![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Is Echinacea actually proven to boost immunity or just a theory????? I have updated this page to reflect the results of a recent study regarding the effectiveness of Echinacea in combating colds. I am not sure how I feel about the wording - please feel free to edit the updated paragraph in a way that conforms more with the article itself. Jimbinford
From the page: However, many scientific studies have documented the chemistry, pharmacology, and clinical applications of echinacea. It has consistently shown that it stimulates phagocytosis (encouraging white blood cells and lymphocytes to attack invading organisms).
The recent US study for echinacea which "demonstrated" that it didn't work used 1/3 of the standard dosage, the wrong parts of the wrong species. If I gave you a third of an asprin and your headache didn't go away, would that prove that asprin doesn't work? The previous negative study used a novel preparation- leaf juice- also at a very low dosage and is not representative of using echinacea. The herb has been prescribed in Germany for decades. I have a masters degree in herbal medicine and have worked clinically for a decade and echinacea definitely does work, especially in tincture form where it can go directly into your lymphatic system in your mouth. Ksvaughan2 15:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
No, but it doesn't prove it does work either. 87.102.84.39 19:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
There are already some references which indicate that echinacea doesn't do anything for illness, but none of the "many scientific studies". It would be good to see some of those.
Just to note - I have taken Echinacea and Goldenseal root medication for a number of years now as a replacement for prescribed antibiotics (I am allergic to penicillin). I asked my Doctor last week how long it has been since I have been to him for antibiotics, and it turns out it has been 7 years! It certainly works for me!! (29.5.07)
This just posted today Echinacea 'halves the risk of catching colds'
"When used as a treatment it reduces the length of a cold by one-and-a-half days on average, according to research published today by U.S. researchers in The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal."
More interesting findings in the main article which I haven't read yet. 25-JUN-07
I would not get to carried away about the latest news report, it is not a new study but just a rehashing of some older studies grouped together. A number of issues have been raised about its results and value.
Hardyplants
01:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
It comes down to the types of testing and the results. When we quote meta-analysis we are just sifting through what could be a whole collection of bad studies. The meta-analysis that was presented is all over the board on the dosage, types, and controls. The best study was the one cited by the NEJM with a large number of people in a large double blind study from a peer reviewed journal and not by some slick mass media, headline grabbing tabloid. Sorry, it's just frustrating when the science is not followed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.158.244 ( talk) 20:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
"Another scientific review of 14 published studies found that the incidence of colds was reduced by 58% and the duration by a day and half." -- I've seen the source but these numbers are absolutely crazy. I will start looking for responses to these numbers (both negative and positive) and I would appreciate it if others would do the same 60.242.124.184 ( talk) 04:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Isn't Echinacea also a kind of sea urchin ? Jeff Knaggs 12:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
http://www.emedicinal.com/ seems to be a moderate quack medicine site. They claim that herbs can cure diseases, though they do give cautions and have a disclaimer stating that herbs can be dangerous and ineffective.
The wikipedia article seems to say that this plant is actually effective. I believe that the UC Berkeley Wellness Letter said in a previous issue said it did not work -- could someone check this?
24.210.73.62 23:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The image of "Echinacea paradoxa" looks a lot more like a Rudbeckia than an Echinacea. Compare: http://www.cas.vanderbilt.edu/bioimages/species/frame/ecpa2.htm
to http://www.cas.vanderbilt.edu/bioimages/species/frame/ruhi2.htm and http://www.cas.vanderbilt.edu/bioimages/species/frame/rutr2.htm
Comments? Steve Baskauf 10:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
MadBadger
05:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Total agreement here. Echinacea paradoxa typically has long narrow reflexed ray florets ('petals'). The image is probably a cultivar of Rudbeckia hirta.
MadBadger 03:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC) I'll be able to add an image of a real Echinacea paradoxa soon.
I added a review of studies conducted by the University of Maryland. I'm about to add the source. This is my first edit, so I apologize if I did something wrong. Feel free to review the source and change wording if anyone feels my words are not an accurate representation.-- Jonmedeiros 17:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
MadBadger 02:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC) The article as it stands seems an awkward combination of the botanical/horticultural and the herbal/medicinal aspects, both getting less complete treatment than they deserve. Is there any interest in working on a split? There would be some overlap, but the articles could be more useful and to-the-point for readers if ornamental and herbal medicine uses of Echinacea were treated separately. My interest and expertise would be on the ornamental side, especially with the development of the new range of hybrids, and I would be able to supply quite a few images as the summer progresses.
