In July 2020, the Parisian infectiousologist accused the boss of the Ihu of Marseille of having lied before a parliamentary commission of inquiry.
by
“that we treat me crazy, fool, macGyver is one thing, but being accused of false testimony to the National Assembly, there, we are on the other side of the white line , it’s going too far. “At the helm of the Marseille criminal court, Didier Raoult, justified, Friday September 9, the defamation complaint he had filed in October 2020 against the infectiologist Karine Lacombe, chef Saint-Antoine hospital in Paris.
This audience, for Mr. Raoult, intervened in an unfavorable context. Monday, September 5, a new report from the General Inspectorate of Social Affairs and that for Higher Education questioning it was made public. He points to “serious dysfunctions and breaches of health or research regulations” within the University Mediterranean Infection Institute (IHU-MI), when he was led by Mr. Raoult, until His departure for retirement. The Ministers of Health and Research immediately seized the Public Prosecutor of Marseille.
“question of Parisian doctors”
At the end of July 2020, at the end of the first wave of the COVVI-19 epidemic, there are already many doubts about the teacher’s practices, but the context is different, and Mr. Raoult still listened to. Karine Lacombe, specialist in infectiology, participates in Europe 1 in a large interview led by Michèle Cotta. The journalist evokes the scientific controversy which then rages on the treatment with hydroxychloroquine to treat patients with COVID-19.
A few days earlier, before the parliamentary commission of inquiry, Didier Raoult defended the massive test policy and the prescription of hydroxychloroquine set up at IHU, saying that the epidemic left fewer deaths Marseille than in Paris. “He seriously challenged Parisian doctors,” said Michèle Cotta. Karine Lacombe then retorts: “Of course, so you know that there are legal actions for lies before the parliamentary committee which are in progress.”
The criminal court will have to say whether this sentence is defamation or freedom of expression. “What reproaches Mr. Raoult to M me Lacombe, underlined M e Brice Grazzini, defender of the Marseille scientist, is not so much to have spoken of lies Faced with the parliamentary committee to make people think, in the ear of listeners, that there are legal actions in progress. “For the lawyer, the words of M me Lacombe were” The starting signal given to many individuals, sometimes disturbed, to attack and harass Didier Raoult “. He claims a provision of 10,000 euros in damages pending a future hearing on civil interests.
You have 37.24% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.