Changes

'''Error/Claim #1 - Dexamethasone is the only drug shown to improve survival.'''  

'''Error/Claim #1 - Dexamethasone is the only drug shown to improve survival.'''  

That's not true.  All drugs which have studies that have statistically significant correlations (p<.05) linking their use to increased survival are drugs "shown to improve survival" and HCQ has a lot of those studies.  Granted, one can take issue with the results and argue that there are reasons not to believe them (like with Surgisphere, for example), but the onus of proof is on the person seeking to refute the studies.  You can't just ignore the fact that the studies exist.   

That's not true.  All drugs which have studies that have statistically significant correlations (p<.05) linking their use to increased survival are drugs "shown to improve survival" and HCQ has a lot of those studies.  Granted, one can take issue with the results and argue that there are reasons not to believe them (like with Surgisphere, for example), but the onus of proof is on the person seeking to refute the studies.  You can't just ignore the fact that the studies exist.   

In addition to HCQ, there are other drugs the author failed to mention that have shown to improve survival.

In addition to HCQ, there are other drugs the author failed to mention that have shown to improve survival.

'''Error/Claim #2 - Two other studies found that the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine does not help people with only mild symptoms.'''

'''Error/Claim #2 - Two other studies found that the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine does not help people with only mild symptoms.'''

The two studies referenced were [https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1009/5872589?searchresult=1 a small study from Spain] and the Minnesota study Boulware co-authored.  Like the Minnesota study, the Spain study had positive results that supported HCQ use but it failed to reach statistical significance, likely due to its small sample size (it only had 293 people which is much smaller than the 6000 people the Minnesota study said were needed to reach statistical significance).<ref>[https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1009/5872589 Hydroxychloroquine for Early Treatment of Adults with Mild Covid-19: A Randomized-Controlled Trial] by Oriol Mitjà (16 July 2020) ''Clinical Infectious Diseases''</ref> The fact that these were the two studies chosen as evidence "against" HCQ is a clear-cut case of cherry picking.  The fact that studies with statistically significant positive results such as the ones conducted at Prevent Senior Institute in Brazil, Gómez Ulla in Spain, IHU Méditerranée Infection in France, the Henry Ford and Mount Sanai hospitals in the USA, and by the ICMR COVID-19 Research Team in India were not mentioned in the article are fallacies of omission.  

The two studies referenced were [https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1009/5872589?searchresult=1 a small study from Spain] and the Minnesota study Boulware co-authored.  Like the Minnesota study, the Spain study had positive results that supported HCQ use but it failed to reach statistical significance, likely due to its small sample size (it only had 293 people which is much smaller than the 6000 people the Minnesota study said were needed to reach statistical significance).<ref>[https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1009/5872589 Hydroxychloroquine for Early Treatment of Adults with Mild Covid-19: A Randomized-Controlled Trial] by Oriol Mitjà (16 July 2020) ''Clinical Infectious Diseases''</ref> The fact that these were the two studies chosen as evidence "against" HCQ is a clear-cut case of cherry picking.  The fact that studies with statistically significant positive results such as the ones conducted at Prevent Senior Institute in Brazil, Gómez Ulla in Spain, IHU Méditerranée Infection in France, the Henry Ford and Mount Sanai hospitals in the USA, and by the ICMR COVID-19 Research Team in India were not mentioned in the article are fallacies of omission.  

'''Error/Claim #3 - The only other ''therapy'' that’s been shown to help COVID-19 patients is remdesivir.'''

'''Error/Claim #3 - The only other ''therapy'' that’s been shown to help COVID-19 patients is remdesivir.'''

