This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Plants Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Toxicology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Toxicology task force (assessed as Low-importance). Pharmacology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

no mention of whether it's medicinal properites are bull or not 195.7.54.2 11:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The "lamb's skin" etymology, while somewhat reasonable, is not supported by any existing English dictionary (OED says "uncertain", NOAD2 says "uncertain", everyone else says "New Latin". "Arna" means lamb, and "arnakis" is a sheepskin coat. But I think if this etymology were so indisputable, an etymologist would have heard about it. Is there supporting evidence for this etymology? Xueexueg 21:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, arnica DOES relieve muscle pain, reduce inflammation, and has even stopped bruising. Homeopathic medicine has a sublingual pill form. The article does not mention that fact.

See Arnica montana and please sign your message with four tildes. JoJan 16:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I see nothing in either article (which should be merged BTW) that suggests there is any scientific basis for these claims. Does anyone have one? What is the proposed mechanism for action? Maury 13:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Topical Arnica is very effective for mucsle,nerve and joint pain. I have found the the massage oil is more potent and lasts longer than the gel or cream. I do not know about the oral version, but would like to: I also would like to know about potential drug interactions and side effects.(User tokids2 @aol.com 19:53 3 July 2007)

A veterinarian suggested its use for treating injured wildlife (1 grain 2-3 times a day for birds such as pigeons)to relieve pain and swelling. 72.68.190.225 18:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)birdlady reply

I had Arnica pillules recommended to me by my sister who lives in London where they are used quite freely in Maternity wards post delivery for relief of pain and reduce swelling and bruising. I have used it on numerous occassions over the years for myself and others in cases of acute injury and associated pain and bleeding/swelling. As long as there are no conventional medicines in use it was extremely effective on Hip replacement post operatively, full dental clearance also postoperative with the dentist amazed at how much healing had occurred in just 4 days. In each instance the pain was reduced quite significantly immediately post operatively and the bleeding/bruising and swelling were almost non existant. I highly recommend it but it must be used with much respect and caution as, like any conventional medicine, if it is used incorrectly it can be very harmful.(User Daphne Young Registered Nurse. 10 June 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.247.87 ( talk) 00:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Anecdotes, while they may be compelling to the person who claims them, cannot be regarded as received fact. There must be controlled, ideally double-blind studies to isolate the effectiveness of the preparation with that of a placebo. General Ludd ( talk) 02:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I think some work needs to be done to improve the therapeutic properties section. I suggest that a clear distinction be made between arnica’s homeopathic use and herbal use. These are two different categories with different philosophies. Also by stating, “In homeopathy arnica is used for...” it renders the demand for a scientific basis irrelevant, because it is merely a statement about homeopathy not a scientific fact about arnica. I am not qualified to rewrite this article, this is just a suggestion.-- Remark knights ( talk) 14:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Agree there's a big difference. Was about to add a section about this. On jars of the cream it's identified as "herbal cream". Homeopathic dilution contradicts this. Too tired to work out the para right now maybe later. Manytexts ( talk) 11:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Second that. Claims of certain causation must be backed with substantive, peer-reveiewed research. General Ludd ( talk) 02:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply

What "Therapeutic Properties" section? It's not there anymore. MiguelMunoz ( talk) 05:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ MiguelMunoz You are replying to a topic where the first comment was made over 15 years ago and the two replies are also over a decade old. It is out of date. 🌿MtBotany ( talk) 06:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

A wonderful reliable source of which the article should take advantage. I added some material from it which wasn't present in the article, but there is more in this source to be used if desired. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The article heading is in italics -- any reason? Is it because it's the genus? if it is, disregard my qn. Manytexts ( talk) 10:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC) reply

In the paragraph on medicinal properties, the first few lines state there have been no studies to prove mdeicinal properties. Then there's reference to a study on using extract from the plant which showed benefits after surgery. That's an applicable study, surely? Madgenberyl ( talk) 16:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Recent studies have shown benefits of arnica for osteoarthritis and reduction of postoperative swelling and pain, and I have updated the article with a link to the studies at Sloan-Kettering. I've left the section questioning the effectiveness of homeopathic arnica treatments, however, one problem with the section is that some arnica products, though marketed as "homeopathic," are actually 8%-10% arnica preparations, which have been shown to be effective in studies. Kap42 ( talk) 14:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Nah it's completely ineffective, hence why its used in conventional medications such as A535. We all know scientific studies are absolute and money is NEVER used to obscure study results. Scientists are ALWAYS honest and there has never been a single case (besides all those cases) where scientists are wrong, biased, or bribed. Therefore, anecdotal evidence means nothing (as it does with the people that feel sick from wind turbine shadows), and you're wrong, always. </sarcasm> - Floydian  ^τ _¢ 05:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC) reply

The link refering to "Royal Society of Medicine Article concerning testing involving Arnica (RSM)" does not refer to medical article involving Arnica, but to an article about the need to test complementary/alternative medicine. Although I think it is an useful article, I think it would be better suited in an article about alternative medicine in general, not a specific alternative medicine. An article concerning the (possible) effects of Arnica I think however would be a good alternative. ( Siets ( talk) 14:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arnica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020826082134/http://altmed.creighton.edu/Homeopathy/philosophy/dilution.htm to http://altmed.creighton.edu/Homeopathy/philosophy/dilution.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC) reply