Changes

{{quotebox|<nowiki>A total of 1542 patients were randomised to hydroxychloroquine and compared with 3132 patients randomised to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality (25.7% hydroxychloroquine vs. 23.5% usual care; hazard ratio 1.11 [95% confidence interval 0.98-1.26]; p=0.10). There was also no evidence of beneficial effects on hospital stay duration or other outcomes. ‘These data convincingly rule out any meaningful mortality benefit of hydroxychloroquine in patients</nowiki> ''hospitalised'' with COVID-19. Full results will be made available as soon as possible.<ref>[https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-06-05-no-clinical-benefit-use-hydroxychloroquine-hospitalised-patients-covid-19  No clinical benefit from use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients with COVID-19] by  Chief Investigators of the Randomised Evaluation of COVid-19 thERapY (5 JUN 2020) ''University of Oxford''</ref>}} That statement is not correct.  If the study convincingly ruled out HCQ, it would have a p value less than .05.<ref name =Changingtimes>[https://changingtimes.media/2020/06/21/covid-19-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-rejected-by-giants-of-the-global-health-establishment/ Covid-19: hydroxychloroquine treatment rejected by giants of the global health establishment] by Annette Gartland (June 21, 2020) ''Changing Times''</ref>  It didn't. It had a p value of .10.

{{quotebox|<nowiki>A total of 1542 patients were randomised to hydroxychloroquine and compared with 3132 patients randomised to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality (25.7% hydroxychloroquine vs. 23.5% usual care; hazard ratio 1.11 [95% confidence interval 0.98-1.26]; p=0.10). There was also no evidence of beneficial effects on hospital stay duration or other outcomes. ‘These data convincingly rule out any meaningful mortality benefit of hydroxychloroquine in patients</nowiki> ''hospitalised'' with COVID-19. Full results will be made available as soon as possible.<ref>[https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-06-05-no-clinical-benefit-use-hydroxychloroquine-hospitalised-patients-covid-19  No clinical benefit from use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients with COVID-19] by  Chief Investigators of the Randomised Evaluation of COVid-19 thERapY (5 JUN 2020) ''University of Oxford''</ref>}} That statement is not correct.  If the study convincingly ruled out HCQ, it would have a p value less than .05.<ref name =Changingtimes>[https://changingtimes.media/2020/06/21/covid-19-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-rejected-by-giants-of-the-global-health-establishment/ Covid-19: hydroxychloroquine treatment rejected by giants of the global health establishment] by Annette Gartland (June 21, 2020) ''Changing Times''</ref>  It didn't. It had a p value of .10.

In any case, the researchers were correct to conclude that the study only applies to ''hospitalized'' patients and therefore can't be used to conclude that HCQ won't work for people who use the drug closer to the time they were infected.  A useful analogy is thinking of COVID-19 like a car crash and HCQ as an airbag.  In order for for an airbag to be effective, it has to be deployed after the car crash but before the occupant crashes through the windshield.  In the case of Covid-19, the argument is that anti-virals such as HCQ must be deployed after catching the virus but ''before'' it causes massive damage... having the airbag deployed after one hits the windshield just doesn't work. By focusing only on hospitalized patients, the  RECOVERY trial failed to address the more pertinent issue of whether HCQ can be used to treat the disease ''before'' one has to be hospitalized.   

In any case, the researchers were correct to conclude that the study only applies to ''hospitalized'' patients and therefore can't be used to conclude that HCQ won't work for people who use the drug closer to the time they were infected.  A useful analogy is thinking of COVID-19 like a car crash and HCQ as an airbag.  In order for for an airbag to be effective, it has to be deployed after the car crash but before the occupant crashes through the windshield.  In the case of COVID-19, the argument is that anti-virals such as HCQ must be deployed after catching the virus but ''before'' it causes massive damage... having the airbag deployed after one hits the windshield just doesn't work. By focusing only on hospitalized patients, the  RECOVERY trial failed to address the more pertinent issue of whether HCQ can be used to treat the disease ''before'' one has to be hospitalized.   