What about the plasma therapy that was covered on ''60 minutes'' and analyzed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32253318/ in this study?]<ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/video/coronavirus-antibodies-blood-plasma-therapy-60-minutes-2020-05-31/ Inside the plasma therapy doctors are using to treat COVID-19] by Bill Whitiker (May 31, 2020) ''60 Minutes''</ref><ref>[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32253318/ Effectiveness of convalescent plasma therapy in severe COVID-19 patients] by Kai Duan (2020 Apr 6) ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA''</ref> (Actually, the study is really small and other studies have shown that plasma therapy doesn't work late in the disease progression, but if the criterion of proof is "as good as or better than remdesivir," then it has been shown to help.)

What about the plasma therapy that was covered on ''60 minutes'' and analyzed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32253318/ in this study?]<ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/video/coronavirus-antibodies-blood-plasma-therapy-60-minutes-2020-05-31/ Inside the plasma therapy doctors are using to treat COVID-19] by Bill Whitiker (May 31, 2020) ''60 Minutes''</ref><ref>[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32253318/ Effectiveness of convalescent plasma therapy in severe COVID-19 patients] by Kai Duan (2020 Apr 6) ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA''</ref> (Actually, the study is really small and other studies have shown that plasma therapy doesn't work late in the disease progression, but if the criterion of proof is "as good as or better than remdesivir," then it has been shown to help.)

'''Error/Claim #4 - HCQ is harmful'''

'''Error/Claim #4 - HCQ is harmful'''

The article goes on to report "Now, details published on a research site for scientists show that the drug may have done harm. Patients given hydroxychloroquine were less likely to leave the hospital alive within 28 days — 60 percent on the drug versus 63 percent given usual care."<ref name= APMar/>  

The article goes on to report "Now, details published on a research site for scientists show that the drug may have done harm. Patients given hydroxychloroquine were less likely to leave the hospital alive within 28 days — 60 percent on the drug versus 63 percent given usual care."<ref name= APMar/>  

===BBC===

===BBC===

If it was just Marilynn Marchione shading the truth, then other independent journalists could correct the misinformation by pointing out the flaws in the argument and provide the public with strong, fact-based, counter-arguments.  Unfortunately, [https://twitter.com/MMarchioneAP Marilynn Marchione's] reporting style is par for the course.  Another example is ''Coronavirus: Dexamethasone proves first life-saving drug'', written by Michelle Roberts, which says the following:  

If it was just Marilynn Marchione shading the truth, then other independent journalists could correct the misinformation by pointing out the flaws in the argument and provide the public with strong, fact-based, counter-arguments.  Unfortunately, [https://twitter.com/MMarchioneAP Marilynn Marchione's] reporting style is par for the course.  Another example is ''Coronavirus: Dexamethasone proves first life-saving drug'', written by Michelle Roberts, which says the following:{{cquote|The Recovery Trial, running since March, also looked at the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine, which has subsequently been ditched amid concerns it increases fatalities and heart problems. The antiviral drug remdesivir, meanwhile, which appears to shorten recovery time for people with coronavirus, is already being made available on the NHS.<ref name =BBC/>}}  There is no reason for the antiviral drugs remdesivir and HCQ to be mentioned in an article about the steroid dexamethasone unless one was trying to make a comprehensive analysis of the medical literature, which this article wasn't doing.  If one wanted to add context, then the author could have instead talked about the closely related drug methylprednasone and the MATH+ protocol.  And, in order to inform the reader, one could explain that the MATH+ protocol has a 6.6% mortality rate in one hospital and a 3.3% mortality rate in another<ref name=MATH/> whereas the RECOVERY trial is rocking a 41% mortality rate among patients on a ventilator, 25% mortality rate among those on oxygen therapy, and a 13% mortality rate on those patients who did not require respiratory intervention.<ref name=Recovery2/>   

 

