Talk:Oscillococcinum/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

First remarks

Thanks for the grammer fix on Oscillococcinum. Regarding the sentence you removed though ("It is also one of the most highly diluted preparations available."), I though it was "one of" the most highly diluted, certainly it's the highest I've seen (not that I've researched extensivly). Could you point me some with above 200C?

Okay, I guess I should do more research :) I found this page: [hahnemannlabs] that lists several of higher dilution/potency. MickWest 17:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering if you were concerened about the use of the word "diluted", since it implies reduction in potency to a layman? MickWest 17:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ofcourse the use of the word diluted is appropriate. This product is obviously a scam-- if this "200CK" indeed means the original extract is diluted 200 times, each time to a 100:1 dilution, then .01^200 = 1x10^-400, in other words .00...hundreds of zeroes...01 percent of the extract is left in the product.. and since this is probably the molar equivalent of zero molecules left, it is accurate to say that there's nothing in it. At most maybe one molecule in each dose.RebelBodhi (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

So ofcourse the potency is reduced... it's eliminated! If there was any efficacy to begin with at all.

---

This referenses were not used in the article. Hence, I removed them from the ref&notes. If someone knows how to attribute these ref to an information inside in the article :

1. Oscillococcinum, le joli grand canard. Science et Pseudo-sciences, Cahiers bimestriels de l'Association Française pour l'Information Scientifique, No 202, mars-avril 1993.
2. Anas Barbariae, Hepatis et Cordis Extractum. The Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, monograph #0137, June 1989.

--Leridant 14:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm not very comfortable with the following sentences: "After diluting the original mixture 200 times not a single molecule of its supposed active ingredients will be present in the final product. Scientifically it is impossible for this product to influence an individual's state of health." Would it be better to subsituate: " After diluting the original mixture 200 times there's an overwhelming probability that not a single molecule of its supposed active ingredients will be present in the final product. In terms of chemistry, such a dilution is identical to water. Therefore, actual theories deny its supposed influence over an individual's state of health"

What do you think of this? --Ireon 13:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The only minor changes to your proposal I would suggest would be to change there's to there is, and actual theories to scientific theories. --BillC 18:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes done --Ireon 09:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality debate: The Efficacy of Oscillococcinum

Why were the following removed from the article? To list both the homeopathic arguments in favor of the remedy and the scientific viewpoint questioning its effectiveness seem much more balanced.

There is debate over the efficacy of Oscillococcinum. After diluting the original mixture 200 times there is an overwhelming probability that not a single molecule of its supposed active ingredients will be present in the final product. In terms of chemistry, such a dilution is identical to water. Therefore, scientific theories deny its supposed influence over an individual's state of health.

Various clinical trials of Oscillococcinum have been conducted. Some seem to show that Oscillococcinum can reduce the duration of the symptoms of flu. The statistical significance and the scientific rigor of these studies is debated, and in any case the placebo effect could be the result of taking Oscillococcinum. In one systematic review of the published clinical studies, the authors reported that the studies showed that Oscillococcinum possibly reduced the duration of the flu by about six hours, but has no effect on preventing it. They concluded the data are not strong enough to make a general recommendation to use Oscillococcinum for flu. Vickers AJ, Smith C. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes., Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001957. Another review of flu treatments (vaccine, medecine, homeopathy) has concluded that the popularity of Oscillococcinum in france was unsupported by the current evidence as to its efficacy. ref:van der Wouden JC, Bueving HJ, Poole P. Preventing influenza: an overview of systematic reviews. Respir Med. 2005 Nov;99(11):1341-9. Epub 2005 Aug 19. PMID 16112852

I did not write the original above content, but think there should be more of an explanation why this viewpoint was removed from the article. 71.202.183.191 16:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

People should read this The True Story of Oscillococcinum--67.60.52.136 19:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(fixed your link) — BillC ^talk 16:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This article now has severe POV problems. Sourced material relating to Roy's work during the 1918 Spanish Flu Epidemic was removed, together with its description of Oscillococcus. It is highly relevant that no researcher has ever reported seeing any such bacterium again, not to mention that Roy's theories about the causes of disease have now been falsified. As a post above says, clinical reports on the efficacy of Oscillococcinum were removed. These edits were made by Copywriter7 (talk · contribs), who gave no edit summary of his/her changes. — BillC ^talk 16:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Preparation section

I added the sentences below because in the past when other users tried to elaborate on the actual preparation it was replaced by the statement that it simply was a process approved by the FDA. This alone is not very informative, and can contribute to the advertisement tone this article has at times taken. In my edit, I tried to be more conservative in the explanation I gave than the list of steps that were given before - elaborating on what the "100C" means in terms of the preparation. It would also seem informative to mention, at least somewhere in the article, that at this dilution it is very unlikely any of the actual duck molecules exist. This is a fact, and not intended to slander, as this is accepted in homeopathy. Someone with more expertise can explain the homeopathic theory and history behind the treatment.

The 200CK indicates that the preparation entails a series of 200 dilutions of the starting ingredient, an extract from the heart and liver of a Barnaby duck. Each step entails a 1:100 dilution, where the first mixture contains 1% of the extract, the second contains 1% of the first mixture, etc. Chemically, the final pill is very unlikely to contain any of the original extract (although as with other homeopathic treatments, it is argued that it is not the pressence of the molecules of these ingredients that provide the therapeutic value). -Akevin 07:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

This article is felt to have POV problems. Among the issues are:

• Removal of history pertaining to the treatment
• If the preparation section should identify the active ingredient as the extract of duck heart and liver and explain the dilution involved (see Preparation talk section)
• The removal of references to studies or discussion that cast doubt on the efficacy of the treatment (see neutrality debate above)
• The tone of the 'use' section

The article was at one point more balanced [1] Should article sections be restored or are there suggestions for improvements that can be made to better incorporate the various viewpoints? Akevin 09:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Dgies

• History: The only controversy I could see is whether it was OK to mention the Spanish Flu/bacteria theory. This origin should be relatively non-controversial and verifiable. However, including text like "It has been known for some time that this was false: eczema and rheumatism are not caused by bacteria, and measles is caused by a virus far too small for Roy to have observed in his optical microscope.", even if true, is a non-neutral tone. The sentence "Today Oscillo is used in more than 50 countries worldwide. In France, Oscillo has been around for more than 65 years and it has been the country's #1 overall over-the-counter flu medicine." sounds like marketing information. It is OK to mention its sales info if there is a reliable citation, but it is redundant boosterism to mention its age like that. Readers can do math if they care.
• Preparation: In an article about a medicine, one of the key facts to mention is its ingredients. Since a general audience has no idea what "200CK" means, it is appropriate to briefly explain it, including a link to the relevant section in Homeopathy. Information on the number of molecules of ingredients is relevant to Homeopathy, but unless this is a quoted number for this product, it is original research and POV pushing.
• Questions of efficacy: Statements questioning efficacy may be included if they have a reliable source, such as a medical journal. If these criticisms do not come from a mainstream medical expert, they must be identified as such, as in "Homeopathy critics allege .... {citation}". A link to the controversy section in Homeopathy may be included, as it includes ample references.
• "Use" tone: It is appropriate for an article on a medicine to specify its recommended directions for use. It is POV to include statements suggesting efficacy, safety, interactions or side effects unless they are backed up by a reliable source, such as a medical journal. If claims are to be backed up by a reference to a homeopathy advocacy group, such advocacy must be clearly marked as such as in "Homeopathy advocates claim .... {citation}"

Hope this helps. —Dgies^t c 17:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by User:Ttguy

The deleted text has changed this from a balanced bit of work to a one sided advert for the product. It is interesting to know that the product is named after a non-existant bacterium and it is also interesting to know how the product is prepared. But these two bits of info have been deleted. And no justification given. They should go back.Ttguy 13:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Souces needed

I feel that these claims need to be documented: "Various clinical trials of Oscillococcinum have been conducted. Some seem to show that Oscillococcinum can reduce the duration of the symptoms of flu. The statistical significance and the scientific rigor of these studies is debated, and in any case the placebo effect could be the result of taking Oscillococcinum."

