It has been almost ten years since Didier Raoult no longer speaks to his daughter, Magali Carcopino-Tusoli. In question, a family dispute during which she dared to oppose him, and say no to him. A word that the former director of the IHU Méditerranée infection (IHUm) suffers little from. She never gave in. He banished her from the family. Since then, she calls him “Professor Raoult”. She no longer bears her name, but that of her husband, Xavier Carcopino-Tusoli.
The matter could have remained private. It took another turn during the Covid-19 crisis, when Magali Carcopino-Tusoli, specialist in vascular medicine at Sainte-Marguerite Hospital (AP-HM), criticized the IHUm studies on hydroxychloroquine, the treatment promoted by his father. If the latter does not answer him directly, Eric Chabrière, his faithful right-hand man in charge of defending the IHUm on social networks, takes care of it. On Twitter, he vehemently challenges all critics of hydroxychloroquine, without exception, not even for his boss’s daughter. Faced with the violence of the attacks, Magali Carcopino-Tusoli and her husband filed a complaint for defamation and public insults. They accuse Eric Chabrière of being behind the Twitter account “The professional”, one of the most filthy and threatening.
After an intense trial that ended on May 5, the Marseille criminal court pronounced the acquittal. Again, no way to give in. In a long interview with L’Express, Magali Carcopino-Tusoli says she is appealing the decision. She also explains why she will never give up her fight against harassment and lies, nor that in favor of scientific rigor, despite the price to pay.
L’Express: How did you react to the verdict?
Magali Carcopino-Tusoli: The strategy of our complaint was to demonstrate that Mr. Chabrière was not content to reshare, with his personal Twitter account, the insulting messages of the “Professional”, but that he was also the author. We have provided evidence, provided by Twitter, that the phone number associated with this account is the same as that of Mr. Chabrière. His lawyer argued that this number is public and anyone can use it. The judge considered that a doubt persisted and that it should benefit the accused, hence the acquittal.
When a number is associated with a Twitter account, don’t you have to have the phone to access the account? Didn’t the user of the Le Professionnel account necessarily have access to Mr. Chabrière’s phone?
Effectively. And we also showed that Mr. Chabrière’s personal account and that of the Professional had the same Internet address. We can, again, remember that he retweeted all the insulting and defamatory tweets of the Professional. The question that the judge asked herself, and which answered our complaint, was: “Is he 100% sure that Eric Chabrière is behind this account?”. His answer was negative. I think a conviction would have sent a strong message to those experiencing cyberbullying. Although this verdict is harsh, it is a decision of the court. You have to respect it. And then this judgment does not prove us wrong on the basis of harassment. It indicates that we have not provided sufficient evidence. We therefore take the decision, with our lawyer, to appeal.
Why did you denounce the studies of your father and the IHUm and take part in the explosive debate around hydroxychloroquine?
At first, when I watched his YouTube presentation”Covid-19, endgame” (published in February 2020), I believed in the potential of hydroxychloroquine. But when I read the first study of the IHUm, I saw that this work proved absolutely nothing. I spoke about it to colleagues and relatives. I was told that my analysis was influenced by my relationship with Pr. Raoult. I was a bit alone in Marseille, while scientists, researchers and specialists in the subject also made criticisms.
My position has earned me attacks from a pro-hydroxychloroquine “Twitter microcosm”, made up of many anonymous people who often have no scientific skills, who understand nothing about these studies and are convinced that the criticisms are the fruit of lobbies. or conspiracies. Eric Chabrière was a particularly active member. The attacks were virulent, but I decided not to be silent, to denounce this harassment. Today, we know that this treatment does not work. We were all disappointed that it didn’t, but that’s the way it is.
How do you respond to those who accuse you of having criticized the IHUm in opposition to your father, or even out of detestation?
I think a lot of people don’t know that it’s possible not to have only binary reasoning – love or hate – and that you can think and criticize other than with hateful biases. No, I don’t hate Pr. Raoult. We haven’t spoken to each other for more than ten years and today I feel sorry for him. He dreamed of being a Nobel Prize winner, he became the leader of conspiracy theorists and antivax.
Why ?
He never tolerated contradiction. It’s impossible to survive with him if you don’t agree on everything. This behavior pushed him to isolate himself, to cut himself off from all criticism and to shut himself up inside a sphere of adoration. He has entered a vicious circle and only supports people who bow down to him. My life before belonged to my family, until I decided it belonged to me. I was lucky to be able to get away from him, especially thanks to my husband, which allowed me to understand that my family’s demands and demands were unreasonable. His response was to tell me, “I never want to see you again.” Of course, it was violent. But I don’t regret it. It’s not possible to live with people who have such a desire to possess others.
