I think it is fair to say France Soir's best days are probably behind them.

The website [France Soir] had employed four full-time journalists until October 2019, when the journalists said in a statement that they were dismissed “for economic reasons.” Since then, the website has featured work by contributors, some of whom are anonymous

Before its full-time staff left in October 2019, the website generally published accurate, well-sourced content. However, a NewsGuard review of the website in June 2020 found several articles that made unsubstantiated claims about the COVID-19 pandemic.

Newsguard.

The journalists left after a strike, they gave their reasons as:

It was the drop of water that made the vase overflow: we feel things coming that have more to do with communication than with journalism. We will be asked to write promotional content. This would be to deceive the reader and break our moral contract with him, to deliver independent and verified information. A real red line not to be crossed! "

(Google Translate)

From <https://www.nouvelobs.com/teleobs/20190830.OBS17759/la-redaction-de-france-soir-en-greve.html>

I would be cautious about accepting anything from that source at face value. Even more so if I had a history of posting faked-up tweets ;-)

I think it is fair to say France Soir's best days are probably behind them.
Jul 6, 2020 at 11:21 AM Phil Clarke

Climate Science leads the way.

It is just a conspiratorial admixture of some fact, some non-fact, some opinion and some speculation from a news site that employs no actual journalists and has a history of misleading on COVID.

And the central accusation, that the trial dosage was so high as to be toxic, because the researchers had confused similar-sounding therapeutics has already been debunked.

Peter Horby formally denies this interpretation and affirms that France Soir has badly reported the words of his colleague: “There is absolutely no confusion here between hydroxychloroquine and hydroxyquinoline, contrary to what France Soir reports. The confusion comes from an interview with France Soir, which reports the term "amoebic dysentery" instead of "amoebic hepatic abscess" (AHA), a pathology for which chloroquine has been used as treatment in the past, at comparable doses. to the ones we used in Recovery with the HCQ.

https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2020/06/11/essai-recovery-les-chercheurs-ont-ils-administre-plus-de-trois-fois-la-dose-d-hydroxychloroquine-aut_1790733

It is just a conspiratorial admixture of some fact, some non-fact, some opinion and some speculation from a news site that employs no actual journalists and has a history of misleading on COVID.

Jul 6, 2020 at 7:45 PM Phil Clarke

So more reliable than your Climate Science buddies and most of their Consensus Science approved by Pal Review.

Here's the audio:

http://covexit.com/oxford-professor-horby-claims-professor-landray-was-misquoted-france-soir-newspaper-denies-it/

It was a simple interview error with Martin [Landray]. The RECOVERY documents, all available online since the start of the trial (linked documents dated April 19), clearly refer to amoebic hepatic abscess, not to dysentery. However, this is irrelevant because the information on amoebic hepatic abscess played absolutely no role in the choice of dose.

Same source as above for those with reading comprehension challenges.

"Same source as above for those with reading comprehension challenges.

Jul 7, 2020 at 3:16 PM Phil Clarke"

Is that the agreed excuse for Hockey Teamster Pal Reviewers?

Still not a wonder drug or miracle cure, but more reliable than Climate Science

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/07/hydroxychloroquine-based-covid-19-treatment-a-systematic-review-of-clinical-evidence-and-expert-opinion-from-physicians-surveys/

"The results: 85% of doctors said that hydroxychloroquine is at least somewhat effective for COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine was the most utilized treatment for COVID-19 patients. 35%-40% of the doctors using the drug called it very effective or extremely effective against COVID-19. 65% of doctors said they would prescribe hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 to their family members."

Surveys or polls of physicians were sought, using multiple search engines (DuckDuckGo, Bing, Google, Yandex), searching for ‘physician survey hydroxychloroquine’, ‘doctors survey hydroxychloroquine’, and similar combinations of keywords; no quotes; not limited by dates. The search was repeated many times, excluding previously found items.

Blog Science By Google.

The time frame chosen for this systematic review, April 4 to April 19, is selected to ensure that physicians had sufficient experience with HCQ but had not yet been prejudiced by external events.

Old Blog Science. A review of months-old opinion polls. 'External events', What might they be?

