Study Says Echinacea Has No Effect on Colds

Study Says Echinacea Has No Effect on Colds

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/health/28cold.html?ex=1122782400&en=8e049d60dbc9df8f&ei=5070

"Echinacea, the herbal supplement made from purple coneflower and used by millions of Americans to prevent or treat colds, neither prevented colds nor eased cold symptoms in a large and rigorous study.

The study, being published today in The New England Journal of Medicine, involved 437 people who volunteered to have cold viruses dripped into their noses. Some swallowed echinacea for a week beforehand, others a placebo. Still others took echinacea or a placebo at the time they were infected.

Then the subjects were secluded in hotel rooms for five days while scientists examined them for symptoms and took nasal washings to look for the virus and for an immune system protein, interleukin-8. Some had hypothesized that interleukin-8 was stimulated by echinacea, enabling the herb to stop colds.

But the investigators found that those who took echinacea fared no differently from those who took a placebo: they were just as likely to catch a cold, their symptoms were just as severe, they had just as much virus in their nasal secretions, and they made no more interleukin-8.

..."


Bummer. Not only this but now I have to get a prescription to get a little pseudoephedrine for my next winter cold. Anyone up for an Amazon adventure this coming January?

Herbal medicines have been around for 5000 years, and yet our ability to prevent, cure and manage disease is greater to the tune of life expectancies increasing by over 75% in the last 2 millenia.

I know many here are rightfully suspicious of Big Pharma, but the medicines are doing something. The data are quite clear. If these herbal remedies were so effective, we wouldn't have needed the research and demand for medications that makes Big Pharma so BIG.
The Professor

Big Pharma is big for all kinds of reasons, only some of them related to truly unique and valuable drugs.

To whit:

1. Overmedication and inappropriate medication (esp antibiotics)

2. Overexploitation of patent protection (renewed for small changes)

3. Overselling and corrupt marketing

4. Me-too drugs that don't differ significantly from others in the same class but are significantly more expensive than the earlier drugs that may have gone generic.

etc. etc.

The issue is still that herbal medicines have been supplanted by well-understood, and highly efficacious drugs over the last 75 years, resulting in HUGE improvements in disease treatment.

I'm not defending Big Pharma. I'm saying i'm not surprised that herbal medicines are proving to have little efficacy, because if they had worked, the need to develop and market drugs would have been focused on those diseases for which no herbal remedy was effective.

If you want me to admit that i don't believe in herbal medicine, ok. I admit it.
The Professor

as most medicines did before modern chemistry and medicine.

The fact is that some herbal medicines may contain active ingredients that have limited effect in their natural form but are more effective when separated and concentrated.

Tamoxifen is a derivative of tree bark.

I think you're defining herbal medicines too narrowly if you insist that they be only considered in their native, natural form.

http://www.answers.com/herbal+medicine&r=67

Sure, aspirin would fall under a broader definition. However, the herbal treatment industry tends to merely do extraction and reformation. I've done consulting work in their factories. I've seen the processes. Aspirin is actually synthesized to the drug form, because it needs to be converted from the acetate ester of the salicylic acid to the drug state. So, it's not a straight extraction. Of course, neither is novacaine or morphine, and those would be herbals too, by a broad definition.

Interesting that you brought up aspirin. The patent is long expired on that. Yet, it still sells in vast quantities; many, many companies still mfr. market, and sell, and somehow it still makes money for them. Compared the price of aspirin to echinachea? I think you'll find that you might want to reserve a little more of your skepticism for the herbal industry.
The Professor

Including herbal medicine. Undoubtedly it has both charlatans and honest practitioners and a history the precedes modern science but is a precursor to modern pharmacology.

Perhaps you should apply some healthy skepticism to Big Pharma in view of its business practices and tendencies to subvert science and the public interest to financial considerations.

The data are clear. If you choose to ignore it, that's your privilege.
The Professor

I have been taught since elementary school that the scientific method requires test after test after test after test. To do a single study and then report the results as scientific fact is not in keeping with scientific methods. Yet this is how scientific information is delivered to Americans. "Eggs will kill," "Eggs will not kill." X causes cancer, then X doesn't cause cancer. How can consumers make informed choices when this is the way science is delivered to them.

