Medical researcher who touted Covid ‘cure’ and was hailed by Dr Oz under fire over ethics

New findings further call into question scientific judgment of current health leaders in the Trump administration

A French researcher whose work was praised by Donald Trump and Dr Mehmet Oz during the Covid-19 pandemic published hundreds of papers with “substantial” ethical and legal concerns, according to a new analysis.

An international team of scientists found concerns in 853 articles published by the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection, or the IHU, hundreds more than previously flagged by past investigations into work at the large research hospital. Of those, institute founder Didier Raoult was listed as co-author on 758 of them, according to one of the researchers behind the new analysis.

Raoult rocketed to the global stage in March 2020, when the novel virus was spreading unchecked and killing people across the world. He and several colleagues published research that claimed hydroxychloroquine – a drug used for malaria and certain autoimmune conditions – was found to be an effective treatment for Covid-19, especially in combination with the drug azithromycin.

Trump at the time called Raoult’s research on hydroxychloroquine a “gamechanger”, though many scientists disagreed and raised concerns about the quality of the research, including Dr Anthony Fauci , then a top Trump adviser.

Despite those calls for caution, Oz, who now heads the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, an agency responsible for $1.6tn in spending, echoed Trump at the time in calling Raoult’s work a gamechanger. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, made a high-profile visit to the institute and met with Raoult. Later, Robert F Kennedy Jr called Raoult’s work “powerful” and dedicated a book he wrote that blasted Fauci in part to Raoult.

The drug has not been shown to be effective as a Covid-19 treatment, and the paper was ultimately retracted for ethical and scientific reasons in 2025. But it had become one of the most famous articles of the pandemic era, having been cited thousands of times.

The new findings further call into question the scientific judgment of current health leaders in the Trump administration, who have said they are committed to restoring what they call “gold-standard science” informing federal policy. A Republican-led committee of the US Senate recently voted to hold Fauci in contempt for pleading the fifth during a hearing about Covid-19’s origins.

“If Oz had reviewed/read the study correctly he would have found many of the problems” that were raised about it, said Lonni Besançon, an assistant professor in data visualization at Linköping University in Sweden and a member of the international research team that did the new analysis, which was published this month in the journal Research Integrity and Peer Review.

Besançon said the now-retracted article was used to claim there was a cure for Covid, led to shortages of hydroxychloroquine and drove scientists to pour their attention into researching that drug rather than other promising leads.