Talk:Oscillococcinum

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2020

The author suggests that the Oscillococcinum is fraudalent and although there are attempts to balance the discussion, it seems that it is far from objectionable, it is written in a subjective rather than scientific manner. He/She quotes "French physician Joseph Roy (1891–1978) in his 1925 book Towards Knowledge and the Cure of Cancer.[4][8] Roy wrote that while on military duty during the Spanish flu epidemic of 1917 he had observed an oscillating bacterium in the blood of flu victims, which he named Oscillococcus.[9]

Roy subsequently claimed to have observed the microbe in the blood of patients that had viral diseases like herpes, chicken pox, and shingles.[9] He thought it to be the causative agent of diseases as varied as eczema, rheumatism, tuberculosis, measles, and cancer. Roy searched for the "bacterium" in several animals until he felt that he had found it on the liver of a Long Island duckling.[9] Believing he had also detected it in the blood of cancer patients, he tried a vaccine-like therapy on them, which was unsuccessful.[9] "

However it was In the year 1925, Joseph Roy is believed to have observed in some conditions of a culture the existence of a germ animated by an oscillating movement. He named the nosode Oscillococcinum because of this fact. These researches helped him to describe a remedy of which the clinical experiments in the infections of influenza were carried out in particular by Paul Chavanon.

Oscilloc. was developed by Boiron Laboratory in France. Pierre Schmidt said Oscilloc. is for “influenza at the beginning as a preventive, as well as during convalescence” [28]

Given its benefits to those who do not want to have a flu vaccination, and that it works. I would like to add some factual information regarding this treatment.

https://www.britishhomeopathic.org/charity/how-we-can-help/articles/conditions/i/influenza/ https://www.winchesterhospital.org/health-library/article?id=38325 https://www.homeopathyforwomen.org/oscillococcinum.htm https://www.mirandacastro.com/flunotes2013/ Rowanessque (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

No way. What benefits? Don't be silly, this is a reality based encyclopedia. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

And every single bit of that is fraudulent nonsense that has no place in this article. 2600:1700:E190:C080:535C:8392:22D6:BA1B (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Oscillococcinum

This edit seems a bit biased. Am I wrong? Haroos55 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

What edit? Please be more specific. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Lacks citation while pushing bias

Off the start, the editor obviously has a bias against homeopathy in general. "Oscillococcinum /ˌɒsələˈkɒksɪnəm/ (or Oscillo[1][2]) is a homeopathic preparation fraudulently marketed to relieve flu-like symptoms. It does not provide any benefit beyond that of sugar pills. It is a popular preparation, particularly in France and Russia.

Oscillococcinum is promoted according to the disproven homeopathic principle that "like cures like" and that a disease can be cured by small amounts of the substance that cause similar symptoms." 1st sentence states it is "fraudulently marketed to relieve flu-like symptoms" while not providing citation that this is fact. That should be deleted if not able to provide proof. 2and sentence continues with unsubstantiated bias, stating " it does not provide any benefit beyond that of a sugar pill." That should be deleted. 3rd sentence needs citation that asserts as verifiable that it's popular "particularly in" the countries listed. There must be documentation of usage by county. 4th sentence continues with the ridiculous bias. "...disproven homeopathic principle" is not verifiable fact and should be removed if no citation provided.

These kinds of biases make Wikipedia's legitimacy remain in doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.11.111 (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The intro paragraph is a summary of the key points and themes of the rest of the article. The specific content appears to be multiply-cited in the article. DMacks (talk)

Georg Christoph Lichtenberg's quote "When a book and a head collide and there is a hollow sound, is it always from the book?" is still a good question when you replace "book" by "Wikipedia article". When your opinion and a Wikipedia article disagree, does it mean that the Wikipedia article is biased? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

"Fraud"

There appears to be no justification for the claim that oscillococcinum is “fraudulently” marketed. “Fraud” is a legal concept, quite apart from any factual finding of truth or not. The article does not provide any evidence that the marketing is specifically fraudulent, only that it does not appear to work. I would suggest replacing “marketed fraudulently” with something more neutral, such as “marketed as a purported ...”

Steepleman (t) 04:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no basis for saying "fraudulently", and I say that as one who is highly sceptical of any claim to efficacy here. The word does no justice to the rest of the article. —BillC ^talk 10:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

... and yet charging money for something that doesn't work is fraudulent. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes - if the person who does that knows that it does not work.

But that is original research unless we have a source explicitly saying so. I think that is what people mean. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

We have refs stating the the product is not medically effective. We do not have refs stating that the manufacturer is acting fraudulently. Per above I believe this is original research without a ref. --Cornellier (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Removed “fraudulently” from lead. --Cornellier (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

There should at least be a medical warning. 89.200.15.1 (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The very first sentence says "it does not provide any benefit beyond that of sugar pills.". DMacks (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

uncited bias in the article

There are uncited, biased comments in this article. For example: "Oscillococcinum is promoted according to the disproven homeopathic principle that 'like cures like', and that a disease can be cured by small amounts of the substance that cause similar symptoms."

I've seen far less biased statements removed or reverted.--PaulThePony (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Content in the WP:LEAD doesn't normally need citations because it is based on content in the body of the article where the references are located. Also, the link to the Homeopathy article will lead to more facts and sources.

What part is biased or non-factual? -- Valjean (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2022

“although it does not provide any benefit beyond that of a placebo.”

This is opinion not fact. Please look into the newest research studies and update. 174.240.67.198 (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Not done. This edit request function is only for uncontroversial changes. Start a new thread and present the evidence, keeping in mind that our sourcing standards for medical and scientific topics are stricter and better than those for medical journals. See here: WP:MEDRS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, that thing is pure sugar, and calling its uselessness "opinion" is ridiculous. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2022

Edit or clarify the statements throughout that there are no studies showing efficacy https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5788925/ 2601:644:8F00:CB20:2CF8:318D:8FB:1AC9 (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RealAspects (talk) 06:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The source does not meet our WP:MEDRS standard for medical topics. We require meta-analyses and reviews of many studies. This is just one cherry picked study. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

10^400 dilution?

Can the 10^400 dilution factor be accurate, given that there are only 10^80 atoms in the known universe? 140.198.76.253 (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Look at the sources for that. Keep in mind we're dealing with homeopathy, so reality is irrelevant. It's built on absurdities. We just document what reliable sources say about it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2024

2A0A:EF40:2B:FA01:2D38:2FE2:C3D4:26BD (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This is an article where the healing effect of this remedy is being showed as ‘disproved’ and labeled by placebo.

Homeopathy has proven its effect in a huge community and there are millions of people taking it, including monarchy.

Not because you don’t believe in something, you assault it like if being god with your opinions. The scientific method is something that can be biased in different ways. People dying from cancer and secondary effects of the medication and nobody discussing that. Innumerables doctors apply and practice homeopathy. Please leave and let leave the others with their opinions.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Liu1126 (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

All homeopathy is fraud and has never shown a bit of efficacy as healthcare. 2600:1700:E190:C080:535C:8392:22D6:BA1B (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)