Daily Mail NOT a good source on anything, as even if they are correct it’s only because of the Broken Clock effect.
MUCH better source for anything to do with supplements is always examine.com, which shows and analyses all the papers it can find on a topic, and includes effect size, reliability of data, and who funds the studies.
Overall, echinacea appears to be somewhat effective for fighting off sickness and accelerating the rate of recovery in sickness but both of these claims are highly variable. There are trials suggesting remarkable recovery rates, and there are trials suggesting no benefits whatsoever. When looking at meta-analyses on the topic, there appears to be a positive and protective effect of echinacea on sickness frequency (in those who are frequently sick) and in accelerating the rate of recovery; the effect size, however, is not large. When looking at the severity of sickness or symptoms of the cold, echinacea does not appear to have any significant influence.
They show 17 studies that show fairly good evidence for a mild decrease in Length of Sickness and Upper Respiratory Tract Infection Risk. 4 studies don’t show any effect on Symptoms of the Common Cold.
For comparison, garlic is much less studied. There are 2 studies that show an decrease in the Rate of Sickness, but that’s not very good evidence.
Zinc is extremely-well studied, and a meta-analysis of 15 trials shows that zinc does seem to decrease the length and severity of a cold.
Agree with your general comment that it seems that there are several foods that do seem to decrease the rate or length of sickness, and and @doctorow’s article was certainly too simplistic.
Ah, the ‘innocent’ residents of one of the body’s most porous borders; known collaborators with myriad foreign proteins and notorious for allowing a breakdown of law and order so atrocious that illegal aliens outnumbering us ten to one are called ‘normal flora’.
Not quite as overtly treasonous as the various cancers; but close.
Yeah, I felt bad posting a link to a Daily Fail story, but it was only because it spoke accurately about a study in the Lancet, which is a much more trustworthy source.
"Both measures require adequate levels of vitamins A, C and D – levels that you’re almost certainly attaining, just by eating normal food, in which these vitamins are “practically unavoidable.”
What is “normal food”? I’ve found that, for myself, if I don’t supplement what appears to be an entirely healthy diet with vitamins and minerals then I end up supplementing my winters with antibiotics. The difference from a minor change in my diet could not be more stark.