Except for this paragraph, this paper appears here exactly as it was submitted to medrxiv.org on June 30 (MEDRXIV/2020/143800). It was rejected today, on July 4: 

Rejected Blog Science (believe me, to get rejected by medrxiv, a preprint server, the paper must suck bigstyle). Good enough for WUWT, natch.

From the comments

And so who exactly is recommending HCQ? Four surveys are quoted, but only one (Sermo W3, April 15) gives doctors rating its effectiveness. The survey claims 4016 respondents, but, it turns out, only 1337 have treated Covid, and of those only half used HCQ

h/t Nick Stokes.

Yep. As corrupt as they come.

h/t Nick Stokes.

Jul 7, 2020 at 8:32 PM Phil Clarke

Hydroxychloroquine is more reliable than anything produced by Hockey Teamsters.

If hydroxychloroquine has a significant prophylactic effect, then the incidence of COVID should be lower in people already using the drug for other conditions, such as lupus, right?

Apparently not

Jul 9, 2020 at 1:47 PM | Phil Clarke

What I wrote was this:

"Hydroxychloroquine is more reliable than anything produced by Hockey Teamsters.
Jul 8, 2020 at 11:05 AM | golf charlie"

Are you accepting this is true?

Hydroxychloroquine is not a miracle cure/prophylactic, but its use does save lives. Why are Hockey Teamsters being paid to discredit themselves and increase death rates?

"Apparently not"

"Funding MFK was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under Award no. T32AR048522 and received personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Celltrion, unrelated to this manuscript. AHK was supported by grants from NIH/NIAMS and Rheumatology Research Foundation and personal fees from Exagen Diagnostics, Inc and GlaxoSmithKline, unrelated to this manuscript. PMM is supported by the National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre and received consulting or speaker’s fees from Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Novartis and UCB Pharma. JY received personal fees from Astra Zeneca and Eli Lilly, unrelated to this manuscript. PCR reports personal fees from Abbvie, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Novartis, Eli Lilly and Janssen and non-financial support from Roche.

Disclaimer The views expressed here are those of the authors and participating members of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, and do not necessarily represent the views of the American College of Rheumatology, the European League Against Rheumatism, or any other organisation.

Competing interests MFK received personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Celltrion, unrelated to this manuscript. AHK received personal fees from Exagen Diagnostics, Inc and GlaxoSmithKline, unrelated to this manuscript. PMM received personal fees from Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Novartis and UCB Pharma. JY received personal fees from Astra Zeneca and Eli Lilly, unrelated to this manuscript. PCR reports personal fees from Abbvie, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Novartis, Eli Lilly and Janssen, and non-financial support from Roche"

Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread

Martin J Vincent, Eric Bergeron, Suzanne Benjannet, Bobbie R Erickson, Pierre E Rollin, Thomas G Ksiazek, Nabil G Seidah & Stuart T Nichol

Virology Journal volume 2, Article number: 69 (2005)

https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69

Results

We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations

andthenthereszinc

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/three-big-studies-dim-hopes-hydroxychloroquine-can-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

"I'm not anti hydroxychloroquine"

Can the Phils have a chat with themselves?

Jul 10, 2020 at 9:44 AM Phil Clarke
Still celebrating increased death rates, and hoping for more.

When the facts change I change my opinion, what do you do?

[To coin a phrase…..]

The evidence to date on HCQ has been contradictory and inconclusive, however as more good quality trials report it seems increasingly clear that it is ineffective against COVID at safe dosages.

Jul 10, 2020 at 12:48 PM Phil Clarke
Climate Science dishonesty again. Is there a cure for it, other than simple defunding?

"Still not a wonder drug or miracle cure, but more reliable than Climate Science

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/07/hydroxychloroquine-based-covid-19-treatment-a-systematic-review-of-clinical-evidence-and-expert-opinion-from-physicians-surveys/

"The results: 85% of doctors said that hydroxychloroquine is at least somewhat effective for COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine was the most utilized treatment for COVID-19 patients. 35%-40% of the doctors using the drug called it very effective or extremely effective against COVID-19. 65% of doctors said they would prescribe hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 to their family members."

Jul 7, 2020 at 7:24 PM golf charlie"