Talk:Oscillococcinum

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2020 

message: This edit seems a bit biased. Am I wrong? Haroos55 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What edit? Please be more specific. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oscillococcinum 

message: “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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Also, that thing is pure sugar, and calling its uselessness "opinion" is ridiculous. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2022 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2022 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  10^400 dilution? 

message: 2A0A:EF40:2B:FA01:2D38:2FE2:C3D4:26BD (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Liu1126 (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2024