Anyone have a comment or idea?
I've just been going through footnoting, and clarifying the section on medical studies of Echinacea. Motmot 21:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The abovementioned scientific paper have used the title image here in its latest issue: Echinacea purpurea: http://www.tidsskriftet.no/pls/lts/pa_lt.visSeksjon?vp_SEKS_ID=1434831
Congrats to the photographer!
-- 62.107.74.231 17:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This article has some definite POV issues. Claims need to be sourced and validated, and this topic should be treated scientifically and dispassionately. Andre ( talk) 21:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
In fact there are recognized stages of diseases, and different herbs are taken at different stages. This has been extensively documented in Chinese medicine and is the base of the Shang han lun, by the Hippocrates of China, Zhang Zhong Jing millenia ago and never disproved, forming the basis of Chinese and Japanese medicine. If an herb or herbal formula is taken at the wrong stage of disease, than it is not going to be useful. It is not a matter of ad hoc rationalization to say that the correct dose and correct timing is necessary. Ksvaughan2 16:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have an objection to my removing the offending sections of the paragraph and replacing them with more detail on how the herb works pharmacokinetically? And then can I remover the NPOV flag? Ksvaughan2 16:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems much of the NPOV problems have been fixed. I'm removing the tag. Meerkate 12:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Ragweeds (Ambrosia) are related. Ragweed and Echinacea are in the tribe Heliantheae. I am allergic to ragweed pollen and the plant. I show some allergic response to Echinacea and cannot take it as it worsens my cold symptoms. I think that if the possible immune response is listed then an allergen listing should be included. Otherwise just leave all health related theories out. AaaghItsMrHell 22:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I replaced the refs to the Vernon article. While it is on a blog, the blog entry is a reprint of the actual article that appears in "The Skeptic", vol 27, number 3, Winter 2007, so I can't see the problem with it. Meerkate 03:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
There has been some recent disagreement as to whether this statement constitutes a violation of the wiki spam policy:
This reference was originally added to the article on 20 December 2007 by user G716: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Echinacea&oldid=179121891.
WP:SPAM states that "Citation spamming is a form of search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor." However, there does not appear to be repeated assertion or multiple articles. Rather, it appears the reference was provided "to verify article content." Most importantly, this is not "a single, typically questionable or low-value, web source." The reference in question is Consumer Lab, a highly notable, reputable, third-party, consumer-safety testing laboratory. I would encourage anyone questioning the legitimacy of this reference to review the extensive list of media organizations that have referenced Consumer Lab in other works: http://www.consumerlab.com/inthenews.asp (e.g. The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal). There should be no question that the reference to the lab testing that this organization performed specifically on echinacea products is both legitimate and highly relevant to the question of echinacea product safety. WP:SPAM warns that citation spamming "should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." I think this is clearly such a case.
If you have any evidence that the reference to Consumer Lab's testing is either insufficiently relevant or a case of mal-intentioned spam, please elaborate. -- Gaberdine2 ( talk) 20:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Has the clinical efficacy been established or not? The reference of the sentence "However, its clinical efficacy has not been established." is from 2005; there is another meta-analysis from 2007 cited later in the text ( PMID 17597571) that confirms its clinical efficacy. -- Eleassar my talk 09:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
EMEA has not approved echinacea for the common cold. The cited work is a draft discussion by a working committee. It does not in any way imply approval. — G716 < T· C> 17:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will wait until the end of March, when the final monograph will be approved and published. But the current draft was already approved by the EMEA Commeetee for herbal medicinal products. It has a draft status only because the public consultation was not yet taken into account in this version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.2.101.10 ( talk) 12:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
EMEA now published the final monograph and approved Echinacea for threatment of common cold ( [4]). -- Krefts ( talk) 18:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
"...a Swiss herbal supplement maker was erroneously told that echinacea was used for cold prevention by Native American tribes who lived in the area." What does "erroneously told" mean? Please clarify.
