|
Oscillococcinum is one of the common names used for a remedy that
is widely used for prevention and relieving the flu in Europe,
particularly in France. Oscillococcinum, the number one flu medicine
of France, is becoming increasingly popular in the United States.
This homeopathic medicine has been shown in clinical studies to
decrease the duration and intensity of flu symptoms. Because of its
safety, Oscillo is a good first line of defense for the
flu.
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.
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-Alps region of
France during the influenza epidemic of January-February
1987.
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 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%); they also judged the active treatment more efficacious than
placebo (61% v 49%).
|