Does anyone agree? --Ireon 11:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I also requested citation for the following: "It does not provide any benefit beyond that of sugar pills." Clinical trials and/or several studies show that while homeopathy in general doesn't show statistically-significant efficacy as an influenza preventative or panacea, Oscillococcium in particular may slightly decrease duration of illness (.28 days with a 95% confidence interval of .50 to .06) and may also work in synergia with more traditional treatments (RR 1.08; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.00). Comike14 (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Bias is bias is bias is bias.

This article is disappointing in its utter lack of neutrality. It ends up reading like one side of a Flat World debate rather than an informative discourse.

Here's what I know:

1. Before there was such a thing as an optical lens, much less a microscope, models for disease were considerably different from those that bean to emerge after those technilogical leaps were made.

2. Before there was such a thing as an electron microscope, ditto.

3. It's a poorly formed formula to suggest that something is ineffective or does not exist simply because the technology necessary to explain does not currently exist.

4. It's a poorly formed formula to insist that something is effective, simply because one wishes it to be so.

5. Homeopathy is a complex and sophisticated pratice that goes well beyond over the counter remedies. Doctors of homeopathy study for years and then spend the rest of their lives defining and redefining their pratice of the art -- just as most other healthcare practitioners do.

6. Homeopathy was developed, in large part, in the United States of America and its popularity diminished with the rampant growth of the patented pharmaceutical industry -- a similar arc to that taken by medicinal herbs and herbology.

7. The FDA considers homeopathic remedies drugs and has instituted a standard for production and sales in the US.

8. It is not only Oscillococcinum that is popular in France. When I was in Lyon in 2002, I found that the drug stores carried homeopathic remedies for every conceivable complaint and featured them so prominently that a search for something like benedryl required assistance. In fact, homeopathy is both well-regarded and widely used in France, Germany, and the UK.

9. My personal MD in the U.S. has become certified in homeopathy, as well, and prescribes homeopathic remedies as often as not. He says that while his clinical mind does not understand everything about why they work, his data set of fifteen years finds that the remedies are at least as effective as mainstream medicines and come without the side effects -- including antibiotic-resistant infections like MRSA. He thinks that they are particularly valuable for patients who have drug sensitivities.

My direct and, therefore, biased experience of homeopathy is that I believed it was crap and could not possibly work. Then, at the time of my brother's wedding, I became violently ill with an upper respiratory infection. I could barely move. My stepmother urged me to try a set of homeopathic remedies. I took them, in order to appease her, certain that they would not help at all. In fact, they gave me total symptom relief. I could tell time by when they wore off, because the symptoms came back. I was flabbergasted. Given that I not only didn't believe that they would work, but actively believed that they would not, it's hard to call this a strictly placebo effect.

It is regrettable that the case against homeopathy is so often summarized as "placebo". There are a number of other distinct factors that undoubtably also play a role, such as spontaneous remission and the regression fallacy. --Art Carlson 07:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Subsequently, I've used: a high concentration of a homeopathic preparation of Arnica for soft tissue swelling and pain; a combination remedy for menstrual complaints; a combination remedy for indoor animal allergies; a combination remedy for leg cramps; and several single remedies for things like post-nasal drip, excessive menstrual bleeding, heartburn, etc. In every case, I've had significant relief, if not a total abatement of symptoms. I can't say that my flu, for example, lasted fewer days, but my symptoms were mitigated by 70%-90% and I was functional and able to work within 24 hours of the first dose.

So, I guess my take-away is that I don't know how they work, but I know that you don't have believe in them for them to do so. I find the lack of side-effects very encouraging.

This article leaves no room for the fact that we don't know everything. It clearly leans toward the: "I don't know what it is, so it must be crap," school of thought, as is evidenced by statements about who believes what with far too few citations. Anyone who knew nothing about homeopathy would come away from reading the article thinking that the French are gullible idiots. Hardly a neutral point of view.

I believe that this piece needs either a major rewrite, or deletion. It serves no one, as is.

Alice

I don't know exactly what it is you want to change. Can you make a concrete proposal? There are certainly some weak points in the article. Perhaps you could find a refence for the study claiming "that Oscillococcinum can reduce the duration of the symptoms of flu", for example? If you want to "correct" the way homeopathy is presented in Wikipedia, then you had best participate in the discussion on Talk:Homeopathy. But bring your references and be prepared for intense scutiny of any claims you make. --Art Carlson 07:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Then link peer-reviewed studies suggesting the efficacy of homeopathic remedies. Otherwise I'll refer you to the page on anecdotes and the placebo effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.150.8.161 (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be quite biased. Read as if writer has a vested interest in the failure of this medication. What about the studies that prove it? This article is TERRIBLE and useless as is. 216.146.161.134 (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What studies that prove it? Brunton (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How is it useless? Someone I know was duped into buying this, and while I respect the fact that certain ethnobotanical concoctions can prove medically viable, claiming that a dilution of a duck liver--to the point where there is no duck liver left at all, and it is effectively a solution of sugar water--is nonsense. If you dispute this fact, present a case, because medicine is a science, not an intuition. --RebelBodhi (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I hesitate to reopen this thread but points 5 and 7 are false. As for point 8, isn't the discredited Jacques Benveniste from France? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I but there is a difference between outright bias and presenting facts which happen to fit your belief. Just because one believes in gravity and the laws of motion does not mean he/she should be banned from writing an article about the subject due to their personal beliefs. Homeopathy is total bunk on even the most elementary of levels...I would love to elaborate further, but what's the point... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.68.163.40 (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

"Clean up article"

The edit by 75.69.119.203 on 2nd November, while it did remove some unsourced material, was not entirely "cleaning up" as stated in the edit summary - it seems to have made the article as a whole more sympathetic towards homoeopathy, for example the changes in the lead. I've replaced the word "emptied" in the description of the Korsakov method of dilution, as without this it doesn't really make sense. Other parts of the article may need some further attention. Brunton (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC

"Complementary Medicine for Treating or Preventing Influenza or Influenza-like Illness is about Oscillococcinum?"

Hi EN. Can you provide more info about the study you just added? Thanks--JeanandJane (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Enric if studies about Oscillococcinum are not included in the review you just added then the source is not relevant and it should be removed..--JeanandJane (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Argh, I had borked the doi number of the first study :( Well, anyways, I included two studies not one, and both have at least one Oscillococcinum trial. This is the first one here, it has the Vickers Oscillococcinum study. The abstract of the second one is here, and Oscillococcinum is one of the remedies for which "2 or more trials reporting some encouraging data were identified". --Enric Naval (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

@verbal:You also reverted another edit which you did not address. Whats wrong with the tag? Justify.Please.--JeanandJane (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not abuse fact tags. The statement doesn't require sourcing. Your edits are simply disruptive. Verbal chat 07:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Any administrator to help here? Verbal's edits are something more than a personal attack and misleadning.--JeanandJane (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is it about the statement that you dispute? If you really want to, add a ref to Ben Goldacre's Bad Science book which supports everything in that paragraph. Verbal chat 08:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

1.This is the original source the article uses.

Authors' conclusions Though promising, the data were not strong enough to make a general recommendation to use Oscillococcinum for first-line treatment of influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Further research is warranted but the required sample sizes are large. Current evidence does not support a preventative effect of Oscillococcinum-like homeopathic medicines in influenza and influenza-like syndromes.

and this is my edit

'However, they concluded that though promising, the data were not strong enough to make a general recommendation to use Oscillococcinum for first-line treatment of influenza and influenza-like syndromes

Again verbal reverted it as vandalism.

