In vitro virucidal activity of Echinaforce®, an Echinacea purpurea preparation, against coronaviruses, including common cold coronavirus 229E and SARS-CoV-2

[Maestro]

In vitro virucidal activity of Echinaforce®, an Echinacea purpurea preparation, against coronaviruses, including common cold coronavirus 229E and SARS-CoV-2

Published: 09 September 2020

 

Coronaviruses (CoVs) were long thought to only cause mild respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms in humans but outbreaks of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS)-CoV, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)-CoV-1, and the recently identified SARS-CoV-2 have cemented their zoonotic potential and their capacity to cause serious morbidity and mortality, with case fatality rates ranging from 4 to 35%. Currently, no specific prophylaxis or treatment is available for CoV infections. Therefore we investigated the virucidal and antiviral potential of Echinacea purpurea (Echinaforce®) against human coronavirus (HCoV) 229E, highly pathogenic MERS- and SARS-CoVs, as well as the newly identified SARS-CoV-2, in vitro.

 

Read full report: https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-020-01401-2

 

[polpott]

I think I'll stick to mainlining Dettol.

[Antonymous]

Very interesting study with promising conclusions.

 

The surprising thing is that such studies get airtime at all in the face of overwhelming bias (and consequent censorship of other views) towards the prevailing narrative that vaccines are the only hope.

 

I trust that more of such findings will emerge before the world is forced into mandatory vaccination of an insufficiently tested serums.

 

And I hope to see more attention placed on remedies that have been suggested but then falsely reported in the media and ridiculed. For example did you see that there's a new, very encouraging report based on an analysis of all studies already conducted that shows that hydroxychloroquine is consistently effective against Covid-19? Big surprise huh.

 

You can watch this short Sky News Aus news report on it here before giving a knee jerk reaction:
 

https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6189052525001

 

"Sky News host Rowan Dean says the jury is in and says categorically “Hydroxychloroquine saves lives” and Australians must be given access to the drug. Mr Dean said Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly, along with his deputy Nick Coatsworth and Labor frontbencher Chris Bowen “stand condemned” for their continuous rejections of the drug. Mr Dean said “the jury says very clearly, if you look at all the studies … Hydroxychloroquine is consistently effective against COVID-19 when used early and in the right combination with other drugs."

[geriatrickid]

16 hours ago, Antonymous said:

Very interesting study with promising conclusions.

 

The surprising thing is that such studies get airtime at all in the face of overwhelming bias (and consequent censorship of other views) towards the prevailing narrative that vaccines are the only hope.

 

I trust that more of such findings will emerge before the world is forced into mandatory vaccination of an insufficiently tested serums.

 

And I hope to see more attention placed on remedies that have been suggested but then falsely reported in the media and ridiculed. For example did you see that there's a new, very encouraging report based on an analysis of all studies already conducted that shows that hydroxychloroquine is consistently effective against Covid-19? Big surprise huh.

 

You can watch this short Sky News Aus news report on it here before giving a knee jerk reaction:
 

https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6189052525001

 

"Sky News host Rowan Dean says the jury is in and says categorically “Hydroxychloroquine saves lives” and Australians must be given access to the drug. Mr Dean said Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly, along with his deputy Nick Coatsworth and Labor frontbencher Chris Bowen “stand condemned” for their continuous rejections of the drug. Mr Dean said “the jury says very clearly, if you look at all the studies … Hydroxychloroquine is consistently effective against COVID-19 when used early and in the right combination with other drugs."

 

 In one statement  you are critical of vaccines and  "insufficiently tested serums",  but then you offer your support for an unproven commercial product. The vaccines you dismiss will undergo rigorous clinical trials and research using  proven scientific  methods and yet here you want the world to embrace one company's product.

 

You claim the media  does not provide access to the studies that matter. Well, how about reading the citations provided in the article? if you did you would see that they really do not offer definitive evidence.

 

Your double standard is offensive to anyone with common sense. The  investigation is sponsored by the product manufacturer and has manufacturer participation.  If a pharmaceutical manufacturer did this, you would probably be screaming of a big pharma conspiracy. Apparently it is ok if done by a Swiss multinational because it calls itself a "health products"  company.

 

There is a reason  why the study is  focused on one company's product and not the active ingredient of the plant product itself. 

- Echinaforce was initially promoted as means to protect against the common cold. Unfortunately, there wasn't really any clinical evidence to support the claim. Oh sure, there are a handful of papers that suggest that it helps, but a handful means little. The results  are not repeated or proven multiple times.  Maybe it can help. If so, it would require years of study. 

 

-You are dismissive of vaccines which have thousands of supportive studies, but you want  people to accept a product based upon a manufacturer's promotion? Seriously????

