INVESTIGATION. Didier Raoult and some of his collaborators probably began their unauthorized experiments in 1993 on homeless people, who are a particularly vulnerable group.
It explains further down the key issues, with this admission from one of Raoult’s team: “this study had no protocol, no inclusion criteria and no initial research question.”
I fail to see what is sensationalized. He is being investigated for studying the blood of homeless people without proper permission of an ethics board or the authorities, which as the article discusses is against the law.
I mean, it’s not removing organs maybe, but I’m not sure that it’s legal for random unlicensed people to draw blood. I mean, there have been cases in the past where people improperly reusing needles to cut costs when doing legitimate medical work have caused serious problems via spreading disease.
The reuse of injecting equipment in clinical settings is well documented in Africa and appears to play a substantial role in generalized HIV epidemics.
Reuse of single-use devices is common in most countries worldwide. We provide an overview of the issue from an international perspective. In many developing and transitional countries reuse of cheap single-use devices (needles, syringes, surgical gloves) is common leading to large numbers of unsafe interventions, specifically injections and, as a consequence, infection with hepatitis B, C or HIV. There are various reasons for reuse: limited resources, insufficient knowledge of healthcare workers and the belief of patients that injection is more beneficial than oral medication. Reuse of cheap single-use devices should cease and both medical staff and the public should be informed about potential safety risks associated with injection. In developed countries, reuse of single-use items is less common but may include expensive technical products. Reuse is regulated in many countries (e.g. US, Canada, some European countries) demanding ethical and legal considerations, high standards of reprocessing and training of staff, risk assessment, management and validation of reprocessing.
And IIRC, if you screw up and put air into the vein, you can cause a stroke, really mess someone up.
An air embolism, also called a gas embolism, occurs when one or more air bubbles enter a vein or artery and block it. This is a potentially serious condition.
When an air bubble enters a vein, it’s called a venous air embolism. When an air bubble enters an artery, it’s called an arterial air embolism.
These air bubbles can travel to your brain, heart, or lungs and cause a heart attack, stroke, or respiratory failure.
A syringe or IV can accidentally inject air into your veins. Air can also enter your veins or arteries through a catheter that’s inserted into them.
How is that sensationalized? Considering I had to deal with IRB human research stuff just to get the okay to send a survey out to coworkers, blood samples is definitely “conducting research”
Obviously this guy is a quack but this headline is sensationalized. He took blood samples from people, it’s not like he was transplanting organs
It explains further down the key issues, with this admission from one of Raoult’s team: “this study had no protocol, no inclusion criteria and no initial research question.”
I fail to see what is sensationalized. He is being investigated for studying the blood of homeless people without proper permission of an ethics board or the authorities, which as the article discusses is against the law.
I mean, it’s not removing organs maybe, but I’m not sure that it’s legal for random unlicensed people to draw blood. I mean, there have been cases in the past where people improperly reusing needles to cut costs when doing legitimate medical work have caused serious problems via spreading disease.
https://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1477-7517-6-24
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20471316/
And IIRC, if you screw up and put air into the vein, you can cause a stroke, really mess someone up.
https://www.healthline.com/health/air-embolism#causes
He is also suspected to have faked a number of his recent scientific publications. Which is naughty.
How is that sensationalized? Considering I had to deal with IRB human research stuff just to get the okay to send a survey out to coworkers, blood samples is definitely “conducting research”
… was he authorized to do that?
Thanks for clearing that up! I had no idea who this guy was.