2.I dont dipsute anything. Of course the statemeent requires sourcing. It is a medical condition and it can be found easily.Ben Golgacre is a fine source..--JeanandJane (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Who is really disruptive?--JeanandJane (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You. The statement you fact tagged does not require a source, and cherry picking a quote to give a favourable spin (or POV) which is at odds with the study as a whole (adding the "though promising") is against NPOV. Verbal chat 08:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the exact phrase the writers used. I did not added it. Why you want to edit it out?--JeanandJane (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't add it the why did my revert remove it? Verbal chat 08:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Verbal: this is what the writers stated. Exactly. I did not alter or edit it. Why you dont want the original statement? Why the above edit is vandalism ? Please explain.--JeanandJane (talk) 08:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That is cherry picking of a quote to support your POV. The concise summary given is correct and gives an overview of the entire study without violating WP:WEIGHT. Cherry picking and quote mining should be avoided. The adding of the fact tag was vandalism. Please take to my talk page if you want general advice or discussion (where you can also apologise for the threat that is still extant). Verbal chat 09:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You must be kidding.--JeanandJane (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record. Again your edits are misleading. For some reason you dont want the original statetement of the cited study but you prefer to edit out what you dont like. Your edit summary descibed my edit ( the unaltered statement of the cited study as vandalism). I think that you should be warned by an administrator. Lets see what they will do about that.--JeanandJane (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I described your revert of the fact tag as vandalism, that may be considered strong. I am not kidding about anything here, cherry picking is not allowed. Please stay on topic per WP:TALK. Your discussion here is misleading. Thanks, Verbal chat 10:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Stong? It is misleading and personal attack.

Though promising, the data were not strong enough to make a general recommendation to use Oscillococcinum for first-line treatment of influenza and influenza-like syndromes

Before my edits, the article reports on the efficacy of Oscillococcinum the following.

However they concluded the data are not strong enough to make a general recommendation to use Oscillococcinum for flu.[7] Below it is the original source the article uses - before my edits.

[2] Authors' conclusions (review from Cochrane)

Though promising, the data were not strong enough to make a general recommendation to use Oscillococcinum for first-line treatment of influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Further research is warranted but the required sample sizes are large. Current evidence does not support a preventative effect of Oscillococcinum-like homeopathic medicines in influenza and influenza-like syndromes.

and this is my edit ( exact quote - whole sentence.)

However, they concluded that though promising, the data were not strong enough to make a general recommendation to use Oscillococcinum for first-line treatment of influenza and influenza-like syndromes.

Verbal reverts it as vandalism and later says it is cherry picking. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oscillococcinum&diff=274085865&oldid=274085024

(I also tagged another section so someone could provide a reliable source ;When Verbal finally did find one I agreed.) I will revert again my edits are reasonable and justified.--JeanandJane (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Promising to edit war is not a good argument. If you want further opinion I suggest you post a neutral request at WP:FTN. The vandalism was the fact tag abuse, while the cherry picking of a quote to try and put a more positive spin on the results of the study and support your argument goes against NPOV. Before your edits the article was correct and gave an appropriately weighted summary of the reliable sources. Verbal chat 20:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The record speaks for itself. Feel free to escalate the issue. --JeanandJane (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Remove one review as covered by a bigger review

The Vickers review is from Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the article gives a lot of detail from it that nobody cares about (how many readers will know what "RR" and "CI" are?). I added a meta-review from British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology co-authored by Edzard_Ernst that already covers it and analyzes its significance full text, so it's no longer necessary to have the Vickers' review on the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I care /sniff. But yeah - MEDRS encourages us to replace articles (where we cite single studies at all) and reviews with newer and higher quality material as it becomes available. As frustrating as it is to see a review cited instead of my article (not this case, obviously), it is good style. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

lol, sorry about that :D Anyways, I'll still link to both studies on the references. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Done --Enric Naval (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I came here to mention that the most recent and reliable systematic review I could find covering Oscillococcinum is Complementary Medicine for Treating or Preventing Influenza or Influenza-like Illness, but Enric Naval already added it. Good job. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, Vickers published three studies: in 1998, 2000 and July 2006. The Ernst review is from 2002 and covers the 2000 study only, the guo study is from 2007 but covers only papers until June 2006, the NIH review is from 2003 and covers only the 1998 and 2000 papers. I have put the Vickers' 2006 review on its own ref. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oscillococcinum and placebo

Below there are two peer reviewed papers which clearly state that there is evidence that Oscillococcinum has an effect over placebo; this is not disputed by the peer reviewed studies. Ernst paper which disputes the effectiveness of all homeopathic preparations (and is not about Oscillococcinum) is not a peer reviewed study. In the light of this dont you think that this edit should be modified?

• "The proportion of cases who recovered within 48 h of treatment was greater among the active drug group than among the placebo group (17.1% against 10.3%, P = 0.03). 5. The result cannot be explained given our present state of knowledge, but it calls for further rigorously designed clinical studies"

• Oscillococcinum treatment reduced length of influenza illness by 0.28 days (95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.06). Oscillococcinum also increased the chance of a patient considering treatment effective (relative risk 1.08; 95% CI 1.17,REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Oscillococcinum probably reduces the duration of illness in patients presenting with influenza symptoms.

regards --JeanandJane (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

First, it's a placebo effect. It doesn't prevent the flu, it might reduce the duration. Second, give one plausible explanation of how 0 molecules of mucsovy duck liver can prevent anything. Anyways, the authors demand better clinical trials. Neither help your POV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont do original research and have no opinion on the subject. So dont ask me about explanations. I just report two studies with the authors conclusions. Not mine. Read again: The proportion of cases who recovered within 48 h of treatment was greater among the active drug group than among the placebo group (17.1% against 10.3%, P = 0.03). --JeanandJane (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:WEIGHT. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

All the above papers are from the best mainstream journals available. I dont see any problem.--JeanandJane (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This is another meta-review from British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology co-authored by Edzard_Ernst.

• One homeopathic remedy (oscillococcinum) was found to be superior to placebo as a treatment and prevention of influenza but the effect size was small and therefore of debatable clinical relevance (17). Moreover, the volume of the evidence for oscillococcinum is small and therefore not fully conclusive

I will try again and use the exact quote.--JeanandJane (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a better link for that [3]. Artw (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no good faith atmosphere here . All the available mainstream sources about the subject are ignored without any discussion. --JeanandJane (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT (one of our core policies), and WP:CHERRY (not directly related but it gives you the idea). Verbal chat 07:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

All the best available mainstream sources on the topic even Edzard_Ernst( look above )are fringe or biased or undue weight? --JeanandJane (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please come to my talk page so we can discuss these policies without disrupting this page, thanks. Verbal chat 07:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

JeanandJane, sorry for snapping at you on my edit summary [4] (I also confused "alterated" with "adulterated", lol). However, I would like you to realize that you were indirectly telling people that they are altering facts, when they are only trying to summarize them and cut the fluff. In particular, the stuff on the lead needs to be more summarized than the stuff on the rest of the article, so that's the place where making long direct quotes is least appropiate. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I still think that the direct quote is more appropriate and precise. Unless we consider Ernst biased. Your sentence sounds like Original research. Authors words are precise not fluff. That way we protect the neutrality of the article.

