Talk:Echinacea

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)

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, to a greater extend than in 1910. In the 19th century German and American studies determined an anti-hyaluronidase activity of ech. extracts, which was somewhat significant of a discovery at the time with now archaic seeming methods (lit.ref. later on). E. angustifolia/pallida was initially described for medical use but E. purpurea is now more often used in herbal remedies because roots and aerial parts can be utilized. 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 implications for human health, or at least feed an industry worth 100's of millions of USD every year, with no significant side effects. It is often given to children, assuming there are less side effects than in OTC-drug products. (Osterluzei (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC))

Common Cold Evidence

The article states "There is no conclusive evidence showing that echinacea products treat or prevent the common cold". However one of the cite references [14], for the Mayo clinic says that there is, "Good scientific evidence for this use". The update to date URL for this is http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/echinacea/evidence/hrb-20059246 (the previous reference link now goes to a page about safety, rather then effectiveness). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.189.75.94 (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Reading the Mayo page, it seems to be in alignment with what we say. The "good evidence" does not show echinacea is of clear benefit. Alexbrn (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is the Lancet article [11] that says it reduces risk of getting a cold and shortens the duration a "study of low quality" (as implied by the article text)? Worldbeater2002 (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Not even sure why we're citing these old articles; have trimmed. Alexbrn (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

This article needs improvement

There needs to be at minimum a mention of the reason why it's important to humans and its widespread usage as a result. The History subsection is buried at the bottom of the article in direct contrast with Wikipedia standards. It would also be "nice" to have at least 1 cited mention of the positive and high quality studies on immune-stimulating affects, which, yes, are real and not based on bias or bad study practice. I realize there has been excessive abuse in this article over the years but it doesn't mean we need to be repressing knowledge and losing quality as a result of moderating.

Here are some articles, for example, that get missed in so-called "meta analyses": Plant (Echinacea purpurea) Enhances Systemic Immune Response During a Common Cold Enhancement of Innate and Adaptive Immune Functions by Multiple Echinacea Species Mbman8 (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Those references are the beginning stages of lab research and are insufficient evidence to change the article's presentation that echinacea has no proven immune effects. The articles you cite are "missed" from reviews and meta-analyses because they are isolated, primary findings, not confirmed through the process of evidence building, including in humans. Review WP:MEDREV for further background. --Zefr (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

First sentence

Originally the first sentence said

"Echinacea /ˌɛkɪˈneɪʃiə/[1] is a genus, or group of herbaceous flowering plants in the daisy family."

IMO we should keep the first sentence simple. I would propose

"Echinacea is a flowering plants in the daisy family without a persistent woody stem above ground."

We can leave out group and genus. Discussion of how it is a genus can go lower in the lead. That the daisy family is technically known as "Asteraceae" should also go lower IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)