{{cquote|The Recovery Trial, running since March, also looked at the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine, which has subsequently been ditched amid concerns it increases fatalities and heart problems. The antiviral drug remdesivir, meanwhile, which appears to shorten recovery time for people with coronavirus, is already being made available on the NHS.<ref name =BBC/>}}  There is no reason for the antiviral drugs remdesivir and HCQ to be mentioned in an article about the steroid dexamethasone unless one was trying to make a comprehensive analysis of the medical literature, which this article wasn't doing.  If one wanted to add context, then the author could have instead talked about the closely related drug methylprednasone and the MATH+ protocol.  And, in order to inform the reader, one could explain that the MATH+ protocol has a 6.6% mortality rate in one hospital and a 3.3% mortality rate in another<ref name=MATH/> whereas the RECOVERY trial is rocking a 41% mortality rate among patients on a ventilator, 25% mortality rate among those on oxygen therapy, and a 13% mortality rate on those patients who did not require respiratory intervention.<ref name=Recovery2/>   

==="The Worldwide Leader in News"===

===CNN===

Dr. Chris Martenson, a pathologist and YouTube podcaster, provided another example of how the media has covered HCQ, this time from CNN and their Senior Medical Correspondent, Elizabeth Cohen.  The first article she wrote, ''Yet another study shows hydroxychloroquine doesn't work against Covid-19,''  was published at 4:57 PM ET on Monday, May 11.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/11/health/hydroxychloroquine-doesnt-work-coronavirus/index.html Yet another study shows hydroxychloroquine doesn't work against Covid-19] by Elizabeth Cohen (4:57 PM ET, Mon May 11, 2020)''CNN''</ref>  That was prime time news coverage and the article covered Rosenburg's retrospective study. The second article she wrote, "Study finds hydroxychloroquine helped coronavirus patients survive better," covered the Henry Ford study's results and was published at 11:24 PM on Thursday, July 2 (right before July 4 celebrations).<ref name =CMFord/>  Apparently that title and publishing time wasn't enough so CNN updated the article on July 3, 1:31 PM so that it reads "Study finds hydroxychloroquine may have boosted survival, but other researchers have doubts" and they added some criticisms, such as screening patients for HCQ risk factors may have skewed the results.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/health/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-detroit-study/index.html Study finds hydroxychloroquine may have boosted survival, but other researchers have doubts] by Maggie Fox, Andrea Kane, and Elizabeth Cohen (1:31 PM ET, Fri July 3, 2020) ''CNN''</ref>  That is a valid point, and one needed for balance, but no such "balanced" treatment was given to the New York study.  If the author had added a counterpoint from other scientists, it would read something like this:

Dr. Chris Martenson, a pathologist and YouTube podcaster, provided another example of how the media has covered HCQ, this time from CNN and their Senior Medical Correspondent, Elizabeth Cohen.  The first article she wrote, ''Yet another study shows hydroxychloroquine doesn't work against Covid-19,''  was published at 4:57 PM ET on Monday, May 11.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/11/health/hydroxychloroquine-doesnt-work-coronavirus/index.html Yet another study shows hydroxychloroquine doesn't work against Covid-19] by Elizabeth Cohen (4:57 PM ET, Mon May 11, 2020)''CNN''</ref>  That was prime time news coverage and the article covered Rosenburg's retrospective study. The second article she wrote, "Study finds hydroxychloroquine helped coronavirus patients survive better," covered the Henry Ford study's results and was published at 11:24 PM on Thursday, July 2 (right before July 4 celebrations).<ref name =CMFord/>  Apparently that title and publishing time wasn't enough so CNN updated the article on July 3, 1:31 PM so that it reads "Study finds hydroxychloroquine may have boosted survival, but other researchers have doubts" and they added some criticisms, such as screening patients for HCQ risk factors may have skewed the results.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/health/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-detroit-study/index.html Study finds hydroxychloroquine may have boosted survival, but other researchers have doubts] by Maggie Fox, Andrea Kane, and Elizabeth Cohen (1:31 PM ET, Fri July 3, 2020) ''CNN''</ref>  That is a valid point, and one needed for balance, but no such "balanced" treatment was given to the New York study.  If the author had added a counterpoint from other scientists, it would read something like this: