This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Oscillococcinum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This edit seems a bit biased. Am I wrong? Haroos55 ( talk) 23:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
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)
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 should at least be a medical warning. 89.200.15.1 ( talk) 20:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
“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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Oscillococcinum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This edit seems a bit biased. Am I wrong? Haroos55 ( talk) 23:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
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)
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 should at least be a medical warning. 89.200.15.1 ( talk) 20:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
“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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.