Talk:Oscillococcinum/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Actual dilution

The article mentions: "The preparation is derived from duck liver and heart, diluted to 200C—a ratio of one part duck offal to 10400 parts water.[3]". The fact is that this product is merchandised claiming a dilution of 200K There is a big difference between dilutions C and K. Pierre Bonkemoun in his book see link below) "Tratado de Homeopatia" ("Treaty of Homeopathy") page 89 compares both scales stating that theorethically 200K equals approx. 7CH Kindly request the author to review this issue. http://www.ucipfg.com/Repositorio/FCS/DIP_MH/DTH-05/UNIDAD2/004.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.223.51.83 (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Boiron's factsheet on their website says the dilution is 200CK: FACTS ABOUT OSCILLOCOCCINUM. The K indicates a preparation made by the Korsakovian method, the dilution is 200C. —BillC ^talk 20:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Oscillococcinum: fact or fiction?

In the article about Oscillococcinum, the writer states, "It does not provide any benefit beyond that of sugar pills." I can't disagree more. I've been using OC for about fifteen years and have not suffered with the flu in all those years. I'm not claiming it "cures" the flu, only that it very effectively negates the symptoms during the course of the flu, if taken as directed. In contrast, just prior to first using OC, I had my first flu shot and became severely ill to the point of convulsions. I've never had another shot. I suffered the flu every winter before that as everyone else did. I first tried OC at a friend's suggestion, with no benefit expected (hence no placebo effect). I found it to quickly quiet the symptoms of flu. Since then, when early signs of flu are noticed, I take OC as directed for about a week, and the flu passes with hardly any notice. If I miss a dose or two, flu symptoms become stronger, but subside as soon as I take a dose. I believe that rigorous studies should be done on this product and its effects. It seems to work similarly to the prescription anti-flu medications like Tami-flu, although made of natural ingredients versus artificial pharm. It has become my yearly salvation from the suffering of the flu. I have several friends and family who also use it with consistent positive results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cg.atthebeach (talk • contribs) 19:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's core principles is that of reliable sources. In general, that means its articles must draw from documented, independent source material. In particular for articles on medical subjects and claims to medical efficacy, that means publication in medical articles of appropriate quality. Claims from editors' personal experiences are not sufficient for this purpose. I hope this answers some of your questions above. —BillC ^talk 23:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

You need to learn the difference between anecdote and evidence -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 00:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

You claim that you did not expect any benefit and, because of that, excluded placebo effect. Firstly, the placebo effect is not limited to expectations and even if it were, if you did decide to try the product, then surely you were curious as to whether it would work or not. Secondly, have you considered the possibility that, when you tried it for the first time, you might have had a milder strain of the virus or even not the flu at all (the same symptoms may result from infection by different pathogens with varying severity and recovery time), which would explain the milder symptoms? Wouldn't that be sufficient to set a considerable expectation and placebo effect? It's good that the product makes you fell better, for whatever reason it may be. But that is not sufficient evidence to claim that the product works. The studies on its efficacy have, overall, not shown significant difference from placebo. 148.63.83.141 (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not even plausible that oscillococcinum could work for its proposed uses. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Opening description

"Oscillococcinum (or Oscillo[1][2]) is a homeopathic preparation marketed to relieve influenza-like symptoms. It does not provide any benefit beyond that of sugar pills."

This last sentence has no supporting evidence included, and is potentially misleading. Without a supporting reference, it has no place here.

KarenRose373 (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)KarenRose373

The article intro is supposed to summarize the article, so it does not usualy have cites--the article body is where there is more detail, explanation, and citing (see MOS:LEADCITE). That second sentence seems like a fairly concise summary of the § Efficacy section. DMacks (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, I do see your point. I guess, having written and done a lot of academic research, I believe it should be worded differently, in a more accurate way, because as written, it sounds more like a personal statement. For example: "There is no scientific evidence to support that it provides any benefit...", "Evidence suggests...", or even "Research has repeatedly shown..."