They are 3 reviews available and they say the same thing - lets state clearly their conclusions. I think my edit was very reasonable and neutral.--JeanandJane (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel very strong that I m right. Lets not waste time and energy on something so petit. I dontwant to change the point of view of the article. --JeanandJane (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said, the lead is to summarize the article, the body of the article already has the extended conclusions from the reviews. All 3 reviews say that effectivity is not established due to a serie of problems with the trials. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

←JeanandJane, I hate to get all scientific with you, but even the manufacturers of Oscillococcinum admit that there's nothing, squat, zero, nada, nichts of the duck liver in solution. See this edit. Without anything in solution, it cannot have an effect. It's a placebo, that's it. It's water. It's nothing. Please propose a scientific theory that follows biological and chemical laws that gets a solution of water to do anything about curing or treating the flu. Other than maybe you need more fluids while ill. Please, tell us the underlying science? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor correction: It's not true that a Placebo "cannot have an effect", despite just being water, a sugar pill, or what-have you. They;ve been repeatedly observed to have an effect - that's why it's the Placebo effect and not "no effect". There's a pretty good article on it here if you're interested. Artw (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Which I mention only as an asside, given that there's 2 Pubmed link to a studies indicating some evidence of a greater than placebo effect. You appear to be countering that with a usnews link. Artw (talk) 07:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

some evidence.... which they also say that is not enough to stablish the efficacy --Enric Naval (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Both studies indicate that an effect has been observed and recommend further study. Neither rule out efficacy. Artw (talk) 07:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to the two posts by Enric above. Verbal chat 09:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ericn has failed to explain why the two of you are pushing was has been demonstrated to be a basic untruths into the lede in what appears to be an attempt to slant the article a particular way. Artw (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

These concepts are simple to understand. If you'd like to accuse us both of lying, then please do it at ANI where you'll be found wanting. Spin will not be tolerated in this article, in either direction, and that is what you are advocating for. Verbal chat 09:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I am advocating no such thing. I am advocating that the lede properly represent what Ernsts says on the matter and what the two later studies repeat. Something along the lines of "In some studies oscillococcinum has been found to be superior to a placebo as a treatment for influenza, however due to the small size of the effect and the volume of evidence not being sufficient this is not fully conclusive" should do the trick. I'm pretty much paraphrasing Ernst there, BTW.

FWIW I'm not a beleive in homeopathic remidies having more than placebo results, and suspect that further studies would regress towards the mean. However that is not currently what the sources say. Artw (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

TBH, if you drop the rather boilerplatish "Homeopathy is considered to be pseudoscience." statement from the end of the current lede it's not too far from that, either. It has the benefit of being internally contradictory though ( trials show something, but there is no evidence of it? ) . Artw (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Now you are right there, that sentence is a bit of an eye sore, I got a better source that explicitly deals with meta-reviews of homeopathy [5]. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Theses would seem to be the most relevant paragraphs, and it might be worth quoting all or part of them (though the section is quite short, so maybe not):

The results of individual, controlled clinical trials of homeopathy have been contradictory. In some trials, homeopathy appeared to be no more helpful than a placebo; in other studies, some benefits were seen that the researchers believed were greater than one would expect from a placebo.f Appendix I details findings from clinical trials.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses take a broader look at collections of a set of results from clinical trials.g Recent examples of these types of analyses are detailed in Appendix II. In sum, systematic reviews have not found homeopathy to be a definitively proven treatment for any medical condition. Two groups of authors listed in Appendix II found some positive evidence in the groups of studies they examined, and they did not find this evidence to be explainable completely as placebo effects (a third group found 1 out of 16 trials to have some added effect relative to placebo). Each author or group of authors criticized the quality of evidence in the studies. Examples of problems they noted include weaknesses in design and/or reporting, choice of measuring techniques, small numbers of participants, and difficulties in replicating results. A common theme in the reviews of homeopathy trials is that because of these problems and others, it is difficult or impossible to draw firm conclusions about whether homeopathy is effective for any single clinical condition.

Appendix I leads with Vickers and his Oscillococcinum trials.

In the line “Two groups of authors listed in Appendix II found some positive evidence in the groups of studies they examined, and they did not find this evidence to be explainable completely as placebo effects” one of the positive authors appears to be Ernst. Again the text of the last line of the lede does not match this finding. Artw (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I just went for the summary: "In sum, systematic reviews have not found homeopathy to be a definitively proven treatment for any medical condition." --Enric Naval (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Why you object the inclusion of the original source which is about our topic? You could also add that the above sentence but you cannot exclude the sentences which refer to the subject. Also NACAM does not consider homeopathy pseudoscience .It appears that they are funding researsh on Homeopathy --JeanandJane (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Also "available evidence does not support efficacy beyond placebo.[2][3][4]t" is false. The meaning is distorted. It does support efficacy beyond placebo but the evidence is not fully conclusive - according to Ernst and all the sources available. --JeanandJane (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

which means that it doesn't really support the efficacy, so that's a correct summary. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Enric I think it is not - it is pretty clear. Since we disagree on what the source means the only reasonable and good faith solution is to use the authors words. "One homeopathic remedy (oscillococcinum) was found to be superior to placebo as a treatment and prevention of influenza but the effect size was small and therefore of debatable clinical relevance (17). Moreover, the volume of the evidence for oscillococcinum is small and therefore not fully conclusive."

Dont you agree?--JeanandJane (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't. You should explain why it's necessary to quote that it was "superior" then it turns out that it wasn't, and when a more general statement covering it says that no treatment has been "definitively proven". The efficacy section on the article already elaborates on all the little nooks and crannies. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation : it was "superior" then it turns out that it wasn't.

If you trust your interpretation of the sources we are using, you should agree to use the authors words as a compromise since we disagree.--JeanandJane (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The studies DO show it to be superior to placebos, and then on top of that they add caveats regarding the size of the effect. What you are wanting to do is leave in the caveat without reporting the finding, which is misleading.

If yuou feel that there is not room for this to be discussed properly in the lede then really that senetence should be remoed entirely. Artw (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point.I agree.--JeanandJane (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll quote the NIH again: "In sum, systematic reviews have not found homeopathy to be a definitively proven treatment for any medical condition". So, that sentence in the lead is an accurate summary. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

We're still discussing this? 99.9% of articles show no affect of homeopathic lotions and potions. We cannot give weight to the 0.1% that may or may not show anything. The article that JNJ is pushing is very clear...the sample size was too small to show anything. In other words, from a purely statistical standpoint, I can hit a home run off of a Randy Johnson fastball, given a random chance of my bat hitting the ball. This study is irrelevant, and giving weight to it will cause it to be reverted over and over and over. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And, of course, why cite a single positive review, when you can cite a way bigger meta-review from a way better source that covers both the negative and the positive reviews and weighs them for us? --Enric Naval (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The probability of that happening might be someone higher than my attempt to hit a fastball from Randy Johnson. (If you're not an American, the metaphor probably makes no sense...sorry.) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems you only want to do that if you can cherry pick the bits you like. Artw (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oooooh. A personal attack. I haven't had one of those pointed at me in oh...10 minutes. You see, I understand NPOV, and it's basic requirements of WP:MEDRS etc. etc. We do not give undue weight to fringe theories. In this case, one article kinda sorta says...oops, no it doesn't. The preponderance of reliable sources says not only does oscillococcinum doesn't work, but no homeopathy works. So there we go. But, if you want to consider this magic, along the lines of pyramids, be my guest. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Take it as an attack as you will. The quotes are all above. A suggested wording that does not misrepresent the sources is above. It doesn't 100% represent a dogmatic opinion that all Hoemopathy is bunk, because in the case of Oscillococcinum theres a slim suggestion it isn't, but it doesn't represent the evidence there is as wholely conlusive. If you want to have a look at the sourcesd again and suggets improvements I'm all ears, but the previous version didn't cut it. Artw (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Artw, you are misrepresenting the state of evidence, and violating out policies in the process. Please stop. Verbal chat 07:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have misrepresented the evidence by directly quoting from it. Do you actually have a counter to that except tag-teaming and being obtuse? Artw (talk) 07:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have posted an RfC in the hope of getting some freah eyes on this, as it is clear we are going around in circles. Artw (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Starting an RfC without discussing the wording and scope? I shouldn't be surprised or disappointed, but I am. Verbal chat 08:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that was a required step. We've been dsicssing this for quite some time now and the terms of the dispute seem pretty well established, and it also seems pretty clear we need outside participants in the discussion. Is there anything in particular you object to in the wording? Artw (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think there are problems. Please close it and then bring the wording here for discussion (for a suitable period, like 3 days) and then it can be started properly. I have to go to meetings now, so please don't think my silence implies consent. Verbal chat 08:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. Let's try and thrash out some wording. I suspect a for and against case would be the best format, since it gives us distinct sectiosn to work on and routes around the problem that we don't seem to have a great track record on establishing consesus between us on what constitutes "neutral". Artw (talk) 08:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

See below. Artw (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you have quote-mined from one article, and the hundreds of other articles have stated that this stuff has no effect and homeopathy in general does not have an effect, you're wasting time. It is neutral now, by stating it does not work. Now please stop. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 10:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Paying attention to the content of the sources and seeing that they say one thing is no more quote mining than paying attention to their content and seeing that the say another, so where you're getting that from.