I do not mean this as a defense, necessarily, against folk medicine. I agree with you that people are living much longer, and the medicines and treatments they receive in most cases are better than folk medicine. But who is to say that all folk medicine is bad, even echinacea? There probably exist studies that show echinacea works beautifully. Fifty years ago, if you would have told doctors we were using leaches again, they would have had a fit. I also think that it is important to look at who sponsors studies. If "aluminum is bad" is the result of a study, for instance, is it because the steel or tin industry paid for it? I guess the point of my rant is that I would like to see more science before we are told a case is closed.

Fifty years ago there wasn't the body of work to determine the tiny fraction of formerly "go with a leech!" cases where a leech is actually a good thing.

I would expect the same with echinacea. Probably quite good for a tiny fraction of the population -- a small enough fraction to fly under the study's radar. For the rest of us, not so much. :)

This isn't the first study on herbal medicine either. And besides, a single study, supported by the YEARS of medical records regarding the advancement of treatment through drug therapy, isn't really a single study report.

The report is confirmatory of a hundred years of medical fact. No?
The Professor

Drugs must always be tested, no matter how long they have been used. Aspirin the miracle drug. Well, the stuff can rot holes in your stomach and you not even know it. That has been reported. The estrogen treatments they were handing out like candy? They cause breast cancer. I wonder how many "studies" showed how effective they were before they were put out? I am not a pharmacologist, and I cannot possibly name all the "wonder drugs" that have been taken away because of the damage they cause and the over-sensational touting of the product at its release to the public.

I take all these "studies" with a grain of salt, especially as they are reported in the media. We hear what the powers that be want us to hear. In this report on echinacea, did the story say, "a new study further confirms suspicions about echinacea's lack of effectiveness" or something like that? Or was it "A study says x." Part of the critical thinking process is to see the boons and the busts of a study, and to use results to extrapolate informed conclusions.

The fact is that disease treatment is clearly and obviously better over the last 125 years. That is since the advent of synthetic drugs. And, the study of hundreds of drugs over many years with tens of thousands of patients are confirmatory of findings like this.

The fact i'm talking about is the fact that people have their diseases treated more effectively now than in the days when herbal meds were the only option.
The Professor

Far from it. There is still plenty of snake oil out there, and plenty of drugs get pulled every year because they are poison. And extrapolating from a SINGLE study is not scientific. It just is not.

The point is that this is NOT a single study. These results are confirmatory of the facts extant. The advent of synthetic medicine have improved disease treatment to an enormous degree over the days when herbals were the only choice.

This study is an indicator as to why that's so. The most logical conclusion is that the herbals are not terribly efficacious.
The Professor

And the only way to tell the difference between snake oil and working pharmaceuticals is via this sort of testing.

It may be the most rigorous, but, yes, studies must be repeated.

A sampling of recent findings...

Echinacea not effective in treating colds:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=4785

Echinacea does not help prevent colds says study (a study funded by a purveyor of echinacea):
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=8225

Echinacea may have no benefit in treating common cold:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=9746

We will see another news item about a new study that states that echinacea is effective.

CNN is really bad about reporting conflicting studies.

You are right about big pharma - unfortunately with minor ailments like head colds, by the time people are symptomatic they are halfway to building an immune response on their own so it's really hard to say if your compound is helping to cure the disease or just cure the symptoms of the disease, whichever remedy you pick.

Economics pushes pharma to develop treatments for symptoms - shrink peripheral blood vessels to open sinuses and a head cold becomes bearable. Draining sinuses, and anaerobic bacteria subsequently exposed to air are a secondary effect of treating the symptom that sometimes help prevent the onset of secondary infection, such as bacterial bronchitis.

And you sell more OTC than prescription products, which is why pharma pushed so hard to get products like naproxin sodium and loratadine on the other side of the pharmacy counter.

I'm not a gambling man, so i have to go cheap. But, my point is that the data regarding disease treatment since the advent of synthetic drugs is abundantly clear. This study CONFIRMS the existing facts.

