On October 30th, a new study from the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection (IHU-MI) was published in the journal “New Microbes and New Infections” [1]. This is the latest publication in a long series that is controversial both scientifically and legally.Indeed, several other articles had been published by this team on the topic of Covid-19. The first one [2], has been adjudicated to be fraudulent by the former President of the board of this institute [3]. Further COVID-19 research has had significant ethical concerns arise, regarding the conduct of the studies [4,5,6,7,8] due to their purported retrospective nature despite the trial description appearing to be a prospective trial. These trials are also prima facie problematic because, from May the 11th 2020 and the removal of a special decree authorizing it temporarily, the use of hydroxychloroquine was forbidden outside of clinical trials in France, and these were not conducted as clinical trials. Similarly, off-label prescription was not possible in that case because this process is subject to a strict law regulation in France and can be proposed to patients only if: i) there is no alternative labeled therapy, ii) it is used case by case and not systematically for all patients as was the case at the IHU and iii) the available scientific data ensures efficacy and safety of the drug in the dedicated indication (see Code de la Santé Publique, Article L5121-12-1-2), which was clearly not the case for hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 treatment. Consequently, since hydroxychloroquine is considered in this indication as an experimental drug in France, a retrospective design likely contravenes French law on biomedical research (see Code de la santé publique, Article L1121-1) [9].Despite all scientific and ethics arguments having been brought to the attention of the editor, and the publisher themselves declaring that the study has no scientific merit and is “fully irresponsible” [10] even prior to the fraud being uncovered, the initial publication has still not been retracted [11].