I apologize if this seems nit-picky, but as is, that sentence doesn't stand up to my idea of a properly written article, Wikipedia or not. And I am the self-proclaimed goddess of all things, so I MUST be correct and able to speak for the entire global population, haha. Thank you for your consideration! KarenRose373 (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)KarenRose373

I don't see any particular problem with stating it that way. To say that scientific studies, evidence, etc (whatever your choice of words) clear and consistently shows it does not have any benefit beyond placebo (sugar pills), I don't see a particular problem with that. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

"Lawsuits and Criticisms"

EXISTING TEXT: "Since 2011, at least two class action lawsuits on behalf of customers who purchased Oscillococcinum have been filed against Boiron in the United States, alleging that Boiron falsely advertises that Oscillo has the ability to cure the flu.[22][23] A proposed settlement was reached in August 2012.[24] While the settlement was challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by one class member who opposed the settlement, on February 24, 2015 the Ninth Circuit issued a decision upholding approval of the class action settlement.[25]"

In order to give a more accurate representation of the facts, the additional information that the last lawsuit ended in a judgment FOR Boiron, Inc. The judgement was made on January 3, 2017 by the Honarable ANDRÉ BIROTTE, Jr., District Judge, United States District Court, C.D. California

(additional reference, if necessary) "Federal Jury Clears Leading Homeopathic Flu Remedy Manufacturer in Class Action Trial" Tucker Ellis.

References

KarenRose373 (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC) KarenRose373

Positive Amazon Reviews ?

It is really puzzling to me that the article reports with great certainty that Oscillo does not work at all after reading 1,460 Amazon reviews based on verified purchases (5 stars) reporting that it does...Isn't that strange?

I know that Amazon reviews cannot be a reliable source but it is still strange that more than 80 per cent of the people who bought it reports that it is working... Is that the placebo effect which is demonstrated in more than 80 per cent of verified buyers?

https://www.amazon.com/Boiron-Oscillococcinum-Flu-like-Symptoms-Pellets/product-reviews/B0078W0QOI/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_hist_5?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=five_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar

Jay1938 (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

That's the nature of alternative medicine. Wikipedia is very intentionally mainstream via WP:MEDRS rather than WP:ALTMED WP:FRINGE for medical articles. DMacks (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

See Roxy's comment above about anecdote vs. evidence. Amazon reviews are not a reliable source of information, especially not to determine if a treatment works or not. There are lots of "treatments" that people rave about that don't really work and are nonsense. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Placebo ?

The best available study reports:

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®.

This is not what the article reports. The article says that it is impossible to have a clinically useful treatment effect because of the dilution. Why? Jay1938 (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

A clinically useful treatment effect is that which is above the placebo effect. Any proposed new medication which cannot provide better than that never is accepted as a treatment method. It gets rejected as a failure.

A homeopathic preparation is an ideal placebo, because belief in it can cause a subjective (and temporary) feeling of relief, comfort, improvement, etc, without causing any harm or real and lasting effect or improvement in any real biological disease process. There is no "there" there. Without any real active ingredients that could cause healing, there can be no healing from that source. OTOH, a medication with active ingredients which might help will not only have the placebo effect, it will also cause beneficial effects above and beyond it, thus proving that it actually works. Homeopathic preparations never do that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

But the paper does not say it is impossible to have an effect ..Quite the opposite .

Our findings do not rule out the possibility that Oscillococcinum® could have a clinically useful treatment effect

Do you understand the phrase ‘Not compelling?’ Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

They do not rule out the possibility based on the findings - but the evidence is not compelling - the article says - it is impossible to have an effect . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay1938 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Why don't we report the authors conclusions unedited ?

"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®. Jay1938 (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Pigs might fly, but until we have compelling evidence, we won’t add that to Pigs. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

:I see. I thought that Wikipedia just reports the findings of reliable sources Jay1938 (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC) - it should not edit them to comply with whatever point of view .

That would be silly, reporting “No compelling evidence” Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

