2023-06-04 16:00:00
EDITORIAL – Method and methodology are two different things. Often based on observation and calibration to reality, the method consists, both for the journalist and for the scientist, in the conduct of thought to establish or show a truth, and to do so according to certain principles and in such established order. in order to guarantee their respect, if necessary by means of a protocol.
This protocol can be documented and validated according to standards or for a press article verified and compliant with the journalistic ethics of the Munich charter.
Whereas methodology is the study of research methods.
Therefore, I have this question for the journalists who call me a conspirator and the self-proclaimed “experts” who shamelessly accuse of charlatanism, among others, world-renowned luminaries such as Professor Raoult as well as the professors and doctors of the team of the ‘IHU Méditerranée or Professor Perronne, to name but a few:
“What if your methodology was methodologically flawed, distorted by a biased application of the method?”
Indeed, despite their structured methodologies, randomized double-blind studies may actually have many biases.
And the same goes for meta-analyses. Especially in times of crisis or health emergency when it is obvious thata different approach to medicine for the benefit of patients is much more ethical. In respect of what the international conventions of Helsinki or Oviedo establish as ethics or professional conduct.
However, when the methodology is thus biased, isn’t the only solution to rectify the situation to challenge the methodology and thus apply other methods? Isn’t this rupture in fact the secret of progress? The truth. This “positive” break that has made science evolve.
For example, the medicine today is biased it too, not by the method, but by methodologies which require to be de-biased, this in the interest of the patients.
Unfortunately, there is work to do in terms of the obligation to deconstruct a certain number of scientific beliefs, if medicine is to regain full and complete adherence to the Hippocratic oath and be less governed by the interest of Capital where “Who pays order”.
A 2020 article described how the randomized trial has become Big Pharma’s new media weapon against ethics in Covid-19.
I want as proof of this the real fatwa that the pseudo-experts mentioned above launched against Didier Raoult and his collaborators in the mainstream media, a cohort of people possessed by the mantras of a “scientist religion” in which François Fraisse, doctor , appears as a true inquisitor:
He (editor’s note: Didier Raoult) is isolated apart from a few conspiratorial cranks already widely listed
Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin have been shown to be ineffective in all methodologically sound studies
The preprint of the IHU is inadmissible given its mediocrity.— Francois Fraisse (@FrancoisFraiss1) June 1, 2023
Ah good ? And the three hundred and ninety-two other independent studies that prove the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, are they also bogus? Remember that this study was withdrawn because of the threats of sanctions against their authors, in particular expressed in public, in the Senate, by the Minister of Health François Braun. Professor Lagier was almost the first victim, in the face of reprisals brandished by his management.
So for Dr. Fraisse, the meta-analyses that put clinical studies in the early phase of the disease in the same batch, with those in the late phase, those with normal doses of hydroxychloroquine with those with almost lethal doses of the drug, would be a holy grail? Here then.
Is the methodology used to discredit the effectiveness of early treatments acceptable or is it totally delusional? For which innovative medicine from the pharmaceutical industry has this already been done?
A child would understand that an adult who concluded that sweets are toxic based on studies mixing one candy a day with those by eating 1 kg a day would be a laughing adult, a bad faith manipulator.
And if, as Mr. Fraisse asserts, without any other “argument” than your vehemence, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are ineffective against Covid-19, why the countries where these molecules have been used as a treatment against Covid -19, have they experienced fewer waves of Covid and have a much lower death toll and mortality rate than countries that have not used them? How can a significant difference in mortality be explained, including when the parameters linked to the age of the populations are taken into account?
And how does Mr. Fraisse explain a lower mortality rate at the IHU than in Île-de-France? (in May 2020 in an article noted that there was 5 times fewer deaths in Marseille than in Paris and another that departments 13 and 92 were the good students in the management of the epidemic) ?
In May 2021, François Fraisse said very emphatically : “It is necessary to vaccinate everyone and it is an absolute ‘imperativity’. We know that the epidemic can only stop when the collective protection rate reaches 80 to 90%. The only way to achieve collective immunity is compulsory vaccination.
In an exchange on Twitter yesterday, he does not hesitate to contradict his statements based on the fact that “knowledge has evolved in particular on the partial effect of vaccination on viral transmission and therefore the coverage rate”, going so far as to profess recommendations of the type: “Vaccination after 60 years; Vaccination in risky situations; Vaccination of the pregnant woman”.
But as for the scientific sources capable of supporting his statements, he is absent… Would he be quicker to state them than to apply the scientific rigor which requires sticking to the facts and respecting international conventions on free and informed consent?
Finally, Dr. Fraisse admits half-heartedly that vaccination in the general population therefore had no justification at the time. Remember that the randomized clinical studies, those which have the blessing of this doctor, had failed to show any reduction in the transmission of the virus, nor the reduction in serious forms, even less the reduction in all-cause mortality. All the other studies were precisely under the methodologies he denounces, it’s comical.
What is less so is that with an incidence rate between 1 in 2,000 and 1 in 10,000 vaccinated (depending on the studies and the age of the vaccinated) of vaccinal myocarditis recognized by the manufacturers as being related injections, concerning the population aged 12 to 50 not at risk of severe forms of Covid-19 (around 32 million, of which around 90% from at least one dose), we can estimate that their compulsory vaccination potentially generated between 3,000 and 14,400 myocarditis in these non-at-risk populations.
A “sacrifice” of a healthy population for nothing since transmission was not prevented with these products. Admittedly, this is suddenly much less funny.
Too much methodology kills the creativity so necessary to science. Here, it has contributed to the loss of chance (and sometimes to the death) of patients, following the application of scrupulously respected methodology to the detriment of all humanity towards patients, ethics and deontology included. With these methodologies followed blindly, the end of humanity can be methodically programmed.
So, I am speaking directly to Mr. Fraisse, as well as to the learned societies that have signed the forum in The world attacking the study of 30,000 patients treated by doctors at the IHU-Méditerranée: agree to be my guest in a future issue of the Truth Challengeand you have my word: if you manage to convince me, I will shout loud and clear that I was wrong, and that Didier Raoult is bald.
#confuse #method #methodology