Jump to content

Talk:Echinacea: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
archive
No edit summary
Line 12: Line 12:


Echinacea was very popular for 10 years around 1910, per https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=echinacea&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=0&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cechinacea%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cechinacea%3B%2Cc1 --[[User:StudentDeskUser|StudentDeskUser]] ([[User talk:StudentDeskUser|talk]]) 01:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Echinacea was very popular for 10 years around 1910, per https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=echinacea&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=0&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cechinacea%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cechinacea%3B%2Cc1 --[[User:StudentDeskUser|StudentDeskUser]] ([[User talk:StudentDeskUser|talk]]) 01:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

== Significant cultivation areas and wide use ==
E. purpurea and also E. angustifolia are still extensively cultivated in the US and Europe for their purported medicinal effects. E. angustifolia/pallida was initially described for medical use but other species such as E. purpurea are now more often used in herbal remedies. Actually meta-studies for echinacea don't even look so bad. In many of them some effect is noted. They clearly contain biologically-active substances that might have implication in human health, or at least feed an industry worth 100's of millions of USD every year, with no significant side effects. ([[User:Osterluzei|Osterluzei]] ([[User talk:Osterluzei|talk]]) 17:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC))

Revision as of 17:34, 21 January 2016

Template:Findnotice


Tantalizing Ngram history

Echinacea was very popular for 10 years around 1910, per https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=echinacea&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=0&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cechinacea%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cechinacea%3B%2Cc1 --StudentDeskUser (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Significant cultivation areas and wide use

E. purpurea and also E. angustifolia are still extensively cultivated in the US and Europe for their purported medicinal effects. E. angustifolia/pallida was initially described for medical use but other species such as E. purpurea are now more often used in herbal remedies. Actually meta-studies for echinacea don't even look so bad. In many of them some effect is noted. They clearly contain biologically-active substances that might have implication in human health, or at least feed an industry worth 100's of millions of USD every year, with no significant side effects. (Osterluzei (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]