-- 24.255.222.133 ( talk) 20:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Is Echinacea actually proven to boost immunity or just a theory????? I have updated this page to reflect the results of a recent study regarding the effectiveness of Echinacea in combating colds. I am not sure how I feel about the wording - please feel free to edit the updated paragraph in a way that conforms more with the article itself. Jimbinford
From the page: However, many scientific studies have documented the chemistry, pharmacology, and clinical applications of echinacea. It has consistently shown that it stimulates phagocytosis (encouraging white blood cells and lymphocytes to attack invading organisms).
The recent US study for echinacea which "demonstrated" that it didn't work used 1/3 of the standard dosage, the wrong parts of the wrong species. If I gave you a third of an asprin and your headache didn't go away, would that prove that asprin doesn't work? The previous negative study used a novel preparation- leaf juice- also at a very low dosage and is not representative of using echinacea. The herb has been prescribed in Germany for decades. I have a masters degree in herbal medicine and have worked clinically for a decade and echinacea definitely does work, especially in tincture form where it can go directly into your lymphatic system in your mouth. Ksvaughan2 15:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
No, but it doesn't prove it does work either. 87.102.84.39 19:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
There are already some references which indicate that echinacea doesn't do anything for illness, but none of the "many scientific studies". It would be good to see some of those.
Just to note - I have taken Echinacea and Goldenseal root medication for a number of years now as a replacement for prescribed antibiotics (I am allergic to penicillin). I asked my Doctor last week how long it has been since I have been to him for antibiotics, and it turns out it has been 7 years! It certainly works for me!! (29.5.07)
This just posted today Echinacea 'halves the risk of catching colds'
"When used as a treatment it reduces the length of a cold by one-and-a-half days on average, according to research published today by U.S. researchers in The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal."
More interesting findings in the main article which I haven't read yet. 25-JUN-07
I would not get to carried away about the latest news report, it is not a new study but just a rehashing of some older studies grouped together. A number of issues have been raised about its results and value.
Hardyplants
01:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
It comes down to the types of testing and the results. When we quote meta-analysis we are just sifting through what could be a whole collection of bad studies. The meta-analysis that was presented is all over the board on the dosage, types, and controls. The best study was the one cited by the NEJM with a large number of people in a large double blind study from a peer reviewed journal and not by some slick mass media, headline grabbing tabloid. Sorry, it's just frustrating when the science is not followed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.158.244 ( talk) 20:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
"Another scientific review of 14 published studies found that the incidence of colds was reduced by 58% and the duration by a day and half." -- I've seen the source but these numbers are absolutely crazy. I will start looking for responses to these numbers (both negative and positive) and I would appreciate it if others would do the same 60.242.124.184 ( talk) 04:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Isn't Echinacea also a kind of sea urchin ? Jeff Knaggs 12:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
http://www.emedicinal.com/ seems to be a moderate quack medicine site. They claim that herbs can cure diseases, though they do give cautions and have a disclaimer stating that herbs can be dangerous and ineffective.
The wikipedia article seems to say that this plant is actually effective. I believe that the UC Berkeley Wellness Letter said in a previous issue said it did not work -- could someone check this?
24.210.73.62 23:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The image of "Echinacea paradoxa" looks a lot more like a Rudbeckia than an Echinacea. Compare: http://www.cas.vanderbilt.edu/bioimages/species/frame/ecpa2.htm
to http://www.cas.vanderbilt.edu/bioimages/species/frame/ruhi2.htm and http://www.cas.vanderbilt.edu/bioimages/species/frame/rutr2.htm
Comments? Steve Baskauf 10:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
MadBadger
05:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Total agreement here. Echinacea paradoxa typically has long narrow reflexed ray florets ('petals'). The image is probably a cultivar of Rudbeckia hirta.
MadBadger 03:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC) I'll be able to add an image of a real Echinacea paradoxa soon.
I added a review of studies conducted by the University of Maryland. I'm about to add the source. This is my first edit, so I apologize if I did something wrong. Feel free to review the source and change wording if anyone feels my words are not an accurate representation.-- Jonmedeiros 17:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
MadBadger 02:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC) The article as it stands seems an awkward combination of the botanical/horticultural and the herbal/medicinal aspects, both getting less complete treatment than they deserve. Is there any interest in working on a split? There would be some overlap, but the articles could be more useful and to-the-point for readers if ornamental and herbal medicine uses of Echinacea were treated separately. My interest and expertise would be on the ornamental side, especially with the development of the new range of hybrids, and I would be able to supply quite a few images as the summer progresses.