is the author's conclusion silly? Jay1938 (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The mainstream medical conclusion is that there is no proven benefit. That's why we link "evidence" to "clinical trial" and such. There might be inconclusive, poorly-designed, or suggests-more-testing studies, but that's pushing the edge of WP:MEDRS to include as more than a side-note, given the weight of other evidence. Instead, we state that the overwhelming weight of evidence is against there being an effect and that there isn't even a reasonable mechanism by which there could be an effect. We state that there are proponents and those who think there might be an effect and studies that hint at it. DMacks (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The best mainstream review reports what I m suggesting to be used unedited. I don't understand the objection. Jay1938 (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The answer to your question is that you don't appear to understand the phrase "not compelling" -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Our article actually does state (in § Efficacy) "There is no compelling scientific evidence that Oscillococcinum has any effect beyond placebo.[15] None of its active ingredient is present in a dose of the final product, nor is there any credible evidence that duck liver is effective in relieving (or causing) flu symptoms in the first place". Not "no evidence", but qualified as "no compelling/credible evidence". DMacks (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that the best mainstream review states that "Our findings do not rule out the possibility that Oscillococcinum® could have a clinically useful treatment effect but there is not compelling evidence" but for some reason you want to edit this out from the article. If this is not the case then you would include the entire conclusion in the article unedited as I suggested.Jay1938 (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

That is only one review. We only give it the due weight it deserves. There is also the possibility that the theory of gravity gets proven wrong and apples will fall upwards, and that there really is green cheese on the other side of the moon. Science, by nature, always leaves open the possibility, but when the probability is so close to zero that one might as well say zero, we just say zero. The weight of evidence favors zero. Don't give too much weight to one review, especially when it's not disagreeing with other studies that essentially say zero chance.

Keep in mind the enormous COI of both authors: The first author works for the British Homeopathic Association and Fisher is the homeopath of the Queen. Not exactly reliable sources. Frankly, any scientist or physician who still advocates and defends homeopathy should be delicensed. Their defense proves they don't understand science.

BTW, what's your agenda here? Do you work for Boiron? Do you think there is a chance that Oscillococcinum might actually work, even though there is no known mechanism for that to happen, and no form of logical thinking that can allow for that possibility? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

A couple good articles, the first of which mentions the study:

• How the amazing duck turned into a holy cow
• Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

For Info. Peter Fisher (physician) died recently, and is no longer physician to the Queen. Still doing the same amount of good though. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The Cochrane reviews are the best mainstream reviews no matter who the author is. If of course, you want to follow the editing rules here. If the purpose of the editing is to hide what the best reliable sources report, then you are doing the right thing,Jay1938 (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried Conservapedia? They have sourcing policies that would suit you. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I think they do the same as you do here for homoeopathy, in general. They are trying to ignore what the scientific literature reports and/or distort/omit their findings to support their ridiculous claims (for example that climate change cannot be caused by human activity).Jay1938 (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2019

Please remove the statement (which is not supported by article body text) in the lead paragraph which says that Osci is no more effective than sugar pills. Per Un-cited, wp:OR and lede. 12.26.177.203 (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Without a reliable source, no. Also, see here -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

You are right, -Roxy, . Needs a reference. There is nothing in any references or citations provided in the article which state: "It does not provide any benefit beyond that of sugar pills..." Only by synthesis can such a statement be made prominently in the lead. The actual wording should be used. 12.26.177.203 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.243.220.115 (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Jay1938 (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

If it quacks like a quack remedy, it's a quack remedy

The article gives this product an undue air of legitimacy. Per WP:FLAT there is no reason to discuss why this product deserves more consideration than it has received in the world of science. The article does not need to discuss what the product is not (a cure). The article should report the facts, namely:

• Oscillococcinum is marketed as a treatment for the flu. But it does not and cannot work.
• It's very popular. Two-thirds of pharmacies in Montreal sell it.
• It's manufactured according to homeopathy where the active ingredient (duck organs) are diluted until there is literally nothing left.
• Homeopathy "violates basic laws of physics, biology and chemistry" and has led to deaths after medical conditions were left untreated by science since they were being "treated" with homeopathic remedies.

--Cornellier (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

While I agree with stating in no uncertain terms that that this product is homeopathic and as such is totally bogus for any valid medical purpose, it seems like this specific product actually has gotten some reporting. Wikipedia isn't just science and scientific journals, but also popular press. Major health organizations seem to have mentioned this product (not just homeopathic remedies in general) so we can hold it up as a poster child of the bogus as they have. Going in the other direction, I object to using the very last part your last bullet point unless we have refs that this product has actually led to deaths. It's quite possible, given non-treatment of flu can be fatal, but we have to avoid WP:COATRACK/WP:NPOV/WP:SYNTH insinuation based on the more general topic. DMacks (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks you're absolutely right about the last point. --Cornellier (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

How can this article state it offers the benefit of a sugar pill?

