That's Neither Cricket Nor Science

If a study is to be genuinely scientific, full details of the methodology have to be made provided and the researchers must be prepared to answer criticisms from knowlegable peers. Otherwise, claims are just advocacy. It is consequently extremely disturbing to read reports that Dr Elisabeth Bik (a Dutch expert who comments on issues like experimental design) is facing being sued in French courts by a team led by Didier Raoult (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/may/22/world-expert-in-scientific-misconduct-faces-legal-action-for-challenging-integrity-of-hydroxychloroquine-study). Dr Raoult was an advocate of using the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid-19 infections. This strange claim was taken up by a number of political enthusiasts. Subsequent data has confirmed (not unexpectedly) that hydroxychloroquine has no curative properties on this then new viral infection (the drug was, afterall, developed to treat a unicellular animal parasite of blood rather than a virus that attacked the lungs and other organs). Dr Bik pointed out inconsistencies in the compositions of Raoult's experiental and control groups (something that needs to be balanced before one can have any confidence in a study). She has also, reportedly, been the subject of attacks on social media (with details of her address and finances being placed online). This really should not be happening. Any French court must move quickly to protect the intregrity of the scientific method. Otherwise, any well-heeled individual will be able to ensure their claims (no matter how outlandish) can never be challenged. That would apply to governments, large pharmaceutical companies, rich individuals and purveyors of 'alternatives'. Science without the criticism is not science.