In his latest book, Autobiography (ed. Michel Lafon) your father does not have a word for you. On the other hand, he congratulates Mr. Chabrière and all those who defended him on the Internet. He compares them to the resistance fighters of the Second World War.
His book, which I read, reveals his frustrations and his lies. He distributes the good and bad points to his collaborators, underlines their failures, reminds them that they owe him everything. It’s very perverse. There are also all these passages about the “family mythology” in which I grew up, but which I had the opportunity to deconstruct. He continues to invent a whole part of his life. As for the fact that he claims the resistant past of our family and that he lends these values to the bullies, that shocked me. I said to myself “you must not have listened well to Grandpa”. And then he totally puts aside the role of my grandmother. He even recounts his private and sexual life. Writing that, when he always said to me “do honor to your father and your mother”, it made me angry.
These fights against the IHUm, in favor of vaccines and the scientific method have brought you more blows than anything else. What motivates you ?
My family history also has good sides. I spent a lot of time with my grandmother. His stories and his resistant values have inspired me enormously. She transmitted to me this desire to never let things go, to say things even if we take blows. I did it with my family, in my professional career and to defend science. And then my work at the University Hospital Center (CHU) also involves a public service mission – which I take very seriously – which consists in particular in not letting fake medical news pass, in not allowing people with responsibilities in care structures say enormities.
Of course, the trial against Mr. Chabrière was difficult. It nevertheless allowed me to say what I had to say: to denounce hatred on social networks and underline the damage it causes, to remind that we must put science back at the center of these debates, that hydroxychloroquine does not work against Covid-19, that the IHUm studies are bad, that the vaccine is useful. I do not regret this fight, I know that my step was necessary and I hope that it will push other people to speak. The message I want to convey is not that of “Raoult’s daughter”, but of the doctor who must not tolerate lies, defamation and insults.
Few academic and scientific bodies have had the courage to publicly denounce the excesses of their members. Didn’t you feel isolated?
I regret that the University of Marseilles has not taken a position. It would have been desirable for it to publish even a press release by name telling Didier Raoult or Éric Chabrière that we do not respond to scientific criticism with invective, that harassment is not tolerated, nor antivaccines. Recalling that the university is a place where you learn good science and good medicine could have reassured the general public and students. Unfortunately, the faculty didn’t even take the time to write a tweet.
I also remind you that CHU staff are required to follow the directives of the Ministry of Health. [M. Chabrière est biochimiste à l’hôpital de la Timone, doté du statut CHU, NDLR]. We can disagree and criticize them, but we have to. But reminders to members deliberately antivax or who apply unrecognized treatments are not made.
Many antivax or conspiratorial researchers or professors who use their institution to legitimize their statements are still in office today. Does this shock you?
This situation gives a disastrous image of the Marseille university and I deeply regret it, because that is where I studied. Let’s not forget that Mr. Chabrière shares messages calling for the torture of his opponents on social networks. Maybe that will change now that college president Eric Berton has ‘fallen out of his chair’ [à la lecture de la dernière étude publiée par Didier Raoult, en mars dernier, comme l’a rapporté le journal La Provence, NDLR] ?
Do you think that the new director of the IHUm, Pierre-Édouard Fournier, will be able to put an end to the serious excesses of the institute denounced by the vitriolic reports of the ANSM and the Igas?
I am saddened by what happened there. Getting to do anything at this point is, indeed, genius. With the means they have, it’s a big mess. And what example does this give to young people, when the profession of doctor, of researchers, is fabulous?
But I really believe that Mr. Fournier is trying to free himself from the legacy of Prof. Raoult. It must not be easy, because it’s been so long since they’ve been functioning completely aberrantly and they’ve lost their footing. It faces the stables of Augeas. And the followers of Pr. Raoult are still there. But there are also good people out there who want to change things.
Mr. Chabrière also filed a complaint against you. What does he blame you for?
I received a direct citation for harassment the day before the verdict. He is represented by the lawyer of the association Bon Sens [un collectif antivax et complotiste fondé par la fine fleur du complotisme français, dont Xavier Azalbert, le directeur du blog France-Soir, le Pr. Christian Perronne ou encore Silvano Trotta, partisan de la théorie selon laquelle la Lune est creuse et artificielle, NDLR]. He is asking me for 20,000 euros in damages. This is, of course, intimidation.