A leading microbiology society has issued expressions of concern for four six papers from a group in France led by the controversial scientist Didier Raoult, whose lab is under investigation by the University of Aix Marseille for “serious malfunctions.”
The move follows the release last month of a 157-page report by investigators related to France’s Health Ministry the university into Raoult’s research and news that a criminal investigation is underway.
As we and others have reported, Raoult was among the most prominent floggers of the notion that hydroxychloroquine could treat COVID-19. But while his studies of the drug might have influenced certain American politicians, they and other research from his group haven’t withstood the scrutiny of his peers.
He also has attempted to silence critics of his work, notably Elisabeth Bik, using legal threats and harassment.
Raoult’s lab has been sanctioned by the French Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products.
The latest action involves four six papers from Raoult’s group that appeared in two journals published by the American Society for Microbiology – one from 2016, two three from 2018 and one two from 2019 – prior to the pandemic.
Four of the articles are titled “High Prevalence of Mycoplasma faucium DNA in the Human Oropharynx”; “Clostridium scindens Is Present in the Gut Microbiota during Clostridium difficile Infection: a Metagenomic and Culturomic Analysis”; “Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH) and Peptide Nucleic Acid Probe-Based FISH for Diagnosis of Q Fever Endocarditis and Vascular Infections”; and “Passive Filtration, Rapid Scanning Electron Microscopy, and Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization–Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry for Treponema Culture and Identification from the Oral Cavity,” all from the Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
According to the notices:
The American Society for Microbiology was notified that the above-mentioned paper is being reviewed as part of a “scientific misconduct investigation” by the University of Aix Marseille.
This Expression of Concern is issued pending the outcome of the investigation and will be updated accordingly thereafter.
The ASM also subjected two papers in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy — “Vitamin D and Prolonged Treatment with Photosensitivity-Associated Antibiotics” and “Abnormal Weight Gain and Gut Microbiota Modifications Are Side Effects of Long-Term Doxycycline and Hydroxychloroquine Treatment” — to identical expressions of concern.
Raoult did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Update, 1730 UTC, 9/8/22: Corrected source of 157-page report, and added two more expressions of concern. Thanks to Helsinki se révolte for flagging.
Hat tip: Ilan Schwartz
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
Does anyone have an English translation of that 157 page report they could point me to? My schoolgirl French is not up to it.
There is no official English translation.
Via https://pubpeer.com/publications/3632D15EE036F8169D15C1EE5D5B75 one of Raoult’s coauthors wrote this *today.*
“Statement :
Following the multiplication of comments on PUBPEER not intended to advance the scientific debate but only to question the work of the IHU of MARSEILLE, anonymous messages probably coming from a sphere of cyberstalking aimed at destabilizing the IHU and so that it is impossible to assess their scientific seriousness and the absence of conflicts of interests. A complaint was filed and an investigation opened to the Marseille prosecutor’s office for cyberbullying, attempted blackmail and extortion against the PUBPEER site and the identified perpetrators among them Mrs. E. Bik. These comments only represent opinions or misinterpretations of ethical procedures or publication procedures and are sometimes even libelous and insulting. These comments on Pubpeer will therefore not be answered, the authors of which cannot legally claim the protective status of whistleblower.”
LOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLL
Are there any questions about ‘funny’ images in this work?
The question is whether Raoult and his cohorts had bothered to seek genuine ethical approval from a genuine IRB before experimenting on human subjects.
My (perhaps flawed) understanding is that they *did* seek some sort of IRB approval, but (1) the board did not have the authority to grant permission for experiments on humans and (2) they may have recycled the same IRB approval for multiple, unrelated, experiments (3) they may have fabricated IRB approval in some cases, or perhaps data used to gain IRB approval, it wasn’t clear to me.
Part of what really irritates me about this case is that the authors continue to profess their innocence, but refuse to provide an evidence in their defense.
“Part of what really irritates me about this case is that the authors continue to profess their innocence, but refuse to provide an evidence in their defense.”
That is not how this whole thing works, Senor Torquemada.
In medical research, it does – they need the documentation for research, and that needs to be provided to the oversight group. Human subjects research is a privilege, not a right.
Where do you live, that “I didn’t do it” is sufficient defense against accusations that are backed by evidence?
That really isn’t how it works.
At this point, the evidence against Raoult and his coauthors includes a 157-page report. The French Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products thought the evidence was sufficient for sanctions.
If Raoult still hasn’t offered any evidence in his favor, maybe there isn’t any.
What “whole thing” are you referring to? I sort of suspect you are alluding to the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”. If someone provides evidences that suggests guilt, you can either refute said evidence or provide counter evidence, otherwise evidence against you will be taken as proof of guilt.
Much of the evidence against them could easily be refuted. For example, there are concerns that they recycled the same IRB approval for multiple unrelated experiments. Maybe they actually contacted the IRB between each experiment and updated the parameters, it happens all the time!
— Signed, Jean Bréhal
I am still trying to sort out what part of the investigation merits the phrase “criminal” (i.e., without quotes)?
Now, that term was certainly used in the News title which RW cited, and I know many European countries may criminalize what might be viewed in the US as ethical issues and they also have different views on what might be defamatory in a legal sense. (This is no different than applying “fraud” to describe many issues in conducting research which legally they are not.)
Because of the political interest hydroxychloroquine it would be nice to learn what is considered criminal?
The likely criminal accusation is human experimentation without ethical approval.
I don’t think the charges would necessarily be limited to that. But I’d rather not speculate. I believe details will be limited while the investigation proceeds.
https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2022/09/05/ihu-de-marseille-dirige-par-didier-raoult-les-ministres-de-la-sante-et-de-la-recherche-saisissent-la-justice_6140291_3244.html
You are both right, thanks! My chrome translation yielded an issue we in the US might find familiar:
“The final report of the General Inspectorate of Social Affairs (IGAS) and its counterpart for higher education and research (IGESR) covers a wider field than a previous report, already scathing, published a few months ago by the Medicines Agency (ANSM) . Excerpts from its preliminary version had been disclosed in early July by La Provence and Mediapart . Among other practices “likely to fall under criminal qualification” , the IGAS-IGESR inspectors note that patients treated at the IHU for Covid-19 or tuberculosis were administered “molecules outside their marketing authorisation”
And still nothing happened, all this is about destabilising, 157 pages lead to very weak evidence of a potential fraud …