As for stopping - I'm attempting to reach consensus on the talk page. That's what we should all be doing. What's wrong with that?

BTW you might want to check the WP:CIVILITY of some of your comments on this page before you start throwing silly templates on my talk page. Artw (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Disputed sentence in lead of Oscilloccinum (1)

Question: Should the following disputed sentence remain in the lead of the article Oscillococcinum: Despite some trials indicating minor effects on influenza symptoms, available evidence does not support efficacy beyond placebo. There's a long discussion of this statement and it's sources here[6], along with suggested rewordings and the suggestion that it be left out of the article , both of which have been rejected or ignored by editors advocating the former wording. It is suggested you read through the talk there and examine the linked sources to get an overview of the dispute, however I would summaries the objection to the statement as follows: The sources do indeed contain generalized statements to the effect that homeopathy has not been shown to be effective, they also state that in trials Oscillococcinum has performed better than placebo. There are caveats to this, however may still be considered to contradict the strong statement "available evidence does not support efficacy beyond placebo". Input would especially be appreciated from editors previously uninvolved with articles regarding Homeopathy, particularly those with experience with interpreting PubMed sources. Artw (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. I would add that the wording of this RfC wasn't discussed and agreed before it was posted. The description given isn't neutral. Verbal chat 08:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC removed to establish consensus on wording. Artw (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed wording for RFC

I propose the following wording for an RFC:

title

"RFC: Disputed sentence in lede of Oscilloccinum"

summary

"The sentence is disputed as some sources seem to contradict it."

body

Question: Should the following disputed sentence remain in the lead of the article Oscillococcinum: Despite some trials indicating minor effects on influenza symptoms, available evidence does not support efficacy beyond placebo.

There's a long discussion of this statement and it's sources here[7], along with suggested rewordings and the suggestion that it be left out of the article.

The case for the sentence remaining unchanged: The sources contain statements to the effect that homeopathy has not been proven definitively to be a treatment for any condition.

The case against: The sources do indeed contain generalized statements to the effect that homeopathy has not been shown to be effective, they also state that in trials Oscillococcinum has performed better than placebo. There are caveats to this, however may still be considered to contradict the strong statement "available evidence does not support efficacy beyond placebo", therefore more mild statement which matches both portions of the sources would be preferable. Alternatively the statement could be left out of the lede and discussed in greater depth elsewhere in the article.

Input would especially be appreciated from editors previously uninvolved with articles regarding Homeopathy, particularly those with experience with interpreting Input would especially be appreciated from editors previously uninvolved with articles regarding Homeopathy, particularly those with experience with interpreting PubMed sources.

Obviously the case for is a little slim there, I'm particularly looking for suggetsions for a paragraph long summary of it. Artw (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing contradicts it. Please see WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS, and quite possibly WP:TEND. RfC's are a waste of time. How about just getting some reliable sources...oh yeah, you can't because a vial of water can't do anything. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 10:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The current sentence :"available evidence does not support efficacy beyond placebo" is misleading. All the sources find evidence beyond placebo but not fully conclusive. As I said before since we disagree on what original sources mean, the only good faith solutions are to cite the authors words or to delete the sentence from the summary and write about it in another section.

"One homeopathic remedy (oscillococcinum) was found to be superior to placebo as a treatment and prevention of influenza but the effect size was small and therefore of debatable clinical relevance (17). Moreover, the volume of the evidence for oscillococcinum is small and therefore not fully conclusive". You could also add if you want a general statement about homeopathy - a quote preferably from a reliable source. --JeanandJane (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

comment if we just end up rehashing the original argument I'm going to just run it as is. I've opened up discussion on the RfC woding as a courtesy, it is not a requirement. Artw (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to add in the policy objections, especially the weighting, noted by OM. I'm very busy today but would like to comment further. However, I also feel the RfC is unneeded. I will help work on the wording when I have time to devote. Verbal chat 18:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Verbal chat 18:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Listing the policies seems like a good idea. As for the necessity of the RfC we seem to be going around in circles. I feel like my points are zooming straight past you. No doubt you feel the same way. We need fresh eyes. Artw (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

From the reviews in order:

“ "Similarly, there was no homeopathic remedy that was demonstrated to yield clinical effects that are convincingly different from placebo. It is concluded that the best clinical evidence for homeopathy available to date does not warrant positive recommendations for its use in clinical practice." British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2000 [8] ”

“ "In conclusion, the effectiveness of any complementary and alternative therapy for treating or preventing seasonal influenza is not established beyond reasonable doubt. Current evidence from randomized controlled trials is sparse and limited by small sample sizes, low methodological quality, or clinically irrelevant effect sizes. (...) These results strengthen conventional approaches for seasonal influenza." The American Journal of Medicine 2007 [9] ”

“ "The results of individual, controlled clinical trials of homeopathy have been contradictory. In some trials, homeopathy appeared to be no more helpful than a placebo; in other studies, some benefits were seen that the researchers believed were greater than one would expect from a placebo (...) Systematic reviews and meta-analyses take a broader look at collections of a set of results from clinical trials. (...) In sum, systematic reviews have not found homeopathy to be a definitively proven treatment for any medical condition (...) A common theme in the reviews of homeopathy trials is that because of these problems and others, it is difficult or impossible to draw firm conclusions about whether homeopathy is effective for any single clinical condition." NIH 2002 [10] ”

“ "Though promising, the data were not strong enough to make a general recommendation to use Oscillococcinum for first-line treatment of influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Further research is warranted but the required sample sizes are large. Current evidence does not support a preventative effect of Oscillococcinum-like homeopathic medicines in influenza and influenza-like syndromes" Cochrane (Vickers) 2006 [11] ”

None of them recommends its use or endorses its efficacy beyond placebo, all say that evidence is not conclusive. Inserting "though promising" on the lead is simply bullshit cherrypicking to make this medication look more effective. It's cherry picked from a study that two sentences later says that evidence doesn't support the effect (see quote above), which is exactly what the current summary says. So, no, this is all a bunch of cherrypicking. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that seems to have been consistently your opinion.

The problem as I see it is this - you see evidence that has been called non conclusive "no evidence", and that this supports the strong statement in the lede that there is no evidence of an effect above placebo. I do not believe this is technically correct - evidence that is not conclusive is still evidence, and if there is evidence you can't have a statement in the lede that says that there is no evidence. Would that be an accurate summary of the dispute?

TBH I havbe no real objection to your summary of what the sources say in the article body. The lede, however, IMHO needs altering for veracity. And in my mind they are any number of entirely reasonable alternative phrasings that should be satisfactory and it's a pity we haven't spent more time exploring them.

