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

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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles 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.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Skepticism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

This edit seems a bit biased. Am I wrong? Haroos55 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What edit? Please be more specific. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The intro paragraph is a summary of the key points and themes of the rest of the article. The specific content appears to be multiply-cited in the article. DMacks (talk)

Georg Christoph Lichtenberg's quote "When a book and a head collide and there is a hollow sound, is it always from the book?" is still a good question when you replace "book" by "Wikipedia article". When your opinion and a Wikipedia article disagree, does it mean that the Wikipedia article is biased? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

There is no basis for saying "fraudulently", and I say that as one who is highly sceptical of any claim to efficacy here. The word does no justice to the rest of the article. —BillC ^talk 10:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... and yet charging money for something that doesn't work is fraudulent. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes - if the person who does that knows that it does not work.

But that is original research unless we have a source explicitly saying so. I think that is what people mean. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have refs stating the the product is not medically effective. We do not have refs stating that the manufacturer is acting fraudulently. Per above I believe this is original research without a ref. --Cornellier (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed “fraudulently” from lead. --Cornellier (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There should at least be a medical warning. 89.200.15.1 (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The very first sentence says "it does not provide any benefit beyond that of sugar pills.". DMacks (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Content in the WP:LEAD doesn't normally need citations because it is based on content in the body of the article where the references are located. Also, the link to the Homeopathy article will lead to more facts and sources.

What part is biased or non-factual? -- Valjean (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Also, that thing is pure sugar, and calling its uselessness "opinion" is ridiculous. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

2A0A:EF40:2B:FA01:2D38:2FE2:C3D4:26BD (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Liu1126 (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don’t know who wrote this but, I’ve used oscillococcinum for years, and it does help. You have to start taking it, as soon as you start to feel symptoms. It doesn’t help a whole lot if you wait for full blown symptoms. Even though it does still help. 71.208.94.159 (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any scientific studies to back that claim up? We don't put anecdotes in Wikipedia articles. —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you read up on the placebo effect while you're here. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 21:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should read the studies in the Lancet, not to mention examining the survival rates of people who were treated homeopathically during the 1918 flu epidemic compared to those who were not. Just because western medicine doesn’t understand how homeopathic medicines work doesn’t mean they don’t work. Acupuncture is in the same category. ~2025-39914-71 (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Context matters. In 1918 we didn't have antibiotics or most of the vaccines we have today. It was still common for medical doctors, based on ignorance and old traditions, to use treatment methods and potions that were dangerous. Mercury and heroin were treatments. A method that has no effect, like homeopathy was often better than mainstream medicine. That's why homeopathy seemed to be better. It often was because it substituted for some dangerous method! That is no longer the case.

We do understand how homeopathy works. The placebo effect is pretty well understood, so it is used all the time in experiments for the control group. In fact, homeopathic potions would usually make perfect placebos. Those who claim that homeopathy has real physiological effects, not just psychological ones, have yet to prove their claims. When they provide them, then we'll reclassify homeopathy and also change our article here. Until then, it's just diluted bullshit. Perfectly safe to drink and impossible to overdose on. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:52, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite these "studies in the Lancet" if you want them to be considered here. Brunton (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, the 1918 flu epidemic was probably the only time in "the modern era" when Homeopaths did something worthwhile in terms of healthcare. If only the silly buggers understood what they did, perhaps (fat chance) we wouldn't be here today trying to negate their harms. - Walter Ego 08:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of studies on Google Scholar, such as this one from a Russian journal that says, 'patients in the experimental group demonstrated more rapid relief of individual intoxication and catarrhal symptoms than controls. On day 4, virus elimination was achieved in 91.4% of children from the experimental group and 60% of children from the control group (р< 0.05). Patients receiving Oscillococcinum® developed complications 1.5 times less frequently than controls (24.3% us 36.7%). Children from the control group required longer in-patient treatment than those from the control group (7.2±1.6 days us 5.4±1.1 days; p< 0.05). Oscillococcinum® was well tolerated and caused no adverse reactions.' I am firmly in the placebo camp, but how can editors assess what to include if there are studies that conclude it does work versus others that say it doesn't? 11WB (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDRS is the way. It places substantial value on review articles because they are expert evaluations of multiple studies and little value on individual published studies themselves because we as WP editors are not able to evaluate them ourselves. DMacks (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is homeopathy, that much can't be disputed. However studies, even specific ones like the one I linked above, could have one line in the article that says something like 'a study found that in a small group of adolescent patients with an respiratory tract infection or influenza, symptoms developed 1.5 times less frequently than those who did not take the medication.' 11WB (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the WP:MEDRS link provided above? if so, I suggest that you read it again. And when you're done, also WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG. --McSly (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per MEDRS, we don't use small primary studies to rebut the results of large systematic reviews. Brunton (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The study I linked fails to mention it's a placebo. I'm familiar with MEDRS, there are studies that have shown it works as a placebo and others that demonstrate it doesn't work at all. The Wikipedia article only mentions the placebo effect in passing. I don't plan on editing the article as I'm unwell myself at the moment. 11WB (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are studies that fail to show it performing better than placebo. That doesn't mean that "it works as a placebo". It means that any apparent efficacy is down to nonspecific effects. Brunton (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had a read through the archives of this talk page, this editor criticised the article for only providing one point of view. That discussion had unnecessary incivility, which is a shame. This source from the European Journal of Internal Medicine said that the patients positivity in homeopathy may itself promote a placebo effect. Though it warns about bioethical issues if adopted by medical professionals. There are other reliable studies that could be included, particularly on the subject of placebo. The OP basically wanted to include that it does work (even outside of a placebo), which it obviously doesn't. 11WB (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a letter to the editor, not a study. Brunton (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction. I misspoke, my apologies. I've corrected my previous comment. The author in question, Salvatore Chirumbolo, is a subject matter expert, so I believe the letter is still reliable. Regardless, the Wikipedia article is fine it its current form and doesn't need much changing. The information is correct and anything else would probably constitute undue weight. 11WB (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chirumbolo is a biologist and biochemist, not a medical scientist and subject matter expert. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And it doesn't comply with MEDRS in any case. Brunton (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]