The recent letter by Dr. Paolo Bellavite tried to address the critical issues discussed in my latest contribution about Oscillococcinum® in this Journal. His rebuttal does not contain any further clue about the efficacy of Oscillococcinum® from Boiron, and yet he referred to papers that do not deal with Oscillococcinum®. The complete absence of a sound reply about the scientific body of Oscillococcinum® was a clear disappointment for me. Few years ago, Bellavite wrote a book on Oscillococcinum® committed by Boiron and assessed his expertise in the field. Notwithstanding, Bellavite focused his reply on a presumptive conflict of interest from this writing author. Fundamentally, Bellavite has lost his occasion to dismiss criticism raised in , particularly when he quoted the contribution by Mathie et al., in Cochrane Database . He reported verbatim: “there is insufficient good evidence to enable robust conclusions to be made about Oscillococcinum® in the prevention or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness” but leaves some hope for a positive outcome: “Our findings do not rule out the possibility that Oscillococcinum® could have a clinically useful treatment effect” . This conclusion is a misunderstanding, as it waits for a forthright positive evidence pro-Oscillococcinum®, which is actually lacking. Aside from ref. , no evidence taking into account the potential of Oscillococcinum® against flu was further reported. Following past Weissmann's editorial , no standing commentary endowed with undisputable evidence was further raised to support Oscillococcinum® in clinics.
