Talk:Echinacea
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
I have updated this page to reflect the results of a recent study regarding the effectiveness of Echinacea in combating colds. I am not sure how I feel about the wording - please feel free to edit the updated paragraph in a way that conforms more with the article itself. Jimbinford
From the page: However, many scientific studies have documented the chemistry, pharmacology, and clinical applications of echinacea. It has consistently shown that it stimulates phagocytosis (encouraging white blood cells and lymphocytes to attack invading organisms).
- Seems to be coming from one of the web sites (essentially a commercial site) which provides no citations for the assertions, and therfore correct to delete - Marshman 04:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
There are already some references which indicate that echinacea doesn't do anything for illness, but none of the "many scientific studies". It would be good to see some of those.
Contents |
[edit] SuperOrder Echinacea
Isn't Echinacea also a kind of sea urchin ? Jeff Knaggs 12:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Good catch. Not a "type" of sea urchin, but a taxon: Superorder Echinacea [1] - Marshman 19:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] http://www.emedicinal.com/herbs/echinacea.php
http://www.emedicinal.com/ seems to be a moderate quack medicine site. They claim that herbs can cure diseases, though they do give cautions and have a disclaimer stating that herbs can be dangerous and ineffective.
The wikipedia article seems to say that this plant is actually effective. I believe that the UC Berkeley Wellness Letter said in a previous issue said it did not work -- could someone check this?
24.210.73.62 23:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Identity of "Echinacea paradoxa" in image
The image of "Echinacea paradoxa" looks a lot more like a Rudbeckia than an Echinacea. Compare: http://www.cas.vanderbilt.edu/bioimages/species/frame/ecpa2.htm
to http://www.cas.vanderbilt.edu/bioimages/species/frame/ruhi2.htm and http://www.cas.vanderbilt.edu/bioimages/species/frame/rutr2.htm
Comments? Steve Baskauf 10:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
MadBadger 05:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Total agreement here. Echinacea paradoxa typically has long narrow reflexed ray florets ('petals'). The image is probably a cultivar of Rudbeckia hirta.
MadBadger 03:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC) I'll be able to add an image of a real Echinacea paradoxa soon.
[edit] added university of maryland review of studies
I added a review of studies conducted by the University of Maryland. I'm about to add the source. This is my first edit, so I apologize if I did something wrong. Feel free to review the source and change wording if anyone feels my words are not an accurate representation.--Jonmedeiros 17:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Suggested split of Echinacea article
MadBadger 02:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC) The article as it stands seems an awkward combination of the botanical/horticultural and the herbal/medicinal aspects, both getting less complete treatment than they deserve. Is there any interest in working on a split? There would be some overlap, but the articles could be more useful and to-the-point for readers if ornamental and herbal medicine uses of Echinacea were treated separately. My interest and expertise would be on the ornamental side, especially with the development of the new range of hybrids, and I would be able to supply quite a few images as the summer progresses.
Anyone have a comment or idea?
[edit] More edits
I've just been going through footnoting, and clarifying the section on medical studies of Echinacea. Motmot 21:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association
The abovementioned scientific paper have used the title image here in its latest issue: Echinacea purpurea: http://www.tidsskriftet.no/pls/lts/pa_lt.visSeksjon?vp_SEKS_ID=1434831
Congrats to the photographer!
--62.107.74.231 17:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This article is not NPOV
This article has some definite POV issues. Claims need to be sourced and validated, and this topic should be treated scientifically and dispassionately. Andre (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