You want to take it for a cold, that's fine. Whatever works for you. I have belief in the mental aspect of disease management.

I know that if i had not chosen to FIGHT rather than surrender to my MS, i would be far worse off than i am. That doesn't mean, however, that i'm willing to stop shooting my betaseron and go on a herbal treatment. Somehow, the people who progress from R/R MS, to PPS or SPS forms of the disease has dropped DRAMATICALLY since the advent of the synthetic interferons. That's a data set i can not afford to ignore.

The Professor

I think it's not all black OR white and that some therapies are complimentary to pharma, even if in some cases they are successful mostly via placebo effect.

When push comes to shove though, like you I'm behind pharma over folk remedy every time. And I'm a holistic kinda guy - but the "active ingredient" has to be there for the rest of the holistic package to work in most cases.

I suppose it would be more rational to be equally cynical not just about Big Pharma, but also about what Big Nutraceutical floats for our consumption ;)

A completely unregulated industry, making claims as to health benefits should be viewed cynically, even compared to the much more regulated pharmaceutical industry.

As a progressive economist, i believe the regulation of industry is of maximum benefit to the consumer. The less regulation, the more inclined i am to be cynical.
The Professor

almost nothing that can't be patented will ever be touted by anyone in govt or business as effective.

I'm not a scientist, but I would guess that our increase in life expectancy can be largely attributed to a small collection of medicines/procedures. Vaccinations work extremely well, and antibiotics also work beautifully -- nothing in nature can match them. I won't argue with that.

But although marijuana is most certainly an effective medicine, Big Pharma has a stake in people not acknowledging its effects.

There are probably other things out there: St. John's Wort, for example.

his minions say.

Can you imagine, in a world where Big Pharma has so much power, a study actually coming out and saying

"Echinachea effective in preventing colds?"

IN OUR DREAMS.

I say, if it works for you, keep using it. If you think it doesn't work, don't use it.

No OTC or prescription medicine can cure colds. They can only alleviate the symptoms.

Also, frequently doctors prescribe antibiotics, which don't do jack for colds. Colds are viruses.

It was not funded by Big Pharma. And, it was conducted independently by reputable scientists.
The Professor

The number of articles published in NEJM that are not sponsored by big pharma are dwindling.

Dig deep . . . you will find a link to either big pharma or a subsidiary research firm that aims to hit big from the outcome.

No thanks. I've got no reason to believe the Tribune reporter lied. And, besides, you are even close to explaining the improvement in disease treatment since 5000 year old remedies fell into disuse. Resurrecting things millenia after the fact doesn't make them work better.
The Professor

This is a peer reviewed article, in a respected journal.

But I'd buy the cheapest echinacea product you can find. Why waste your money?

I guess I struggle to buy your premise about big pharma, partly because studies like the following do get a public airing on a regular basis:

Acupuncture cuts tension headache rates by almost half
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=28269

Binge drinking urge suppressed by taking the herb kudzu
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=24669

Herb used to treat diabetes works like modern-day prescription drugs, study suggests
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=20068

Tibetan Herbal Formula Proven to Improve Cardiovascular and Vein Health
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=13922

I've found for me that vitamin C seems to work better than Echinacea in warding off a cold. How much of this is the placebo effect, who know.

I personally am a great believer in exploring alternative medicine, especially for a chronic health problem. I'm not saying that traditional medicine doesn't have a lot to offer. But often doctors are too ready to perform surgeries that aren't really necessary, and prescribe drugs that aren't really necessary.

I especially agree with Spinzonner's post (#6), especially about Big Pharma's "overselling and corrupt marketing." And the "me-too" drugs that are only slightly different from existing drugs. That was discussed in a book that came out recently--can't remember the title.

Placebo effect? I suspect that's fairly likely. But if my mind buys it, so what? And my taste buds love it, too.

The only problem is that I can't use the treatment if I have to go to work the next day. Subjecting people to that odor would not be kind.

