Talk:RECOVERY Trial

Similarity to press release
The page was flagged by  as being too similar to a non-free copyrighted source, "cathlabdigest.com", which is a bit cheeky because that website merely reproduced the Oxford press release in its entirety - and claimed copyright over it. I have always believed that Press Releases are not copyrighted as they are intended to be widely disseminated and used without restriction, but I have changed the wording of several paragraphs anyway to avoid this issue. I will remove the tag tomorrow unless anyone objects in the meantime. If anyone feels that there is still an issue with too close a paraphrasing of the press release, then please accept my apologies and reinstate the tag, but please take the trouble to point the tag to the original press release. Thanks Hallucegenia (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

wrong dosage for hydroxychloroquine should be mentioned
Watching this video it seems that hydroxychloroquine was given at far higher doses than is recommended. That ought to be mentioned. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBn4e69tGlg&t=1214s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.32.254.238 (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Dosage used for a nine-day intervention to try to save someone's life should not be compared to the long-term dosage recommended for treating rheumatism. The preprint explains that the dose was as high as they could safely make it, and details the analysis done to check that the dose used was not causing potentially lethal heart arhythmias (lines 261-277). If that bloke on your video had bothered to read all the paper, he would have seen this too. Hallucegenia (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

REGEN-COV
The Recovery trial has released preliminary results for its REGEN-COV arm. Such a statement is a historical fact, which is not covered by the WP:MEDRS requirement to be listed in a peer-reviewed journal. This information has been added by two different editors, but each time has been removed by a third, most recently here.

I don't want to get into an edit war, so I am asking here how we should word a sub-section that reports the fact that the Regen-Cov arm has been closed and that the researchers claim that "RECOVERY trial finds Regeneron’s monoclonal antibody combination reduces deaths for hospitalised COVID-19 patients who have not mounted their own immune response". Whether or not their preliminary finding stands after peer review, we need to keep this article up-to-date. After all, it is an article on the Recovery Trial, not an article on treatments for Covid-19. Hallucegenia (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait for coverage in secondary sources? Alexbrn (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well there are plenty of those, so if that's the only objection I will take that as WP:CONSENSUS Hallucegenia (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)