 

- What's changed since the last meta review of 2013? At that time, only 1 of 7 studies showed a reduction in duration of infection  of upper respiratory tract infections when echinacea was used. One study and it is accepted as a cure.

 

- There are no significant studies that support the use of echinacea for the prevention of upper respiratory tract infections. However, there are 4 studies  (cited in this article) that suggest that echinacea can reduce by 10% to 20% the risk for recurrent respiratory infections. 

 

- Yes the product shows benefits in a lab setting. So too does bleach and UV light . 

 

IMO, all that we have here is a company trying to repurpose one of its product to take advantage of the current Covid19 crisis. This nonsense has been circulating since  March.  I am certain there will be hundreds of gullible fools who will rush out to purchase the product in hopes of  having a miracle prevention or a cure.

 

Not going to happen.

 

[Antonymous]

7 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

offer your support for an unproven commercial product.

No GK, I did not offer my support to an unproven product. What I said was:

 

"Very interesting study with promising conclusions" and I stand firmly by that statement. It is up to all of us to read and research preventatives (such as boosting our immune system) and possible remedies (several of which may be taken together). I totally agree with one the UK’s most eminent jurists, Lord Sumption, former justice of the Supreme Court, who said in a BBC radio 4 interview:

"I am not a scientist, but it is the right and duty of every citizen to look and see what the scientists have said and to analyse it for themselves and to draw common sense conclusions. We are all perfectly capable of doing that and there’s no particular reason why the scientific nature of the problem should mean that we have to resign our liberty into the hands of scientists. We all have critical faculties and it is rather important in a moment of national panic that we should maintain them."

 

There is a world of difference between my actual statement and your interpretation of it. Maybe you are blinded by your support for vaccinations over other means of preventing infection, curing infection and mitigating against severe effects of infection, about which there have been many studies and reports from medical practitioners including virologists and emergency doctors on the frontline. I want to be able to read more about these alternatives and believe that ultimately they may prove to be more effective than vaccinations, none of which have been proven effective to date for Covid-19.

 

I see that you didn't comment on the recent hydroxychloroquine report. That's another interesting one with promising conclusions.

[geriatrickid]

I did not comment on the hydroxychloroquine report because there is  nothing there. Two men screaming about something they do not understand is not a substitute for an actual study. Did you read the  "study"? 

 

It was authored by an orthopedic surgeon who now has a stem cell treatment in "regeneration" sideline. Someone who is trained in clinical medical research, i.e.  has a Doctorate or a Masters of Clinical Research Science will understand that before conclusions can be made on the benefits of a drug,  the underlying research must be reviewed. I don't doubt for a minute that the gentleman is a qualified orthopedic surgeon or that he is well educated, but wow, if I had done this type of report, my professors would have torn me apart and left my carcass to rot in front of the Dean's office as a warning to all who  engaged in sloppy literature review.

 

The promoted article was a review of existing papers and reports, some of which were for discussion purposes, others which were peer reviewed.  Not mentioned is that the clinical trials set up to specifically examine the use of the drug as a treatment included large numbers of patients and were exhaustive in their screening of patients, and follow up. These were studies such as the non biased double blind studies. All of these studies had NEGATIVE or no benefit conclusions. The smaller studies not subject to the more rigorous controls and oversight were more likely to report "positive" results. If a patient is not screened for Covid19 and is treated with the drug solely on the  basis of potential exposure, the results will be biased to a positive outcome because there is a strong likelihood that the patient may not have been infected to start with. It also makes a difference if patients are asymptomatic at the start of the  study. You will find that patients without symptoms were more likely to report positive outcomes. 

 

Yes a review of papers can show certain results. It is when you get into the details that you see that the patient screenings and type of patients  varied differently. There were 32 in hospital studies. Of the 32, the study author states 14 reported "good" results, 15 reported no improvement and 3 reported worse results. Well, what the author does not state is what the state of those the patients in the 14 studies was and how many patients were involved. His interpretation of "good' is subjective. Read the underlying papers and you will see why there were likely to be "positive" results.

 

There is absolutely no benefit to anyone to discourage the use of the drug. No one gains or benefits.  And yet, we have its promoters cling to this as if it is a magical cure all and claim conspiracy when it is pointed out that multiple studies show that it is ineffective. If the drug  had benefit it would be in wide use. 

 

In contrast, Dexamethasone, a glucoocorticoid, was found to offer significant benefit to some patients. It is a readily available and low cost drug. None of the promoters of hydroxychloroquine acknowledge this. If there was a conspiracy to deny treatments, why then is Dexamethasone the go to product now? Why is one low cost generic favoured over another?

 

All drugs have the potential for adverse reactions and hydroxychoroquine has its own set of  hazards, especially with patients with diagnosed and undiagnosed cardiac health issues. The drug presents serious  risk of harm to too many people if administered as some want.