Prove that it offers the benefit of a sugar pill. "It does not provide any benefit beyond that of sugar pills". Has it been tested as a sugar pill and shown to offer benefits? Why is that sentence even in here? It sounds juvenile. It is not factual and there are no sources proving this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.33.243.120 (talk)

?? The placebo control groups are given literal sugar pills. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, it is a sugar pill. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

What ^ they ^ said. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It has the same effects as the sugar tablet/cube on which it is applied, no more and no less. The addition of Oscillococcinum makes no difference at all. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Besides, the burden of proof is on those who say it does more than a placebo to prove that. It's not the other way around. You have it backwards, friend. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hahnemann turns out to be older than expected...

This change to the article said "homeopathy was used for thousands of years before pharmaceutical companies even existed". Good thing it was reverted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

NPOV is disputed

This article appears to be entirely one-sided. There are direct and implied attacks on the efficacy of the substance being discussed, but no rebuttals. Proponents of oscillococcinum as an appropriate treatment need to weigh in on this matter and provide their own viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Probbins79 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The credible evidence and basic science say that this and homeopathy in general do nothing. We don't need to provide false balance for fringe topics. --tronvillain (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

There are no credible rebuttals. Oscillo is part of homeopathy which is known to be pseudoscience. The evidence is clear and uncontroversial. I concur with Tronvillain's assessment. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The best review for oscillo states "Our findings do not rule out the possibility that Oscillococcinum® could have a clinically useful treatment effect"...Does it mean that this and homoeopathy in general do nothing?--Jay1938 (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You don't believe that. If you did, you would not object to the inclusion of the entire conclusion in the article. But you do object and want to include only the edited version "that this and homoeopathy, in general, do nothing"..--Jay1938 (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Don’t tell me what I do and don’t believe. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Well .. I'm telling you not really to - you --to everyone who supports the bias of this article. --Jay1938 (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

This is what you do NOT want the readers to know.

"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®." --Jay1938 (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

If "you" think that the above is what the sources state you would want to include it. Unedited. I think what I m suggesting is fair, --Jay1938 (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I just asked you to stop telling me what I do or don't believe. In the same light, please stop telling me what I would want to include. That's silly. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

What exactly is the rebuttal in that review? Three homeopaths wrote an article admitting that clinical trials of oscillococcinum for the prevention and treatment of flu were so badly done that no conclusions can be drawn. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Roxy and Someguy. Jay, I do not think the material you have proposed for inclusion is suitable for the article based on what you have presented here. Also, which review are you referring to exactly? Can you provide a link here on the talk page, please? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it [1]. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I find it bizarre for a Wikipedia article to essentially say:

"it is unknown whether any medical benefits can be gained from ingesting a concoction consisting of 100% sugar that was imprinted with one ground-up bird entrail per fantasticillion-cubed universes of sugar by a magic ritual. The reason why this is unknown is that, although there is no reason at all for such a benefit to exist, and scientists still tried to find it several times and always came up empty-handed, it could still be there, couldn't it?"

"Our findings didn't rule it out" - duhhhhh, no finding can ever rule that out because of error bars. That sentence is nothing but a meaningless page-filler and not one of the parts of a scientific study one should quote unless one tries to dishonestly sell snake oil to science-naive people. Since Wikipedia does not have that purpose, the article should not quote it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This is what the best available source states. It does not matter what you or I think of it .......The editors are not supposed to decide whether the content of the best available source is really convincing.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay1938 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

It is up to the Wikipedia editors which parts of a source to quote: the interesting ones that actually say something or the boring ones stating the obvious. A good editor does the former. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

This is original research and it is not allowed - Wikipedia editors should report what the most reliable sources say not cherry pick what they think is correct . Jay1938 (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess you were talking to me. If yes, bullshit. This is not about "correct". Everybody agrees that the sentence is correct.

This is about "relevant" and "interesting", as opposed to "boring", "obvious" and "misleading".

Do you want us to quote the whole study?

• Yes: Then we also need to quote all other studies whole. The article will become unreadable. Also, if the quotes get too long, it becomes a copyright violation. And of course this is not what "encyclopedia" means.
• No: By your own reasoning, choosing which parts to quote and which parts not to quote would be cherrypicking.

Whatever your answer, your reasoning fails. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)