> (professor Didier Raoult) has been mostly right about the whole thing

Can you cite some sources? Everything I've seen about him has pointed out how bad his study was, how he has a track record of just plain making stuff up, etc.

Here's a good example (with extra links) that pretty much demolishes his claims: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/03/29/mo...

The main source would be the website of his own research center https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/en/ (but it's mostly the content in French that's interesting) He had a lengthy interview on French media last week. As far as I'm concerned he got pretty much every part of that epidemic right from the beginning and the facts are now vindicating him.

But that's not really the point anyway. My point is: he went against the WHO and the French government. And at least some people, like me, find value in what he is saying. So who is to judge whether or not he should be allowed to spread his ideas?

> So who is to judge whether or not he should be allowed to spread his ideas?

People who don't think you should make up stuff in medical studies? Which he has a documented history of doing.

Or people who don't think a half-arsed study of questionable value should be held up as a breakthrough against COVID-19 when it demonstrably is not?

Nobody is talking about banning people like Didier Raoult. If you can't tell the difference between a professor and a guy who gives spittle-flecked rants about the lizard people, this discussion will not be productive. For example, we all know he did a terrible job with the hydroxychloroquine study, but of course he retains his position.

You've really missed the point