Anyhow, we don't seem to be making much ground on this, so as I say fresh eyes are required. Artw (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead doesn't say that there is no evidence, it says that "available evidence does not support" --Enric Naval (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Same difference.Artw (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not the same. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I would parse it that way. Would you be happy with a rewording along the lines of "no definitive evidence supports"? Artw (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That's POV. No evidence. None. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not accurate: According to the Cohrane review "Oscillococcinum treatment reduced length of influenza illness by 0.28 days (95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.06). Oscillococcinum also increased the chance of a patient considering treatment effective (relative risk 1.08; 95% CI 1.17,REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Oscillococcinum probably reduces the duration of illness in patients presenting with influenza symptoms." It is not conclusive but it is evidence. --JeanandJane (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

First, this edit summary is a complete fabrication, and borders on a personal attack. I have participated, as have a number of others. You have your own agenda, and it's not working. Second, you need to read WP:WEIGHT. One parsed conclusion from a multitude of studies does not support your edit. Finally, and this is the most critical, other than a placebo effect, please explain the scientific basis of how a vial of water may do anything at all? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, a more recent and revised analysis of the data from Cochrane (2007) supersedes your quote mined statement. They completely delete the sentence above and state: Though promising, the data were not strong enough to make a general recommendation to use Oscillococcinum for first-line treatment of influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Further research is warranted but the required sample sizes are large. Current evidence does not support a preventative effect of Oscillococcinum-like homeopathic medicines in influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Sticking with WP:MEDRS, this discussion is done. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, please take the example of Verbal and try to be more constructive, and leave out the ranting and incivility. Cheers. Artw (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

SO much for any kind of consensus on the RfC wording. I'll write one up myself. Artw (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

However, after looking at OMs new reference it seems there is no longer a need for an RfC. Verbal chat 18:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

---

OM I dont see what they changed. According to the Cohrane review 2009 there is evidence but it is not fully conclusive.

This is a Cochrane review abstract and plain language summary, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration, currently published in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009 Issue 1, Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.. The full text of the review is available in The Cochrane Library (ISSN 1464-780X).

Summary

Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum does not prevent influenza but might shorten the length of the illness Influenza (the flu) is a highly infectious respiratory disease caused by viruses. Other than treatments for complications (such as pneumonia) conventional medical treatment is bed rest. Homeopathy is a system based on 'curing like with like', often using highly diluted substances. Oscillococcinum is a homoeopathic preparation manufactured from wild duck heart and liver (common sources of influenza). It is claimed that Oscillococcinum (or similar homeopathic medicines) can be taken either regularly over the winter months to prevent influenza or as a treatment. Trials do not show that homoeopathic Oscillococcinum can prevent influenza. However, taking homoeopathic Oscillococcinum once you have influenza might shorten the illness, but more research is needed.

Main results Seven studies were included in the review, three prevention trials (number of participants (n) = 2265) and four treatment trials (n = 1194). Only two studies reported sufficient information to complete data extraction fully. There was no evidence that homoeopathic treatment can prevent influenza-like syndrome (relative risk (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 1.43). Oscillococcinum treatment reduced the length of influenza illness by 0.28 days (95% CI 0.50 to 0.06). Oscillococcinum also increased the chances that a patient considered treatment to be effective (RR 1.08; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.00). Authors' conclusions Though promising, the data were not strong enough to make a general recommendation to use Oscillococcinum for first-line treatment of influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Further research is warranted but the required sample sizes are large. Current evidence does not support a preventative effect of Oscillococcinum-like homeopathic medicines in influenza and influenza-like syndromes. --JeanandJane (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(isn't this still the same Vickers 2006 study as always, with no modification? see how the cite says "2006" and has the same DOI, and also "Last assessed as up-to-date: May 20. 2006") --Enric Naval (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge this is the latest upadate and supports my edit " there is some evidence but not conclusive".--JeanandJane (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Shrugs. We have Vickers saying “Hey there might be something here!” and a caveat to that which says “Steady now, there probably isn’t”. The problem is not the sources, but with how that is represented (as no available evidence supporting efficacy beyond placebo, as opposed to any of the alternatives that indicate that disputed evidence exists). Verbal continues to dig his heels in (and crucially not directly comment on any proposed rewords), OrangeMarlin continues to bounce around being OrangeMarlin, time continues to get expended on what should be an utterly trivial change. And you question why I want to trow it open to RfC and make it someone elses problem? Artw (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. A RfC could be useful. Keep in mind that the title summary of the review is "Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum does not prevent influenza but might shorten the length of the illness" Isnt that clear enough to support the statement ( yes some evidence exists but inconclusive or not definite or something?

--JeanandJane (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Verbal chat 12:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So when the writers state that Oscillococcinum might shorten the length of the illness, they dont really mean it? --JeanandJane (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I hate it when people turn scientific conservatism into proof positive. It's Russell's teapot all over again. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Disputed sentence in lead of Oscilloccinum (2)

Should the following disputed sentence remain in the lead of the article Oscillococcinum: Despite some trials indicating minor effects on influenza symptoms, available evidence does not support efficacy beyond placebo.

There's a long discussion of this statement and it's sources here[12], along with suggested rewordings and the suggestion that it be left out of the article.

The case for the sentence remaining unchanged: The sources contain statements to the effect that homeopathy has not been proven definitively to be a treatment for any condition. Any claims of efficacy are in the first place very minor, and no reviews have recommended the use of Oscilloccinum for treating any condition, in fact they have stated the opposite. WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS, and WP:TEND have been referred to as policies opposed to the change proposed. The lead should summarise the article content, and hence should remain.

The case against: The sources do indeed contain generalized statements to the effect that homeopathy has not been shown to be effective, they also state that in trials Oscillococcinum has performed better than placebo. There are caveats to this, however may still be considered to contradict the strong statement "available evidence does not support efficacy beyond placebo", therefore more mild statement which matches both portions of the sources would be preferable. Alternatively the statement could be left out of the lead and discussed in greater depth elsewhere in the article.

Input would especially be appreciated from editors previously uninvolved with articles regarding Homeopathy, particularly those with experience with interpreting PubMed sources. Artw (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Remain unchanged and once again the wording is unbalanced, with the case for the sentence remaining unchanged being woefully incomplete. See the discussion above for the multiple scientific and policy reasons why this sentence is, if anything, too sympathetic to the homeopathic POV. Input from users with experience of these discussions would also be welcome. The timing of this RfC is also suspect.Verbal chat 21:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Verbal is refering to an earlier version of this RfC, which I withdrew for other concerned parties to have input into it's wording. No real recommendations came out of that discussion.
  • How is the timing suspect? Artw (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    • The wording of this RfC is worse, being wholly unbalanced, and at least two editors made recommendations as to what policies should be referenced in the RfC, while another pointed out new results which really make this debate moot. Verbal chat 22:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm sure any involved editors can read the discussion, look at the sources and come to their own conclusions. I'll update the "for" section with the policies above. Artw (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Silliness. So, the reviews don't recommend it for anything, and this sentence is too strong? Well... --Enric Naval (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Alternative How about Oscillococcinum is not recommended for any medical condition., cited to the most recent reliable review. Then we can have fuller discussion of the trials and the nuanced conclusions of various reviewers in the body, where such detail belongs. Failing that ... well, WP:DUE policy indicates that it is entirely inappropriate to describe any homeopathic remedy as efficacious. There are plenty of sociohistorical aspects of this topic which are not adequately explored in this article - why do we not work on improving those instead? - Eldereft (cont.) 14:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• This would suit me (and the facts), otherwise my !vote above stands. Verbal chat 15:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• I think this is an excellent alternative. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Agree. Make it "medical condition", from the NIH wording [13], for clarity. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Amended above. I am assuming that Verbal and IceCreamEmpress will agree with this change, but please correct if I am wrong. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• This seems like an accurate and reasonable wording. Locke9k (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oscillococcinum treatment reduced the length of influenza illness by 0.28 days (95% CI 0.50 to 0.06)

Available evidence does not support efficacy beyond placebo.[2][3][4][5] is not correct and it is misleading. It should report what the review states. --JeanandJane (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Has anything changed in the last four months since the last time we had this discussion? - 2/0 (cont.) 05:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

First Remarks

I'm no fan of homeopathy, but I'm pretty certain this sentence fragment in the second paragraph isn't appropriate for an encyclopedic reference: ", which are diluted such that to obtain one molecule of the original substance would require consuming a dose larger than the known universe". Removed. 70.123.147.253 (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreee. I'll try to make a better wording. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Efficacy"

I think the second paragraph from this source should be removed. The source only offers an explanation for the placebo effect of Oscillococcinum, but it is not well documented nor is it verifiable. I read the whole book that was posted online, and it is very clear to me that the author oversimplifies his arguments in order to rant about his biased, highly conservative ideas. A more balanced, scientific source should be used here to explain the placebo effect of Oscillococcinum. <Parke> [14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.174.218 (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Subjective Conclusions vs. Informative, Balanced Facts?

