Study Finds Ethics Concerns in 853 Papers by Covid 'Cure' Researcher

An international team of scientists has found “substantial” ethical and legal concerns in 853 papers published by researchers at the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection (IHU) in France, far more than previous investigations had flagged. Institute founder Didier Raoult was a co-author on 758 of those papers, according to one of the researchers behind the analysis.

Raoult became a global figure in March 2020 when he and colleagues published research claiming hydroxychloroquine, a malaria drug, was effective against Covid-19, especially combined with azithromycin. President Donald Trump called the findings a “gamechanger,” and Dr. Mehmet Oz, now head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, echoed that praise despite objections from Dr. Anthony Fauci, then a top White House adviser, who said the evidence was anecdotal and not based on a controlled trial.

French President Emmanuel Macron visited the institute and met with Raoult, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., then leading an anti-vaccine group, later called Raoult's work “powerful” and dedicated part of his 2021 book attacking Fauci to him. Hydroxychloroquine was never shown to be an effective Covid-19 treatment, and the original paper was retracted in 2025 for ethical and scientific reasons after being cited thousands of times.

Emails later obtained by a U.S. House committee show Oz privately lobbied Trump administration officials, including Jared Kushner, calling Raoult's findings a “potential pandemic solution” even as he publicly acknowledged the research had not been a randomized trial.

Lonni Besançon, an assistant professor at Linköping University in Sweden and a member of the research team, said the paper contributed to drug shortages, diverted scientific attention from more promising treatments and fueled antivaccine conspiracy theories. “A lot of time was wasted,” he said. “It's been a massively influential paper, and it's also been used to push for an antivax agenda.”

The findings, published this month in the journal Research Integrity and Peer Review, add new scrutiny to the scientific judgment of current health officials, including Kennedy and Oz, at a time when the Trump administration says it is committed to restoring “gold-standard science.” The Department of Health and Human Services and CMS did not respond to requests for comment.