I've no disagreement in regard to the overmarketing by Pharms. I cringe every time I see an ad on TV. And, yes, the "me too" drugs may have been pushed in place of researching possibly improved medications. That is an issue that must be addressed. At the same time, there are people who note efficacy with one "me too" drug but not the others, and there are people who can tolerate one "me too" drug but not the others. While there is little in the way of scientific understanding of why this occurs, physicians and other health care practitioners (and the patients affected) are glad those drugs are on the market.

As for books on this topic, a number have come out in recent years. I found Marcia Angell's "The Truth About Drug Companies" to be a bit overboard and personalized in its critique. But I mostly enjoyed Jerry Avorn's "Powerful Medicines" and Samuel Barondes' "Better Than Prozac." The latter is kinder to the industry than most, but still not so kind. I think reading the books by Avorn and Barondes in combination may give one a semi-balanced look at the history and current situation. Just my opinion, of course.

Salud.

There is a place near my house that serves that on Friday nights. It's just a little dive bar, but that place is packed EVERY Friday. I think it's something like $5 for All U Can Eat. (Bagna Calda = Hot Bath!)
The Professor

I wish I had a place like that nearby. And the purveyors are smart enough to do it on Fridays, too! Dang. Mmmmmmmmmmm.

Salud.

The Professor

I think "Big Pharma" would love to say that echinachea works. Then, they could make pills out of it and sell them for millions. But it doesn't work, so I guess they won't be able to make money of echinachea. Someone else who's less concerned about whether it actually works will have to do that.

I know a lot of people who swear by it, but I've never found it to help me. Garlic, zinc, and Vitamin C on the other hand do seem to work. I have no documentation to prove it, however, that's my home remedy of choice.

Here, we just need to go to the pharmacy counter and ask (and show ID, and sign a log) but, not prescription.

Our legislature decided that signing for it at the pharmacy wasn't good enough.

just IMO

I don't see how it's going to make a bit of difference.

That would be interesting to know

National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine

"The goal of the new study — funded by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a branch of the National Institutes of Health — was to pinpoint exactly how the herb attacks colds, said Dr. Stephen Strauss, the center's director."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2002406417_colds28.html

And I emphasize religiously.

She claims she has not had a bad cold since she started taking it. I also point out that she has not been attacked by a tiger since she has been taking it. Should we also assume Echinacea has an anti-tiger effect?

This study also points out that there is a strong placebo effect with this plant (because of all the folklore around it). The people who thought they were taking it (but were not) reported less symptoms than those who were and did not know they were.

I have no experience with echinacea, but I do with Vit C. I used to have frequent bad colds and I noticed that my husband who seldom gets sick included a lot more OJ, oranges, lemons and tomato products in his daily diet. So I upped Vit C in my diet and started taking extra daily Vit C supplements with the result that for about ten years even working a high stress public contact job I hardly ever got a cold and if I did they were very mild.

But last year I slacked off and stopped getting the extra Vit C while my husband continued his usual high Vit C intake. I ended up being constantly sick with severe head and chest colds and bronchitis for several months last winter. My husband did not get sick one time last winter. We both get strenuous exercise in cold weather but he has even more contact with sick people than I do. I didn't think about a possible connection until I saw this Vit C study from last year that found high doses of Vit C can provide some benefit especially for people who do strenuous activities in cold weather:

"The failure of vitamin C supplementation to reduce the incidence of colds in the normal population indicates that routine mega-dose prophylaxis is not rationally justified for community use. But evidence shows that it could be justified in persons exposed to brief periods of severe physical exercise and/or cold environments. Also, the consistent and statistically significant small benefits on duration and severity for those using regular vitamin C prophylaxis indicates that vitamin C plays some role in respiratory defence mechanisms. The trials in which vitamin C was introduced at the onset of colds as therapy did not show any benefit in doses up to 4 grams daily, but one large trial reported equivocal benefit from an 8 gram therapeutic dose at onset of symptoms."

http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane/revabstr/AB000980.htm

My personal experience plus this study was enough to convince me to start getting lots of Vit C again.

I'm reading this book by this Dr. Batmanghelidg, "You're not sick, you're thirsty" and it's very informative, but he makes all these claims that are hard to believe, that water will cure just about every illness known, and even hints that drinking water in abundance can help cure autoimmune diseases - that doesn't explain studies demonstrating a genetic components to such diseases, however.