This article has clearly been written by individuals who have a bias against homeopathic medicine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it's misleading to give readers only one version of the facts. As the article acknowledges, this remedy has been used for decades and is widely distributed. That being the case, if it were truly some sort of "snake oil" as the article seems to imply, people wouldn't keep buying it. From the first paragraph- " Oscillococcinum is used in more than 50 countries. In France, it has been in production for over 65 years."

The section regarding methods of preparation is also vastly over-simplified, leading one to believe Boiron is selling sugar-coated pate at a 300% markup rather than an in depth chemical analysis of production. This method is cited as being from a US News article from 1997. That SAME article also contains this information, which has not been included:

"For homeopathic drug makers, such disrespect comes with the territory. Homeopathy is a 200-year-old therapy in which medications are formulated by what's known as the "law of infinitesimals," meaning that the smaller the dose, the more potent the cure. The theory is that minute doses of a substance will boost the body's immune system; the curative powers are said to come from the ability to induce symptoms in a healthy person that are similar to those produced by the illness, thus counteracting it. Promoters liken the effect to that of a vaccine. In the case of Oscillococcinum, the heart and liver of the duck naturally contain flu virus antibodies." - From cited source used in article, US News: Fighting the Flu? Try Duck.

While it seems the author was well intentioned in sharing his POV on Oscillococcinum, people will use this page as a resource. It could potentially dissuade people from trying a remedy that might improve their health. Regardless of peoples' personal attitudes towards homeopathy, it has been around for centuries, far longer than modern medicine.

This article needs to be revised to be more of a scientific resource for those interested in learning more, presenting BOTH sides of the argument, rather than an OpEd or cherry picking data to support an opinion. That's contrary to what this resource is supposed to be and Wikipedia as a whole. --Irenicnoel (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is created through the collaborative efforts of editors who hold many POV, not just one editor or one POV. We must follow the sources and since this is a fringe subject, the mainstream POV does dominate because it is what's found in WP:MEDRS. Sources that are favorable to homeopathy aren't usually found in such sources. The basic information from Boiron and about Oscillococcinum is presented in a neutral, not a promotional manner, and that's what is required here at Wikipedia. Since homeopathy is rejected by mainstream science, the article must reflect that POV. Your statement that "if it were truly some sort of "snake oil" as the article seems to imply, people wouldn't keep buying it" is fallacious. There are numerous false ideas, methods and products that have a very long track record. There are many reasons why such things persist, among them, in this case, marketing.

Do you have any very specific suggestions for improvement? Let us know and we can discuss it here and maybe improve the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Irenicnoel, what “both sides” do you want to have presented here? From a scientific point of view, Boiron is selling sugar pellets. While a newspaper article may be OK as a source for how Boiron prepares “oscillococcinum”, it's not a scientific source, so citing it to say “the heart and liver of the duck naturally contain flu virus antibodies” (for all of the viruses? really?) wouldn't stand unchallenged for more than a few hours. To change the article you'll have to cite better sources than your subjective conclusions (“if it were truly some sort of "snake oil" as the article seems to imply, people wouldn't keep buying it”). --Six words (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• I believe Boiron et. al. have just been injuncted against making such claims, is that not right? Guy (Help!) 22:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Translation

http://moteprime.org/images/b3ta/WordLens-BS.png

On the other hand, "WikiProject Pharmacology"? This has fuck all to do with pharmacology. What about WikiProject Woo or WikiProject Delusional Nonsense? Guy (Help!) 22:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we stop calling this junk "medicine?"

It's not "medicine," if it doesn't "treat disease." Jpx72x (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

Well, it's called “alternative medicine”, and we can't change that until common usage changes. The article makes clear that there's no evidence for efficacy beyond placebo (and that there's none to be expected) which is the best we can do while maintaining a neutral point of view. --Six words (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Dilution Ratio

The second paragraph states "The preparation is derived from duck liver and heart, diluted to 200C—a ratio of one part duck offal to 100²⁰⁰ parts water." Perhaps I've misunderstood the claim, but isn't the observable universe far too small to contain 100²⁰⁰ parts of anything? C1k3 (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what the reference (Nienhuys, Jan Willem (2003-08-23). "The True Story of Oscillococcinum". Retrieved 2007-02-23.) says. Just because the claim is absurd, doesn't mean we can't quote the reference which says it's absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The current revision, "likely contains not a single molecule" is an exceptional understatement when it would take more than a universe-mass worth of water to dilute one molecule. Bcary (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The Blogger's Story

"Homoeopathy multinational Boiron threatens amateur Italian blogger". For more see doi:10.1136/bmj.d5197 this. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Bias is bias is bias

Bias is bias is bias

Re: specific paragraph— "The preparation is derived from duck liver and heart, diluted to 200C—a ratio of one part duck offal to 100200 parts water.[2] This is such a high dilution that the final product likely contains not a single molecule of the original liver. Homeopaths claim that the molecules leave an "imprint" in the dilution that causes a healing effect on the body, although there is no evidence that supports this mechanism or efficacy beyond placebo.[3][4][5]"

This article contains bias and slant. The writing assumes non-homeopathic point-of-view. Also, would this preparation be K not C? Although there may be a reaction from the enzyme of a specific cell, leading with the sentence, "The preparation …" shows that bias.

71.158.175.80 (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The only potential bias I can see is the use of the word "claim". But, what would you suggest. Noting 200C = 100²⁰⁰ might qualify under WP:CALC, and is sourced, anyway. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What the best source tells us about oscillo ?

Authors' conclusions

There is insufficient good evidence to enable robust conclusions to be made about Oscillococcinum® in the prevention or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness. Our findings do not rule out the possibility that Oscillococcinum® could have a clinically useful treatment effect but, given the low quality of the eligible studies, the evidence is not compelling. There was no evidence of clinically important harms due to Oscillococcinum®.

I don;t see anything telling us that there is a definite conclusion that oscillo works or does not work/ --Motorola12 (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Even if that were the best study, the fact that there is no possible mechanism, would lead to the scientific conclusion that it doesn't work. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

And ... the "Efficacy" section doesn't say that it doesn't work; it says there is no evidence that it does work. Seems adequate to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the best study according to Medical reviews guidelines and it does not rule out the possibility that could work - isn't that inconclusive? The lead says it is placebo.They do not say that. --Motorola12 (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Phrasing may be questionable, but it would be correct to say that there is no evidence that it has any effect other than as a placebo. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Category

I removed Category:Pseudoscience on the grounds that it is totally unnecessary; Category:Homeopathy is already placed in said category; and under said precedent all the other homeopathy articles would have to be placed in said category, which needs diffusion.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Bias

The article is so biased that editors believe that even the cohrane review conclusion should be edited out? --George1935 (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

I edited the efficacy section using the entire quote of the cohrane review for oscillo - which is the best review available - this was my edit.

