The first is a recognized but too often controversial harm reduction tool, the other is an antimalarial drug that dates back more than 70 years. If basic nothing seems to link them, vape and hydroxychloroquine can nevertheless help fight two very distinct pandemics: that of smoking and Covid-19 (coronavirus). Difficulties? Unfounded criticism? Although defended by many scientists, these two remedies are the object of a media and scientific fierceness.
VAPE, HYDROXYCHLOROQUIN, TOWARDS THE END OF TWO MAJOR PANDEMICS?
In writing, we are not a scientific “elite” and it is important to clarify this before going into more depth in such a complex subject. However, this cannot prevent us from asking certain questions and making obvious links as to the way in which the scientific news of vaping and hydroxychloroquine is treated.
In this dossier, we are talking about two “potential” remedies for two very distinct “pandemics” which nevertheless receive fairly similar media and scientific treatment. First let's talk about the vape ( « vapotage« ) which for its part has existed for more than 15 years and is increasingly needed as a tool for reducing tobacco addiction. This electronic device generating an aerosol containing nicotine or not has the advantage of helping the smoker to replace his addiction with a product with reduced risk. If the vape were better considered by the scientific community, it could hypothetically avoid more than 7 million dead due to smoking worldwide each year.
For its part, hydroxychloroquine is a drug (marketed as hydroxychloroquine sulfate under the brand names Plaquenil, Axemal (in India), Dolquine and Quensyl) indicated in rheumatology for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus for its anti-inflammatory properties and immunomodulatory. In France, hydroxychloroquine in all its forms has been listed since the order of on list poisonous substances. With the emergence of the Covid-19 (coronavirus) pandemic, this "remedy" has been brought to the fore by the Chinese authorities and especially by the Pr Didier Raoult, infectiologist and emeritus professor of French microbiology. If the use of hydroxychloroquine as an effective remedy is confirmed, this molecule could end a pandemic that has confined 80% of the planet for months and killed more than 380,000 people at present (more than 6 cases confirmed).
So what are we waiting for? Why don't we use these "magic formulas" right now? Well unfortunately not everything is that simple. Between doubts, bad faith and conflict of interest, the two “remedies” have sparks in their wheels, whether rightly or wrongly.
SUSPECTED STUDIES AND DÉNIGRENTLY, DISRUPTIVE REMEDIES!
So what can these two products have in common? Well let's talk about the scientific side first! In 2015, English public health (Public Health England) was pronounced in favor of the vape by declaring " than vaping 95% less harmful than tobacco" According to the study of Public Health England, vaping could be an inexpensive way to reduce tobacco consumption in disadvantaged areas where the proportion of smokers remains high. Surprisingly, this study by the British public health body was violently criticized by a medical journal: The Lancet .
In its editorial, the famous medical journal said: " The work of the authors is methodologically weak, and it is all the more perilous by the surrounding conflicts of interest declared by their funding, this raises serious questions not only on the conclusions of the PHE report, but also on the quality of the process. 'exam.". Despite the relentlessness of many scientists in favor of vaping, including the Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos who was expressed on the subject, this attempt at discretization has borne fruit by degrading the potential veracity of the words of Public Health England. Even today, scientific doubt remains and it is in part because of this publication of the medical journal "The Lancet".
For hydroxychloroquine, it is a fight of the same type that seems to impose itself on the scientific world. Just like with vaping, there are those who are "for" and those who are "against". Yet there is an actor that we find for both remedies, it is the medical journal " The Lancet". Indeed, on May 22, a study published in the famous medical journal concluded that hydroxychloroquine was not beneficial to hospitalized Covid-19 patients and could even be harmful. Following this publication, France embarked on a repeal of the exemption which allowed the use of this molecule against the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and the suspension of clinical trials intended to test its effectiveness. An important decision even though the pandemic is not yet reaching its end.
But suddenly, overwhelmed by criticism from scientists around the world, the study of " The Lancet Which was at the origin of a series of bans of the molecule in several countries, finally collapsed on May 4, 2020, after the retraction of three of its four authors, including the main Mandeep Mehra. " We can no longer vouch for the veracity of primary data sources“, Write the three authors to the prestigious journal which published its long study on May 22. The reason for this withdrawal: Surgisphere, the company that collected the mountain of data used as the basis of their work and led by Sapan Desai, the fourth author of the article, refused to give access to its sources, due to confidentiality agreements with its customers.
If the vaping world is still waiting for the apologies of " The Lancet "Concerning his denigration of the study by Public Health England on the safety of vaping in 2015, it is clear that the weekly British medical scientific journal is far from" reliable ". In a recent interview, the Pr Didier Raoult states: " LancetGate is such a comical symptom that, in the end, it looks like Nickel-plated feet do science. This is not reasonnable.". For his part, the medical journalist Jean-Francois Lemoine denounces " a bogus study "Stating that" paid scientific articles, this has been practiced for a long time"
Lack of seriousness, conflicts of interest or even manipulation of the pharmaceutical industry, it remains difficult to see the end of the tunnel concerning these two scientific scams. In the meantime, millions of people find themselves in danger of death as dark games take place behind the scenes.
MEDIA HANDLING, AN INDEPENDABLE BARRIER TO HEALTH!
How not to talk about the media manipulation which also has its role in the case of vaping as in that of hydroxychloroquine. True victims of a more than approximate media appreciation, these two "remedies" are the subject of genuine social debates which should not take place. Far from us the desire to become judge or divine word as for the flawless effectiveness of the vape or the hydroxychloroquine, however it remains possible to note the differences and especially the illogical treatment of the media spheres concerning these potential solutions to two separate pandemics.
In the case of vaping, it has been years since the risk reduction tool has been praised, sometimes thrown into the pasture of extremist groups who cause discomfort as soon as they hear the word “nicotine”. With time nothing really changes and the vape continues to create the division, everyone gives their opinion on the subject and this is obviously done to the detriment of a benefit that could be offered to smoking patients.
However, it is clear that this "problem" inevitably returns when a product presented as revolutionary and inexpensive makes its appearance. Today, we are living the same dilemma with hydroxychloroquine, an inexpensive molecule which could show its effectiveness. So how can we not draw a parallel with the world of vaping which has been fighting for years against incessant and unjustified attacks ...
If on our side we are convinced that nothing happens by chance and that the vape as the hydroxychloroquine disturb certain industries wishing to make large profits with inefficient methods, we clearly do not wish to impose our vision of things.
However, as a nod to fate, Professor Didier Raoult who defends hydroxychloroquine like a hell of a thing as a treatment for Covid-19 (coronavirus) seems unwittingly to have imagined a parallel with the vape there is years.
Indeed, in 2013, he declared : " In the name of the precautionary principle, we will try to slow down the thing that is fighting against the biggest killer. It is an extraordinary thing ”. For him, vaping may not have a future in the fight against smoking, just as hydroxychloroquine may not have in the fight against Covid-19: « I said to myself, this thing will not hold because it is a product of pure innovation that has escaped all circuits ».
Hypothesis, anticipation or reality, only the future will tell us whether Professor Didier Raoult understood everything about these two major pandemics ...