Anyone have a comment or idea?
I've just been going through footnoting, and clarifying the section on medical studies of Echinacea. Motmot 21:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The abovementioned scientific paper have used the title image here in its latest issue: Echinacea purpurea: http://www.tidsskriftet.no/pls/lts/pa_lt.visSeksjon?vp_SEKS_ID=1434831
Congrats to the photographer!
-- 62.107.74.231 17:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This article has some definite POV issues. Claims need to be sourced and validated, and this topic should be treated scientifically and dispassionately. Andre ( talk) 21:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
In fact there are recognized stages of diseases, and different herbs are taken at different stages. This has been extensively documented in Chinese medicine and is the base of the Shang han lun, by the Hippocrates of China, Zhang Zhong Jing millenia ago and never disproved, forming the basis of Chinese and Japanese medicine. If an herb or herbal formula is taken at the wrong stage of disease, than it is not going to be useful. It is not a matter of ad hoc rationalization to say that the correct dose and correct timing is necessary. Ksvaughan2 16:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have an objection to my removing the offending sections of the paragraph and replacing them with more detail on how the herb works pharmacokinetically? And then can I remover the NPOV flag? Ksvaughan2 16:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems much of the NPOV problems have been fixed. I'm removing the tag. Meerkate 12:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Ragweeds (Ambrosia) are related. Ragweed and Echinacea are in the tribe Heliantheae. I am allergic to ragweed pollen and the plant. I show some allergic response to Echinacea and cannot take it as it worsens my cold symptoms. I think that if the possible immune response is listed then an allergen listing should be included. Otherwise just leave all health related theories out. AaaghItsMrHell 22:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I replaced the refs to the Vernon article. While it is on a blog, the blog entry is a reprint of the actual article that appears in "The Skeptic", vol 27, number 3, Winter 2007, so I can't see the problem with it. Meerkate 03:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
There has been some recent disagreement as to whether this statement constitutes a violation of the wiki spam policy:
This reference was originally added to the article on 20 December 2007 by user G716: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Echinacea&oldid=179121891.
WP:SPAM states that "Citation spamming is a form of search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor." However, there does not appear to be repeated assertion or multiple articles. Rather, it appears the reference was provided "to verify article content." Most importantly, this is not "a single, typically questionable or low-value, web source." The reference in question is Consumer Lab, a highly notable, reputable, third-party, consumer-safety testing laboratory. I would encourage anyone questioning the legitimacy of this reference to review the extensive list of media organizations that have referenced Consumer Lab in other works: http://www.consumerlab.com/inthenews.asp (e.g. The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal). There should be no question that the reference to the lab testing that this organization performed specifically on echinacea products is both legitimate and highly relevant to the question of echinacea product safety. WP:SPAM warns that citation spamming "should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." I think this is clearly such a case.
If you have any evidence that the reference to Consumer Lab's testing is either insufficiently relevant or a case of mal-intentioned spam, please elaborate. -- Gaberdine2 ( talk) 20:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Has the clinical efficacy been established or not? The reference of the sentence "However, its clinical efficacy has not been established." is from 2005; there is another meta-analysis from 2007 cited later in the text ( PMID 17597571) that confirms its clinical efficacy. -- Eleassar my talk 09:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
EMEA has not approved echinacea for the common cold. The cited work is a draft discussion by a working committee. It does not in any way imply approval. — G716 < T· C> 17:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will wait until the end of March, when the final monograph will be approved and published. But the current draft was already approved by the EMEA Commeetee for herbal medicinal products. It has a draft status only because the public consultation was not yet taken into account in this version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.2.101.10 ( talk) 12:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
EMEA now published the final monograph and approved Echinacea for threatment of common cold ( [4]). -- Krefts ( talk) 18:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
"...a Swiss herbal supplement maker was erroneously told that echinacea was used for cold prevention by Native American tribes who lived in the area." What does "erroneously told" mean? Please clarify.
-- 24.255.222.133 ( talk) 20:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)