At the same time, the best cure for a hangover? Aspirin? Nope. Drugs? Nope. Herbals? Nope.

Water. A big, tall glass of room-temperature water. Nothing is as effective, IMHO.

I would also caution people against trying to self-diagnose and treat with herbals. Some things like bacteria can literally eat your body up while you are looking for the right herbal remedy. By the time you give up and go to the doctor and get a simple antibiotic, you're body has been permanently scarred/damaged because you thought herbals could provide all the answers. If there is something wrong with your health, go see the doctor.

It works really well for me and my kids......

For those who think "placebo" - well, when the kids were little - they were too little to even "know" so how could it be placebo effect?

Hubby and oldest daughter were very big skeptics - but then they realized that if we all started to get sick - mommy and boys didn't get as sick they did AND we got well sooner than hubby/daughter did. Every time.

It works.

FYI at first symptom

for adults: echinacea/golden seal (3 caps) and vitamin C (1000 mg) .... four times a day.

for kids - no goldenseal - there are kids versions of echinacea - and only 100-500 mgs of Vit C (depending on weight....)

UW researchers couldn't find evidence that it works for children.

Echinacea not effective in treating colds (in children):
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=4785

In regard to the placebo effect in children, did they not know that you were giving them something to treat their colds? How else would you explain why mommy or daddy kissing an "owie" works when it comes to decreasing perceived pain in children?

in our household, I had two people NOT taking the echinacea/vit c - and two people (including one small child) who were taking it - and every time - repeat - EVERY time - "colds/etc" would start to make their run through the family, I and my son were not as sick and got better faster than the two who were not taking it. This went on for about three years until hubby/daughter figured out mom wasn't just some old :hippie: .

The younger one didn't know what he was taking - for all he knew he was just having candy - chewable versions, doncha know?

Also with other kids in the preschool, my son didn't get as sick nor stay sick as long as the other children in the room. It became so obvious even the teachers asked what was our secret in his being the healthiest in the room.

2nd younger son came along - ditto results with him.

So - it works for me and mine. And now hubby and daughter are believers, too.

Maybe it is all in our heads. Who cares? We don't get as sick if at all.

In the article I read yesterday they acknowledged that the echinacea DOSAGE they used may have been too low and that FURTHER STUDY was needed to formulate a definitive conclusion.

On a personal note, I've found that mega doses of echinacea combined with Vitamin C has been extremely effective in treating a wide range of maladies for my family, friends and pets. Experience trumps the study's conclusions in my book.

However, the dosage was actually quite high compared to the usual recommendations made by many herbalists.

Besides, as noted above, a placebo that works is great for everyone. So if you've got one, hold on.

why my pets also respond favorably to herbs and remain in excellent health. My cat and dog don't know about placebos, only whether they're sick or not. If you could ask them, they'd tell you they're doing just fine with herbal care, thank you very much.

If not, I'll have to say the jury's still out on that claim.

and look where it got the patients who believed them- DEAD! "Double-blind, placebo controlled studies" don't mean squat any more...

Many study results fail to hold up
http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~2962242,00.html#

And just for good measure:

Allegations of Fake Research Hit New Highs
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=925476

And it's good when negative results are not hidden or skewed by personal interest.

At least with echinacea no one is hiding the repeated negative results of the studies (though some are trying to skew them for personal interest), so we know it doesn't work as some less-than-ethical purveyors have claimed -- as they laugh their way to the bank.

Funny thing about studies though, they do hold up much better than anecdotal evidence/"personal" experience.

and you, too, can enjoy a sudden heart attack or stroke, kidney failure, liver toxicity, cancer, fatal infections or any one of a wide range of side effects. I'll stick with herbs - widely tested and used throughout the world - and enjoy a long and healthy life. Someday, when you suffer from the ravages of your sancrosanct and precious poison pills, you may come to realize how Big Pharma sold you down the river with their phony studies, fake research and greed. Good luck!

I don't trust pharmaceuticals and avoid them as much as possible, too many side effects and too greedy of an industry.

:rofl:

Someone's a bit defensive, eh? Can't actually discuss the matter, so it's time to attack with overboard generalizations that don't match the real world?

