Homestead mailing list

["Toni Hawryluk" <tonihawr AT msn.com>]

Lisa offered :
> Oscillo (short for Oscillococcinum) is a homeopathic remedy by Boiron that 
> you take upon the first sign of coming down with the flu.  As meds go, this 
> is a fairly inexpensive solution.  A six-pack vial will treat two people 
> and costs $16-$18.  Most drugstores or pharmacies now carry Oscillo.  
> (snip)  http://www.oscillo.com/<http://www.oscillo.com/>

http://homeoinfo.com/06_materia_medica/other/oscillococcinum.php<http://homeoinfo.com/06_materia_medica/other/oscillococcinum.php>
Oscillococcinum is an anomaly in the homeopathic materia medica because it is 
one of the relatively few proprietary preparations. The name is registered by 
Boiron. 

Scarcely known to the English-speaking world, it is one of the most widely 
used and popular homeopathic medicines in France. But even in France it is 
anomalous. It is the only homeopathic medicine authorized for routine 
production in France in a dilution above the 30c, and by the Korsakovian 
method. 

All other homeopathic medicines in France are prepared by the Hahnemannian 
method, in potencies not exceeding 30c, although higher dilutions may be 
prepared on a named patient basis. The Korsakovian dilution method involves 
repeated incomplete emptying and refilling of a single piece of glassware, 
whereas the Hahnemannian demands fresh glassware for each dilution.

One medical review<http://www.update-software.com/abstracts/ab001957.htm> has 
only been able to say that the results look promising without giving a 
recommendation to use it.

History
Oscillococcinum is a 200c potency of an autolysate of Barbary duck heart and 
liver. It was introduced in the 1930's by Dr Joseph Roy, who believed that it 
contained a bacterium, Oscillococcus, which caused influenza. We now know 
that this rationale was spurious, although it is not the first or last 
instance of an effective medicine being introduced on the basis of a theory 
subsequently shown to be incorrect. In a further twist, Roy's theory has been 
shown to be much closer to the mark than once supposed. Wild fowl have been 
shown to be a major reservoir of human influenza viruses.

Certainly Oscillococcinum is popular with the French public, and it was this 
popularity which made the legislature feel constrained to make it a special 
case when regulating the production of homoeopathic medicines. 

Study
The popular reputation of Oscillococcinum has now been vindicated by a large 
scale, double-blind, placebo controlled trial published in the British 
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 487 patients were recruited by 149 general 
practitioners (mostly non-homoeopaths) in the Rhone-Alpes region of France 
during the influenza epidemic of January-February 1987. 

Entry criteria were: rectal temperature of 38oC or above, and at least two of 
the following symptoms: headache, stiffness, lumbar or articular pain and 
shivers. The first manifestations had to have occurred less than 24 hours 
before entry. Patients with immune deficiency, local infection, or who had 
been immunized against influenza were excluded. 

Diagnosis was purely clinical, although the A H1N1 influenza virus was 
subsequently identified as being responsible for the epidemic. Patients were 
randomly assigned to active Oscillococcinum (237 patients) or identical 
placebo (241 patients), 5 doses at 12 hour intervals. Recovery was defined as 
temperature less than 37.5oC, with complete resolution of the 5 cardinal 
symptoms.

Results
After 48 hours, 17% of the active treatment group had fully recovered, 
compared to 10% of the placebo group. This difference was statistically 
significant (p=0.03, X2 test). Further analysis showed that the effect of 
Oscillococcinum peaked at 36 hours, when 40% of recoveries were attributable 
to the treatment. It was most effective in younger patients - 68% of 
recoveries within 48 hours in the under-30's were due to treatment; and when 
the illness was relatively mild - 52% of the recoveries from illnesses 
classified mild or moderate were due to treatment. Patients on active 
treatment used significantly less other treatment for pain and fever (50% v 
41%, p=0.04), they also judged the active treatment more efficacious than 
placebo (61% v 49% p=0.02). 

The Lancet commented favorably on the trial, remarking that the authors were 
restrained in their discussion, and describing the difference between placebo 
and active treatment as 'respectable'. The Lancet's report was 
'quadruple-blind' mentioning only at the very end that the treatment was 
homoeopathic. 

References
Ferley JP, Zmirou D, D'Adhemar D, Balducci F. A controlled evaluation of a 
homoeopathic preparation in influenza-like syndromes. Br J Clin Pharmac 
(1989) 27, 329-335.