Following the hearing in the Senate of Professor Raoult on September 16, 2020, some will have taken the time to listen and observe carefully the words and postures of each other. The following elements represent two selected pieces which put into perspective lead to more questions than answers. Part of Senator Jomier’s presentation questioning the efficacy and use of hydroxychloroquine was simply deleted from the video. And we find the same people as in 2017 during the commission on HIV.
The Covid-19 commission of inquiry
The principle of Senate commission of inquiry can be found on the Senate website. Among other things, we can read the following elements:
1 – The powers of committees of inquiry:Commissions of inquiry have the right to cite. Any person whose hearing has been deemed useful by a committee is required to comply with the summons issued to him, if necessary, by a bailiff or a law enforcement officer, at the request of the chairman of the committee; she is also required to take an oath and depose. In certain cases exhaustively enumerated by the ordinance of November 17, 1958 (economic offenses), the people interviewed can be released from professional secrecy.
These obligations are accompanied by criminal penalties: a person who refuses to appear, to take an oath, to submit or to communicate the requested documents, is liable to imprisonment for two years and a fine of € 7,500, and where applicable, a ban on the exercise of civic rights for a period of two years. The penalties provided for by the penal code in the event of false testimony or witness tampering are also applicable to parliamentary inquiries. In all cases, legal proceedings are exercised at the request of the president of the committee or, when the report of the latter has been published and the committee no longer exists, at the request of the Senate Bureau.
Among those auditioned were Professor Raoult, certain personalities from the Scientific Council (Pr Delfraissy, Pr Yazdanpanah, etc.) or from INSERM (Dominque Castagliola). Find the entire hearing here.
An exchange interested us between Professor Raoult and Bertrand Jomier
Only those interviewed take the oath, the senators participating in the commission of inquiry do not have to take the oath. There is therefore no reciprocity of procedures. We were able to note certain disagreements as we could see in the exchange between Bertrand Jomier and Professor Raoult. Indeed the Senator asked a question about the use of hydroxychloroquine.
Many countries, United States, Japan, Germany, China, do not recommend this treatment. It seems that science has spoken. The list of countries that do not recommend hydroxychloroquine is extremely long. It is not a judgment. (…) We can see that this treatment is no longer used all over the world. Does that mean the whole world is wrong today?».
I do not agree with you on any of the points ”
“I do not agree with you on any of the points” answers Didier Raoult, “there are 4.6 billion people who live in countries where hydroxychloroquine is used. (…). You can’t say that to me ”and he adds:
“You are giving a scientific opinion. I do not agree. Let everyone do their job and the cows will be well looked after. “
The PS group senator replied:
“I am not in a debate of opinion. I am the rapporteur of a commission of inquiry ”before quoting an even longer list of countries – Spain, Canada, South Korea, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, Portugal also – which advise against the molecule. “I deny that you turn my question into an opinion.”
Didier Raoult: ” in the United States, a federal state, there are a third of the states where hydroxychloroquine is recommended, a third who do not really know what to do and a third who follow the recommendations Of the national authority.
On the IHU website you can find the list of countries using hydroxychloroquine. This disagreement between the two cannot therefore come from the information published by the IHU. In addition, the Senator does not provide the source he uses in his comment and question.
A few days earlier a Nathan Peiffer Smadaja, an intern working with Prof. Yazdanpanah, a member of the scientific council, posted on twitter a list of countries with their usage. This same person is co-author of the disputed meta-analysis concluding on the ineffectiveness of hydoxychloroquine and a staunch opponent of Professor Raoult.
Source : Tweet de Nathatn Peiffer Smadja
The senator has surely done his research and it would be improper to think that he could have taken his information from a message on tweeter despite a significant activity on this social network. In committee, the senator had expected from Professor Raoult answers without debate of opinion. However, when he is questioned on Twitter on the origin of the facts which he puts forward, it is true in a somewhat direct way, the senator preferred to block people; Truth and democracy?
Additionally, the video of the audition has been truncated in this particular section. All the part referring to the non-use of hydroxychloroquine in other countries has been cut. This does not often happen on a public channel. Listen for yourself.
How can we get there?
Bernard Jomier, senator since 2017 and doctor very involved in Vers Paris Sans Sida who was “helped” by Gilead
In 2015 2016 while Bernard Jomier was deputy mayor of Paris, in charge of Health, he implemented the policy “towards Paris without AIDS” in 2014. He was already a member of the Commission des affaires sociales (1) on the investigation of the Court of accounts on the HIV prevention and care policy. (July 3, 2019 Report Number 624).
In an article from June 2017 Hervé Latapie on the Médiapart site, was mentioned the PrEP (consisting in making take drugs to not sick!). He already denounced certain practices of the pharmaceutical industry and links of interest affecting the independence of decisions.
Hervé Latapie wrote ” It will be difficult to get out of it to limit the damage, as it is so complicated to deconstruct an ideology and to question the socio-economic interests established by this policy. “
“Thus the consensus in favor of the promotion of PrEP on a large scale was built thanks to the action of certain very involved actors, with complex motivations and not devoid of conflicts of interest. It is regrettable that we have not listened to and taken more account of the criticisms formulated by many people, less integrated in the dominant institutions, but present on the ground, and therefore just as legitimate to assess the attractiveness and effectiveness of prevention with the gay public. Their alternative proposals may well be imposed very quickly, when the overly optimistic promises of PrEP supporters crumble. “
Latapie goes on to explain « The Gilead firm will therefore find itself at all levels of the implementation of PrEP: direct financial contributions to associations fighting AIDS or gay community health organizations, research agreements with hospital services, implementation place of demonstrative tests, emoluments and other gifts distributed to health professionals (business plane tickets, high-grade hotel stays, expensive registration to conferences, study or research grants, etc.), advertising inserts offered to the gay press. Everything takes place in a fairly clever way, Gilead does not necessarily appear in the foreground, everything happens as if the laboratory had succeeded in delegating to non-commercial actors (associations, doctors, etc.) the campaign to promote its product PrEP. “
In 2018 the initiative “towards Paris without AIDS” received 530,000 euros in agreements from the Gilead laboratory.
We find in the report of the commission at the time, professors Delfraissy, Molina, Yazdanpanah, as well as the Gilead laboratory, links of interest and substantial sums of money at stake.
Latapie concluded in 2017
“We find in this story all the usual know-how of the pharmaceutical industry to manage its business, plan therapeutic trials, control prices, rely on the local particularities of each geographic area of the market and above all, handle its power of influence thanks to enormous financial means. “
We have the impression of seeing the same film again. Nothing has changed.