By the way, I use herbs. The ones that actually are shown to work. I don't buy snake oil from anyone -- Big Pharma or Big Herbal. And don't pretend that everyone who sells herbs has your best interest at heart. The money may not be as big as it is with pharms, but its not small potatoes, and the hucksters in that world are many.

Luckily, there are ethical people involved in medicine across the spectrum. In fact, from my experience, they are the majority. Here's a good example of an ethical company that wants to know whether or not the stuff it sells actually works:

Echinacea does not help prevent colds says study
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=8225

"The study was funded by a German company which sells Echinacea. The company is called Madaus Aktiengesellschaft.

The dosage was too low to be effective and the full dose wasn't taken with regularity!

"For seven days, about 400 healthy college students got a tincture of echinacea (three times daily at 300 milligrams) or a fake preparation (placebo)"

"They note that more than 90% of the students used at least 80% of their medication."

"The report stops short of dismissing echinacea."

"Given the great variety of echinacea preparations, it will be difficult to provide conclusive evidence that echinacea has no role in the treatment of the common cold," write the researchers.

http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/109/109218.htm


While you have attempted to imply that you know what you're talking about, you stated in post #47 "the dosage was actually quite high compared to the usual recommendations made by many herbalists", but you couldn't be more WRONG!

"The dosages used in the study were equivalent to 900 milligrams of dried echinacea root per day, which is 330 percent lower than the three grams that is commonly used commercially and recommended by organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Canadian Natural Health Products Directorate. The study examined 399 subjects infected with rhinovirus – or what is known as the common cold – who received either placebo or one of three echinacea preparations (from the species Echinacea angustifolia) prior to becoming infected and after onset of symptoms."

“Because the dosage was so much lower than what is widely used and recommended, the only real conclusion one can draw from these findings is that additional studies need to be done using doses consistent with what people normally use and find effective,” said David Seckman, executive director and CEO of NNFA.

Seckman further pointed out that even one of the study's authors, Dr. Rudolf Bauer, agreed that the study should be repeated with other echinacea species, preparations and doses, according to The New York Times article on the findings.

http://www.npicenter.com/anm/templates/newsATemp.aspx?articleid=13119&zoneid=18

But Dr. Bauer, one co-author of the study, was among those saying the study should be repeated with other echinacea species, preparations and doses.

"I am always in favor of further studies," Dr. Bauer said. He himself takes echinacea, he said, and will continue to do so.

The American Botanical Council also called for more research. Mark Blumenthal, the group's founder and executive director, said in a press release that among other things, the herb should be tested at a higher dose.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/health/28cold.html?incamp=article_popular_1


"The World Health Organization is bullish on echinacea. The optimism comes from many human studies that support its use for a wide range of colds and infections, plus the 350 experimental studies over the years that show echinacea boosts several components of the immune system and has anti-inflammatory powers. This, along with the large following of devotees who spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the herb each year in the United States--with almost no side effects except for an occasional rash--should prompt some serious follow-up to the current study".

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050808/8healy.htm

Please don't expect me to believe that you are a proponent of herbal medicine or that you have any credibility whatsoever regarding this subject.

From a dubious source (a promoter of the "Big Herb" industry) and the MSM (pieces I had already read). Look into more objective sources about dosage, and you'll find reality, though it's clear that you don't want to see that study after study have shown no benefits. (Oh, I forgot. They're all flawed. LOL!)

I mean, you offered up something from an industry source that has no choice but to challenge and spin anything that might hurt sales for the industry, and yet you despise "Big Pharma" with every fiber of your being?

Hey, keep your snake oil. You don't have to give it up. Every study that shows no efficacy from Echinacea is going to be "flawed" in your view -- even one funded by a purveyor of echinacea. I guess that purveyor didn't ensure that the doses were at recommended levels? LOL!

Hey, again, placebos can be wonderful things -- in moderation.



