Efficacy of elderberry extract for treatment of influenza a and B virus (2004) | Hacker News Reader

Efficacy of elderberry extract for treatment of influenza a and B virus (2004)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

39 pointsSQL221948 comments

"Elderberry Supplementation Reduces Cold Duration and Symptoms in Air-Travellers: A Randomized, Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4848651/

These things are always underresearched, but there's more evidence than just this. For example:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11399518/

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ethan_Basch/publication...

There's an old joke:

Q: Does chicken soup actually help people recover from colds more quickly?

A: It can't hoit! [ed: "hoit" = the word "hurt" with a strong regional/cultural accent applied. For some reason it's part of the joke.]

I wonder if it's sensible to apply similar reasoning to traditional remedies such as elderberries, when (a) we have at weak evidence supporting their efficacy, and (b) no reason to think they're harmful.

> ed: "hoit" = the word "hurt" with a strong regional/cultural accent applied. For some reason it's part of the joke.]

That's a Jewish joke and affect :)

The official guidance regarding Vit C supplements is just that; they’re cheap and harmless, so why not?

One of the possible contributing factors to the 1918 influence death rate was the use of aspirin to treat patients. It was put under the “can’t hurt” bucket.

While something harmless like a food product seems like a harmless enough recommendation, remember aspirin is a chemical equivalent to white willow bark tea.

Edit: a sample source for increased influence mortality with salicylate therapy

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/49/9/1405/301441

I don’t think anyone with a medical degree thinks of aspirin as harmless. If you have any issues with bleeding, it can kill you. Vit C is different, but let me be clear that I’m not endorsing it. AFAIK there is no known toxicity related to Vit C, it’s ubiquitous in most modern diets, and has no secondary effects such as blood thinning.

Aspirin is often thought of as harmless by some, but it’s a powerful drug with numerous effects. Vit C is just ascorbic acid.

I secretly hope your first name is [Eu]Gene.

I can anecdotally vouch for this. A friend told me about elderberry a few years ago when I told him I had flu symptoms. I went to Whole Foods around 7pm and bought the extract. Took a double dose with Vit C and D and tons of water every 4-6 hours. One ibuprofen as needed to keep my temperature down. Woke up the next day around noon and the flu was gone. Been using it ever since.

Did it work the next time around as well? I am curious to know.

Every time I get achy and feverish I hit it hard and the symptoms go away in 24 hours or so. Seems to be working.

The study is from 2004. If the claims are as described i.e. symptom relief 4 days earlier. This would be better efficacy than tamiflu.

The duration of cough and days missed from work are not significantly different in the two groups. The number that is improved with elderberry is a self assessment score for a number of factors about how the patient feels. Their congestion and mucus production got under control faster.

It’s worth mentioning that the study was commissioned by the company selling the elderberry infused foods and syrups more than 10 years ago and notes in its abstract that it needs to be replicated.

Found a PDF at: http://www.sambucol.co.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/sambucol...

> This would be better efficacy than tamiflu.

The company that makes Tamiflu faked the research on its efficacy, so it's not clear that in provides any benefit at all.

Not a drug so not a lot of money to be made long term. I’m really surprised this even got funding to be studied. Spend money marketing something that isn’t unique or patentable is usually a loosing game. For example if you pitched this on shark tank you’d have no investors because it’s not defendable.

Finding a good shark tank pitch is not the purpose of academic research.

Most research is funded by companies wanting to make money in the long run. This is the point I was trying to get across; thanks for letting me clarify this point :)

Has it been replicated?

Maybe Monty Python was on to some lost knowledge with their "your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries"?

Or not...

So, did she spread the plague to everyone but your father?

1. single study

2. from 2004

3. small sample size (60 patients)

4. flu symptoms self-reported by patients

5. no proposed mechanism of action. how exactly does elderberry cure the flu?

and, oh yeah...

6. most published medical research findings are false https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

7. everyone please just get the flu vaccine!

> everyone please just get the flu vaccine!

There is evidence that the flu vaccine may increase your risk of dying from the flu in future years. I still got it this year, but it's also not at all clear that spending twenty bucks to keep a thing of elderberry extract in the house is a worse option.

>There is evidence that the flu vaccine may increase your risk of dying from the flu in future years

A large meta-analysis shows the opposite:

http://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/709081/efficacy-influ...

>it's also not at all clear that spending twenty bucks to keep a thing of elderberry extract in the house is a worse option.

If you believe a small single study over a large meta-analysis...

I don't have access to the full text, but this certainly isn't mentioned in the abstract.

The study I posted shows there is a reduced risk of death from vaccination in the current year. I couldn't find anything about risk of death in future. Is that really a problem if you take the vaccine every year? Do you have a reference?

[citation needed]

There is no mechanisms of action, unlike flu shots.

This link needs a [2004] tag.

Without a marked date, it incorrectly suggests that this is new research. (Considering that this is hacker news.)

OK, we added the year above.

I knew someone who took the vaccine, got the flu from it, then died. No thanks, I'll stick to elderberry and take my chances.

Current flu vaccine is only 10-30% effective.. No thanks.

You are spreading FUD that's harmful to public health. The CDC has replied to the 10% figure circulating in the media: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season/flu-season-2017-2018.ht...

The 2018 flu season is ongoing. How could there be any conclusive research about vaccine effectiveness in the 2018 flu season when we're right in the middle of it?

The CDC is unequivocal about getting vaccinated.

  Everyone 6 months of age and older should get a flu vaccine every season.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/consumer/vaccinations.htm

10% number is from Australia. USA is not the only country in the world, you know that right?

"CDC estimates that influenza has resulted in between 9.2 million and 35.6 million illnesses, between 140,000 and 710,000 hospitalizations and between 12,000 and 56,000 deaths annually since 2010." [0]

Even if it was only 5% effective, wide-scale vaccination would make a large difference.

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/burden.htm

This year. You really should go volunteer at a hospital before you decide your inaction hasn't killed a baby or senior.

Yeah yeah I'm a baby and old people killer. Anything else you would like to add?

10-30% is significant. What exactly are you saying isn't worth it?

What I'm saying is that there really is a little proof that the vaccine this year is even working. Would any other drug ESTIMATED to be only 10% effective be approved by the FDA?

Considering the impact vs risk, yes. Definitely. Source: I'm running one of the clinical labs that's flogging the machines to run the tests for all the sick people. I see the data before the providers do, and have MPHs and epidemiologists tracking it.

If you were dying and the doctor suggested a treatment with 10-30% success rate, would you just give up and shout yourself in the head?

Apples to oranges. Try again.

it's not a vaccine, is it?

So many ways this could have gone wrong. The taste; the look; the mouth feel could have given it away. People know they are using a placebo; they'll report differently.

I'm imagining that elderberry extract is a commonly-used Norway thing, so the test subjects would have been set up perfectly to identify the placebo?

According to the study:

To make the study blind, the placebo syrup had an identical appearance and taste and was supplied in the same type of bottles. The placebo syrup did not contain the elderberry extract, but was otherwise identical. Both syrups were produced and supplied by Razei Bar Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel).

Yeah yeah. And if you've been taking it all your life, that's all whistling in the wind. No way is anything with flavor 'identical'.

Placebo's work even when people know they are taking one.[1]

[1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/placebo-can-work-even-kn...

But traditional cures are believed more. If grandmother said it worked, then if you're taking a placebo it can't possibly work, not as well anyway. Self-reporting sucks.

A more believable study would find some way to objectively measure symptoms.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com