"There is no compelling scientific evidence to make a robust conclusion about whether Oscillococcinum is effective for the prevention or treatment of influenza. " and Rubin changed it to -

There is no compelling scientific evidence that Oscillococcinum has any effect beyond placebo."" summarizing that this is a more honest statement. When he was challenged to explain his view he said that If a quote, it would still need to be translated from scientific jargon into English. which is pretentious because the language is really simple.

However - I will use the plain language summary provided by the Cohrane reviews-- to replace the statement. This is the original source.

"Results from two poorly reported clinical trials (total of 327 participants) do not show that Oscillococcinumcan prevent the onset of flu. Although the results from four other clinical trials (total of 1196 participants) suggested that Oscillococcinum relieved flu symptoms at 48 hours, this might be due to bias in the trial methods. One patient reported headache after taking Oscillococcinum."

Lets see what excuse he will find now to revert it. --George1935 (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The Cochrane review's findings were already included in the same section of the article ("A Cochrane review published in December 2012 found that there was insufficient evidence to make a robust conclusion about whether Oscillococcinum is effective for the prevention or treatment of influenza.The findings did not rule out the possibility that Oscillococcinum could have a clinically useful treatment effect but, given the low quality of the eligible studies, the evidence was not compelling. There was no evidence of clinically important harms due to Oscillococcinum." - and with a citation, which you omitted from your addition). We don't need it there twice. The opening sentence, which states the overall position ("There is no compelling scientific evidence that Oscillococcinum has any effect beyond placebo") is actually supported by the Cochrane review, which explicitly states in its conclusions that "the evidence is not compelling". And we probably shouldn't be pasting in direct quotations from copyright sources without a clear indication that they are quotations, and a direct citation of the source. See WP:CV. It's generally better to summarise the information. Brunton (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course this is pretentious -There is no compelling scientific evidence that Oscillococcinum has any effect beyond placebo") is YOUR addition. You see, I suggest using the exact quote to avoid bias ( even mine ) and you want to change it to your version. Whose edit is more neutral mine or yours? Unless we accept that the Cohrane reviews are ..dishonest as Rubin said. And of course the copyright issue is absurd - if you say "according to" - and you know it. --George1935 (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Particles in observable universe

Minor point, a parenthetical statement in the intro says "(there are around 10^80 molecules in the entire known universe)". That should be 10^80 elementary particles in the known (or observable) universe. Can't find a concrete source, perhaps The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose, and various physics fora. 67.230.209.121 (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)Keokil

It is included in at least two of the sources already used in the article, so I've added one of them to the statement in the lede. Brunton (talk) 07:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Bias With Sources that are NOT in the Neutral Point of View

Throughout the article, the reader is already set up that Oscillococcinum is a fake medicine and constitutes pseudoscience. The sources and further reading only support this claim. It is not legally considered that the medicine is pseudoscience. The article never states, or poorly explains, an alternative viewpoint regarding the effectiveness of Oscillococcinum. Unlike the common formatting used in Wikipedia, the lawsuits regarding Oscillococcinum are mentioned first. It should be included next at the second half the article, under a section on Criticisms/Disputes. The preparation states 100% sugar. This is misleading to the common preparation of homeopathic medicines. Instead, a tilde (~) should be used to indicate the approximate value, or a number such as 99.99...%. 72.80.79.224 (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Brian

• Well, statistics would suggest that 100% is more accurate than 99.99%, at 200C. At any rate, the article did lean toward a general anti-homeopathy stance, and in some places inappropriately so; I have made a tweak or two and, as far as I am concerned, this should take care of any POV concerns, but perhaps the IP disagrees. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I would still say that the POV concerns have not been corrected. Citation is needed for the "oscillococcus" bacterium and why it does not exist, and the claim that the medicine uses it has not been referenced. Lawsuits are still mentioned first, even before a explanation of the history and composition of the medicine. Talking about the lawsuits, two lawsuits are stated, but only one is provided. The two references to the lawsuits appear to be pertaining to the same one. Additionally, there has been a lawsuit in Canada against Boiron (the maker of Oscillococcinum) Here is a link to details about it. Due to the nature of homeopathic medicines, it seems misleading to me to use statistics to say that sugar constitutes 100% of the preparation of Oscillococcinum, as it is not generally and legally considered to be a "sugar pill." (Of course, there is the controversy and the reason for biased POV concerns.) A general reader would think that there is no medicine or active ingredient in Oscillococcinum, and this is what the anti-homeopathic stance claims. This has not been proven, but raises POV concern for the entire article. 72.80.79.224 (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Brian

• Also see Wikipedia's policies regarding fringe theories and pseudoscience and The policies regarding due and undue weight for neutral point of view. It may be considered that Oscillococcinum and its benefits are represented by a minority. The supporters and explanations of the benefits and functionality of the medicine should be stated properly, with a neutral point of view. 72.80.79.224 (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Brian

"The sources and further reading only support this claim." Exactly, and we base our content on those reliable sources. It is up to Boiron to prove the existence of oscillococcus bacterium. They have not. The product is made from a duck extract, with no evidence that it even contains this nonexistent oscillococcus bacterium, or evidence that it works. They have admitted that it has no active ingredients. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Part of my concern is that the article is based only mostly on the "reliable sources" that take an anti-homeopathy stance. Since this article explains a medicine, there should be more information and sources regarding the medicine's use and trials. Boiron does not indicate that they have no active ingredients. Stating that in the article directly contradicts with the ingredients information that Boiron provides. Drmies did help fixing the biased point of view, but I still believe that the information regarding the medicine and where did this "oscillococcus" bacterium come from is missing. There have been trials that did show that the medicine has a slight advantage compared to placebo. That experiment has to be found, but may have been removed/depreciated due to error. 72.80.79.224 (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Brian

Have you even read the article AND the sources? Try reading this section: Oscillococcinum#Preparation. The representative said "there's nothing in it". I haven't tried it. Have you? Does it have a sweet taste from the sugar in it? -- Brangifer (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:72.80.79.224, if you would read that section, you would see that we include the exact description of the active and inactive ingredients from Boiron's website. That they use those words to mean the exact opposite of their normal meanings is another matter, but since when does homeopathy obey the rules of logic used by everyone else in the real world?

In the real world, according to logic, physics, chemistry, and biology, depending on how they make the product, the sugars are the only ingredients which could be "active" ingredients, because they might actually still be in the solution (that's why I asked if it was sweet), while the so-called "active" ingredient from that ONE unlucky duck is diluted so much there is no chance that any molecules are left in the solution, so in the real world it would be the "inactive" ingredient.

This is why homeopathy is considered a form of sympathetic magic, because the solution supposedly only "remembers" the one intended ingredient from the duck, but not all the other ingredients it's been in contact with throughout thousands of years (dirt, pee, poo, sugars, etc.). It has selective memory! This is magical thinking, totally divorced from reality. RS from the real world of science tell it like it is, by stating what is provably "active" and "inactive". They know that if you pee in the ocean, it's so diluted that it's inactive, but if you pee in the bathtub, it's concentrated enough to be active and might affect you, so don't drink the bath water. According to homeopathy, the opposite is the case. The more greatly diluted the pee (in the ocean), the greater it will affect you, so be careful about swimming in the ocean and getting salt water in your mouth... According to homeopathetic thinking, what happens in the bathtub makes no difference, so pee all you want. Can you now see how homeopathic "logic" and the real logic YOU use every day to survive, are diametrically opposite?

So, you see, we already document the illogical claims about Oscillococcinum from Boiron and other homeopathic sources, and also document the actual facts from scientific sources. What more can we do? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that the next time you catch a flu, get a pack of the stuff and try for yourself if it works or not. I have tried, and I believe it has worked. Every time. Even if I get reprimanded for indulging in 'original research' for saying this, I think the reason for having selected a wild duck to get liver and heart cells from, is that no one has ever found a duck suffering from flu. :-) Regards, --AVM (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)