---------

EXPLOITATION STORY
http://www.und.edu/org/soaringeagleprairie/2005/identifyingplants/prairieplantpages/purpleblue/echinacea/exploitation.html

Anyone making wild-ass false statements pulled from their butt without documentation ("The dosage was actually quite high compared to the usual recommendations made by many herbalists - HuckleB) has ZERO credibility and can't be taken seriously. No point wasting my time on disingenuous liars and frauds. You'd do well to recall the words of Abraham Lincoln....."It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

I actually looked at the study, and noted where the recommendations came from. Sorry, but it's you who has made stuff up all along, and you've offered an unethical source to back you up on top of it. Talk about "wild-ass false statements." Heck, you continue to push echinacea as a wonderful thing while bashing everything "big pharma" does blindly. Talk about "wild-ass false statements."

As for your last quote: Yeah, it's time for you to take it to heart. I have been honest and forthright, and I have not pulled bullshit personal attacks out of my ass, as someone else in this disscussion has done. You should have remained quiet and done your homework. You chose to scream and yell blindly rather than look at the actual evidence, and then you chose to scream "liars" in the faces of those who did their homework.

:eyes:

LOL!

:rofl:

That's really all anyone can do with the nonsense and hypocrisy you've offered.

Never did. Neither has vitamin C, for that matter. I still get my annual horrible miserasble cold. Sometimes two.

I have been able to escape colds for 3 out of the last 4 years using this, and I am a smoker. The one year I got the cold, I did not get to it in time, and forgot to take it when I got home. Now, I carry a few capsules with me at all times.
The trick is that you MUST take it at the first sign of symptoms. Taking it the next day will do you no good.
I take TWO capsules immediately upon noticing symptoms, then take 1 every 4-5 hours.
Face it, colds are not fun...and then it runs through the rest of your family.
In seniors, or those with other serious health issues...it can be worse.

It is an inexpensive experiment...one which might save you days of misery. Try it...then decide.

I haven't had a cold in so many years that I can't even remember the last one. :thumbsup:

Many people don't understand the nature of herbs and think one or two echinacea caps is all they need. Like you, I take continual dosages spaced throughout the day and it works every time! I've successfully thwarted a wide range of maladies with it - not just colds - and there is no doubt of its efficacy.

The detractors are just sad when they denigrate something they've never personally experienced or haven't used properly.

Not enough is said about what they did in this study. They probably dosed the way a lot of people do when using echinachea -- WRONGLY.

Echinachea is not for use during a cold that you have already caught.

Echinachea is for use when the cold is first starting to take hold. If you don't catch the cold early, there is no use continuing to take echinachea. It might even hurt.

This is a good thread. It highights the persistant ignorance on both pro and con sides of herbalism, and the rationality in the middle.

The simple truth is that A) there are conmen selling herbs, yes, but, B) there are conmen in the medical establishment, too, and plenty of skeptics who don't really know what the hell they are babbling about because they never bothered to research both sides of a given question -- they just sided against that "bad bad anecdotal evidence" on principle.

It may be the most rigorous, but, yes, studies must be repeated.
A sampling of recent findings...

Echinacea not effective in treating colds:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=4785

Echinacea does not help prevent colds says study (a study funded by a purveyor of echinacea):
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=8225

Echinacea may have no benefit in treating common cold:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newssearch.php?newsid=9746


I guess I'm just wondering why "Big Pharma" is considered unethical, but those who would continue to push this treatment and make money off it get a pass. Something in that equation doesn't add up.

with a long history that pre-dates the common cold in North America. It was valued by the Lakota and other "Plains" Indians long before Europeans introduced the cold here.

Perhaps the wonderful thing is that we all have the right to choose if we want to use this, or buy an over-the-counter medicine, or even ask a doctor for a prescription. There is really no need for a quarrel unless the government, looking out for the benefit of the industries that advertise a cure for every imagined illness, attempt to control the purple coneflower.

It seems that, despite what any study -- no matter how "scientific" or sincere -- says, enough people have had what they believe are positive results from using echinecea, it is unlikely that the popularity of the plant will decrease.

this is a good example of mass confusion

if you read any good book on herbs, echniacaea is for general immune system boosting. it is supposed to help PREVENT colds before you get them, NOT make them go away once you have them!!!

for that, try golden seal. it works.