This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The page was flagged by @ CommanderWaterford: 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)
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)
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The page was flagged by @ CommanderWaterford: 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)
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)
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)