Talk:Oscillococcinum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oscillococcinum is part of WikiProject Pharmacology, a project to improve all Pharmacology-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other pharmacology articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance for this Project's importance scale.

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)

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. —Dgiest c 17:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)