Talk:Alternative treatments used for the common cold

This statement was at the top of this article:

Many herbal remedies have been suggested to treat the common cold. None however has been shown to be effective.

This statement from Romarin replaced it (removing a reference for the latter sentence as well):

Many herbal and otherwise alternative remedies have been suggested to treat the common cold. Studies testing the effectiveness of these remedies have proved conflicting, and thus inconclusive.

However, the new statement is not at all correct. As the reference (which was removed as part of Romarin's edit, and which has been restored now) clearly states:

Herbs, minerals and other products such as echinacea, eucalyptus, garlic, honey, lemon, menthol, zinc and vitamin C have received a lot of publicity as cold remedies. However, none of these claims are solidly supported by scientific studies.

The key item: None of these claims are solidly supported by scientific studies.

There are "conflicting studies"? Of course. There were studies that showed that table-top cold fusion worked. But since those studies weren't able to be replicated (in other words, they "conflicted" with further studies), today we say that table-top cold fusion is not supported by scientific evidence. You see, "conflicting" doesn't mean "inconclusive." It means "unproven" and "not supported by scientific studies." That's what we should say here. Accordingly, the new section has replaced both older versions. --Transity (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Some references refute the usefulness of alternative remedies. Others support it. I don't think that that fact can be represented neutrally by what is written there currently. I find the sentence "none has been shown to be effective" pretty biased, especially considering that people all over the world have been using what we like to call "alternative" treatments for thousands of years. The Western Medical Authority claims that they're all stupid and wrong. We eat up their words, repeating them at every opportunity.

The article God doesn't start with "God has never been shown to be real", and yet it's true that no one has ever been able to "prove" the existence of a deity. I find that it is important to show all sides of a debate in articles, but starting an article off by saying, "this are false!" is just way over the top. Most other contentious subjects have a "criticism" section further down in the article, rather than being one-sided from the beginning.

If you disagree with my choice of words (fine about conflicting not equalling inconclusive), I'm sure we can find some other way to word it. I just believe that the way it is now is biased, not at all neutral. romarin [talk ] 18:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, NPOV is important. But even more important is that the articles reflect reality. The reality of the situation is that none of the well-known alternative treatments for the common cold have been shown to be effective. That's not a bias, that's not lack of neutrality - it's reality. There have been plenty of studies done. Those that have looked positive have not been replicable, and the rest haven't shown any positive results.

People are free to use these remedies, but they have to be informed about the reality that there is no scientific evidence backing up claims that any of them do anything to prevent or shorten or lessen the symptoms of the common cold. You're welcome to reword what I've written, but that basic premise has to remain intact. I'm not saying "this is false," I'm saying "it isn't supported by any scientific evidence." There's a difference.

As an aside, if the article on God doesn't say that he's never been proven to be real, and if that's not addressed anywhere in the article, then it should be added there as well. The fact that lots of people believe in God (or a god) or that they use a traditional remedy doesn't make it any more effective. And please don't fall back on the "allopathic, Western medicine conspiracy" talk. That's nothing but nonsense. --Transity (talk | contribs) 18:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"However, none of these claims are supported by scientific evidence." it would be nice to add "so far" and/or "fully" ---> "However, so far none of these claims are fully supported by scientific evidence.". Reading the article I understand that most things need more good research to prove anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.173.84 (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Steam

The studies involving steam -- with their verdict of no real effect -- seem to me really misguided. They look exclusively at nasal symptoms (whereas loosening chest congestion is at least as common a motive for steam treatment) and the measures of nasal resistance are taken seven days later -- that is, these researchers thought the steam was supposed to permanently relieve the symptoms. I never met an actual human being who thought the effects would be more than temporary. I mean, this is just bad design, flawed interpretation, leading to authoritative irrelevance and nonsense. DavidOaks (talk)

Is section referencing Eby legit and good?

Does anyone have access to the study by Eby? Is it legit? Should the highly technical language here remain? Should it be deleted or reworded? Locarno (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Judge for yourself. The 2010 review is at: http://www.coldcure.com/html/zinc-lozenges-as-cure-for-common-cold.pdf Unfortunately, you will need to have an inorganic chemist that has skill in solution equilibrium chemistry evaluate the science (see figure 1)

Chest Rub

Not sure if it's useful but http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-vapor-relieves-cold-symptoms-children.html indicates that chest rubs (specifically Vicks VapoRub) "provided significantly greater relief as measured by cough frequency, cough severity, congestion and the child's ability to sleep" with a common side effect being "a burning sensation of the skin". --Joshtek (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I know this article is here to promote Alt Med Woo (read: pseudoscience), but since this article is linked from the main article on Zinc, it ought to have real science. First of all, it is written like someone from Ziccam is promoting products. Seriously. The comment that scientists are trying to sabotage zinc is beyond neutral. Give me a break. And the ionic zinc hypothesis is based on research from 30 years ago. If it were really an ongoing theory, there would be publications from the last 5 years. This is an amusing attempt at advertising. LeftCoastMan (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Major rewrite enacted; if this does not address your concerns with that section, please replace the tag or fix it yourself. As I write this, I just found the third instance where a study was cited as a follow-up to itself, with different conclusions. I have striven to keep the presentation as simple and direct as possible. As per WP:MEDRS, I have also removed numerous instances where smaller individual studies of varying quality were juxtaposed so as to rebut or cast doubt on a systematic review or study of higher methodological quality. Anachronistic presentation is especially to be avoided in such cases, as earlier studies are rarely written in response to later reviews (that may even have examined the study in question). Additional high-quality publications should be introduced to reduce reliance on individual reviews. The extensive Eby paean did not present a significant result. Please also note that material in Medical Hypotheses should not be cited for anything other than its own opinion, and that a secondary source would be needed to establish relevance. The conspiracy-mongering was uncited, but I am reproducing it below in case anyone finds a source demonstrating that it represents an important historical point.

Extended content

uncited conspiracy theory copied from [1] Critics of some research that casts doubt on the efficacy of zinc in treating colds have claimed the research reflects an effort to sabotage the commercial viability of zinc lozenges. They cite a 1987 Geist et al. at the University of Virginia School of Medicine conducted an in vitro antirhinoviral test of a number of ionic zinc compounds. In that study, the antirhinoviral effects of ionizable zinc were overwhelmed by the presence in the culture medium of 30 mmol magnesium chloride (over 30 times physiologic concentration), the exact concentration shown 20 years previously to be optimally effective in increasing rhinoviral cellular release from 8 to 310-fold.

I am not a fan of including in vitro results in this sort of article, but if someone else likes it we can discuss. I removed the list of examples from the lead, as none of them were discussed later. The following is copied from the same revision as cited above: While a number of Chinese herbs and plants have been purported to ease cold symptoms, including ginger, garlic, hyssop, mullein, and others, scientific studies have either not been done or have been found inconclusive. The source is solid, but only mentions these treatments incidentally. Would it be worthwhile to create an Other section, with individual mentions to be expanded into full sections when sourcing warrants? - 2/0 (cont.) 20:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

References

Cochrane Review "Zinc for the common cold" has been withdrawn

The Cochrane Review "Zinc for the common cold" has been withdrawn due to concerns regarding the calculation and analysis of data in the review. Zinc for the common cold-Withdrawn So, I removed the section from the article that was entirely based on this review. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

There was also a JAMA review there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Oksy, thanks for adding it back. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alternative treatments used for the common cold. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/common-cold/DS00056/DSECTION%3Dtreatments-and-drugs
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070623234904/http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/healthscience/healthtopics/colds/ to http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/healthscience/healthtopics/colds/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)