Talk:Echinacea/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Echinacea. 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

Does it work?

Is Echinacea actually proven to boost immunity or just a theory????? $Insertformulahere$ 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).

Seems to be coming from one of the web sites (essentially a commercial site) which provides no citations for the assertions, and therefor correct to delete - Marshman 04:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

Do you have any references for these 'issues' about the results and value of the latest study? I'd like to follow them up. Meerkate 03:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Hardyplants comments are a bit pejorative, the study (ref #5) in the Lancet (one of the top three medical journals along with JAMA and NEJM) is a meta-analysis; that is not a re-hash, but a determination of which of the previous studies were actually done right or not and why, and what the data actually say. They conclude "Published evidence supports echinacea's benefit in decreasing the incidence and duration of the common cold." The study by U. MD (ref # 4) is also a meta-analysis, and also supports its efficacy, despite the confusing wordage in the second line. Both studies 4 and 5 point out that many OTC preparations contained little or no Echinacea, and there is no standard for assaying the bioactive compounds (although there are established tests, and the more reputable companies will show the results on the label). This is the big problem with herbs, since they're not FDA regulated, they can put pretty much anything they want in there and sell it as Echinacea or whatever.--DLuber1 03:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes..I am biased against Echinacea as a cold remedy, but open to the possibility that there is one or more chemicals produced by the plants that might have an effect on viruses. This lancet study was not a new study and we can't rule out publication bias in the studies analyzed or not published. The results are interesting but hardly the last word on this issue. Hardyplants 04:53, 19 September 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)

SuperOrder Echinacea

Isn't Echinacea also a kind of sea urchin ? Jeff Knaggs 12:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. Not a "type" of sea urchin, but a taxon: Superorder Echinacea [1] - Marshman 19:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.emedicinal.com/herbs/echinacea.php

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)

Identity of "Echinacea paradoxa" in image

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.

added university of maryland review of studies

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)

More edits

I've just been going through footnoting, and clarifying the section on medical studies of Echinacea. Motmot 21:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association

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 is not NPOV

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)

Agreed. The following: "The scientific studies stated above appear to coinside with these claims as ad hoc rationalising; if the cold doesn't go away when expected, the patient can always be blamed for not following the strict regimen, and the product is never to blame. This is known as subjective validation." shows about as open a mind as the Ayatollah Khomeini. This is not "scientific and dispassionate." It's bias. Also it's misspelled and rather confusing to read. NaySay 19:36, 13 April 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)

Possible allergic response?

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)

Refs

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)

The Skeptic, volume 27 does not exist, (the current volume is only # 13) and a search of the site [2] returns no results. If you can find the actual reference, I'll add the correct citation to the article --G716 04:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong group of skeptics. 'The Skeptic' is published by the Australian Skeptics [3]. ISSN 0726-9897. Reference is: "Echinacea: the wonder herb - some unpalatable facts about a popular cure-all", David Vernon in The Skeptic, vol 27, No 2, Winter 2007, p32. Meerkate 04:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation Spam?

There has been some recent disagreement as to whether this statement constitutes a violation of the wiki spam policy:

As a matter of manufacturing safety, one investigation by an independent consumer testing laboratory found that five of eleven selected retail Echinacea products failed quality testing. Four of the failing products contained levels of phenols below the potency level stated on the labels. One failing product was contaminated with lead.[25]

This reference was originally added to the article on 20 December 2007 by user G716: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)

Clinical efficacy?

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 "Approval"

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)

Clarification

"...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)

It's been clarified - the quote is now attributed to the person who claimed it, and some Native American uses from an ethnobotany source have been added. First Light (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)