The details in this article are insufficient to draw many conclusions. There is no paper, although a YouTube video (in French) is linked. The article doesn't make it clear whether Raoult was being interviewed, or the information was taken from the video.
The linked Google Doc (not regarding the study in question, despite another comment on this thread) summarizes results from other purported studies. Even then, this document itself appears to lack the usual signs of authenticity.
Be careful about drawing conclusions because the details just aren't there. Details are everything in drug discovery.
Edit:
Then there's the vague language in the article.
> “We were able to ascertain that patients who had not received Plaquenil (the drug containing hydroxychloroquine) were still contagious after six days, but of those that had received Plaquenil, after six days, only 25% were still contagious.”
"Contagious" means nothing because AFAIK, there is no test for it. There is a PCR test being used around the world to detect the presence of viral RNA. So it's suspicious that an expert would be using the word "contagious," which implies the ability to transmit the virus under experimental conditions.
And it gets worse.
Have a look at the video linked in the article:
https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/coronavirus-diagnosti...
First, it begins with a title that doesn't match the title of the speaker's slide deck.
Second, judging from the slides the video appears to be about COVID-19 testing in general. There doesn't seem to be anything of substance about chloroquine anywhere. I don't speak French, so maybe there is something there. If so, the slide deck doesn't reflect it. And there's no way that a successful clinical trial of a COVID-19 drug would begin with basic introductory slides that everyone already knows.
This just doesn't add up. I'm calling bullshit.