Failure to address early treatment options was not the  RECOVERY trial's biggest limitation, however.  All drugs, when taken in the wrong doses, can become toxic.  A good example of this is warfarin.  In low doses, it is an effective and medically useful anticoagulant.  In high doses, it is known as rat poison.  In the case of HCQ, the ''maximum'' recommended daily dose is 800 mg,<ref>[https://www.drugs.com/dosage/hydroxychloroquine.html Hydroxychloroquine Dosage] (Jun 15, 2020) ''Drugs.com''</ref> but the  RECOVERY trial used a daily dose of 2400 mg of HCQ<ref name =Recovery/>, a dose that is three times higher than the recommended maximum daily dose!<ref name =FranceSoir1>[http://www.francesoir.fr/politique-monde/recovery-trial-brexit-and-overdose Recovery trial: Brexit and overdose] by The Citizens’ Collective for ''FranceSoir'' (May 8, 2020) ''FranceSoir''</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjyNw8qgkaw&list=PLRgTUN1zz_oeQpnJxpeaEkFimDeepqyWf&t=1100 Will We See A Covid-19 Spike In The Next 3-5 Weeks?] by Dr. Chris Martenson (Jun 9, 2020) ''PeakProsperity''</ref> When Martin Landray was asked why he used such a high dose in his trial, he said "the chosen dosage is in line with the dosages used for other diseases such as amoebic dysentery."  That was a curious response considering hydroxy''chloroquine'' isn't used to treat amoebic dysentery.  Diiodohydroxy''quinoline'' is.  This has lead to speculation that the doctors of the RECOVERY trial confused the two drugs.<ref name =Changingtimes/><ref name =FranceSoir1/><ref name=CMOutrage>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnS4MbRribw&list=PLRgTUN1zz_oeQpnJxpeaEkFimDeepqyWf&t=2035 Outrage! Why The US Gov't Lied To Us About Masks] by Dr. Chris Martenson (Jun 16, 2020) ''PeakProsperity''</ref>

Failure to address early treatment options was not the  RECOVERY trial's biggest limitation, however.  All drugs, when taken in the wrong doses, can become toxic.  A good example of this is warfarin.  In low doses, it is an effective and medically useful anticoagulant.  In high doses, it is known as rat poison.  In the case of HCQ, the ''maximum'' recommended daily dose is 800 mg,<ref>[https://www.drugs.com/dosage/hydroxychloroquine.html Hydroxychloroquine Dosage] (Jun 15, 2020) ''Drugs.com''</ref> but the  RECOVERY trial used a daily dose of 2400 mg of HCQ<ref name =Recovery/>, a dose that is three times higher than the recommended maximum daily dose!<ref name =FranceSoir1>[http://www.francesoir.fr/politique-monde/recovery-trial-brexit-and-overdose Recovery trial: Brexit and overdose] by The Citizens’ Collective for ''FranceSoir'' (May 8, 2020) ''FranceSoir''</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjyNw8qgkaw&list=PLRgTUN1zz_oeQpnJxpeaEkFimDeepqyWf&t=1100 Will We See A Covid-19 Spike In The Next 3-5 Weeks?] by Dr. Chris Martenson (Jun 9, 2020) ''PeakProsperity''</ref> When Martin Landray was asked why he used such a high dose in his trial, he said "the chosen dosage is in line with the dosages used for other diseases such as amoebic dysentery."  That was a curious response considering hydroxy''chloroquine'' isn't used to treat amoebic dysentery.  Diiodohydroxy''quinoline'' is.  This has lead to speculation that the doctors of the RECOVERY trial confused the two drugs.<ref name =Changingtimes/><ref name =FranceSoir1/><ref name=CMOutrage>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnS4MbRribw&list=PLRgTUN1zz_oeQpnJxpeaEkFimDeepqyWf&t=2035 Outrage! Why The US Gov't Lied To Us About Masks] by Dr. Chris Martenson (Jun 16, 2020) ''PeakProsperity''</ref>