related articles, so I'm not familiar enough with MEDRS to do this myself. --
Randykitty (
talk) 19:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- C-Class COVID-19 articles
- Low-importance COVID-19 articles
- WikiProject COVID-19 articles
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class France articles
- Low-importance France articles
- All WikiProject France pages
- Wikipedia requested images of people of France
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Didier Raoult article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
|
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
|
|
| The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
|
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus
A note on WP:MEDRS: Per this Wikipedia policy, we must rely on the highest quality secondary sources and the recommendations of professional organizations and government bodies when determining the scientific consensus about medical treatments.
-
Ivermectin: The highest quality sources (
1
2
3
4) suggest Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID-19. In all likelihood, ivermectin does not reduce
all-cause mortality (moderate certainty) or improve
quality of life (high certainty) when used to treat COVID-19 in the outpatient setting (
4). Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized as:
Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials.
( May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) ( WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH) -
Chloroquine &
hydroxychloroquine: The highest quality sources (
1
2
3
4) demonstrate that neither is effective for treating COVID-19. These analyses accounted for use both alone and in combination with
azithromycin. Some data suggest their usage may worsen outcomes. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized:
Neither hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings.
( July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) ( WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH) - Ivmmeta.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19hcq.com, hcqmeta.com, trialsitenews.com, etc: These sites are not reliable. The authors are pseudonymous. The findings have not been subject to peer review. We must rely on expert opinion, which describes these sites as unreliable. From published criticisms ( 1 2 3 4 5), it is clear that these analyses violate basic methodological norms which are known to cause spurious or false conclusions. These analyses include studies which have very small sample sizes, widely different dosages of treatment, open-label designs, different incompatible outcome measures, poor-quality control groups, and ad-hoc un-published trials which themselves did not undergo peer-review. ( Dec 2020, Jan 2021, Feb 2021)
I removed content sourced to pubpeer.com, and opened a discussion on the Reliable sources noticeboard. Schazjmd (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- The RSN discussion resulted in clear consensus that peerpub.com comments are not reliable sources for a WP:BLP. Schazjmd (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
"On May 5, 2021, just after the announcement by Didier Raoult's lawyer that Elisabeth Bik, who specializes in identifying manipulated images in scientific papers, and raised concerns about dozens of Raoult’s papers—including ethical, procedural, and methodological problems in a March 2020 paper reporting success in a small hydroxychloroquine trial a scientific integrity consultant was being accused of harassment and blackmail and sued by Raoult[50], the French non profit association Citizen4Science made of scientists and citizens, published a press release[51] including a link to a petition denouncing the harassment of scientists and defenders of science integrity, specifically mentioning Elisabeth Bik and calling on French authorities to intervene and journalists to look into the matter."
I do not understand what this sentence is trying to say. It is just too long, garbled, and unclear. Please cut it apart in several sentences. And make clear who harassed who according to who. Is Citizen4Science on the side of Raoult or Bik? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
-
Hob Gadling, tried to clean this up, let me know if you think it reads better now...--
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕) 22:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Better, but since Raoult was accusing Bik of harassment, it was not clear if Citizen4Science was defending Raoult against alleged harassment by Bik or Bik against pretty obvious harassment by Raoult. I clarified that by replacing "mentioning Bik" by "defending Bik", after checking the sources. (I did not have much time when I saw this first.) I also turned a passive-voice sentence into an active-voice one but am unhappy with the grammar. Maybe that last one was not such a great idea after all. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext 79.167.184.100 ( talk) 09:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
17.000 deaths in just 6 countries attributable to hydroxychloroquine: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S075333222301853X
See also https://www.sudouest.fr/sante/coronavirus/covid-19-selon-une-etude-l-hydroxychloroquine-serait-responsable-de-pres-de-17-000-morts-dont-199-en-france-18011353.php (in French).
-- Randykitty ( talk) 17:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- We've got a bit of a sourcing problem to state that in the article, because "Hy, recommended by Dr. DR, caused the deaths" is simultaneously a medical claim and a BLP claim. The science direct source is perhaps WP:MEDRS-compliant, but doesn't mention DR; the other source mentions DR but is not MEDRS. Combining the two has WP:SYNTH problems... but this is something we should keep an eye on. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 17:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- You're right, I went a bit too fast here. But perhaps these references can be used in the
hydroxychloroquine article? I don't often edit medicine-related articles, so I'm not familiar enough with MEDRS to do this myself. --
Randykitty (
talk) 19:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- That is a possibility, and you should raise it there (that's not a page that I work on.) And to be clear, I'm not saying that the first source is absolutely MEDRS, just that it passes a first-level sniff test for that. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 19:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- You're right, I went a bit too fast here. But perhaps these references can be used in the
hydroxychloroquine article? I don't often edit medicine-related articles, so I'm not familiar enough with MEDRS to do this myself. --
Randykitty (
talk) 19:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- C-Class COVID-19 articles
- Low-importance COVID-19 articles
- WikiProject COVID-19 articles
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class France articles
- Low-importance France articles
- All WikiProject France pages
- Wikipedia requested images of people of France