Talk:Boiron

Not a speedy delete as non-notable, as the company seem famous enough. Nor as spam as I understand the author of this is Bulgarian, and thus unlikely to be directly associated with this French company. But "accepted as best homeopathic", and so on, are clearly POV. I don't know enough about this company to write a NPOV article myself. --BillC 16:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree, Bill. In fact, I added this page to my watchlist when I saw it at RC, and I found myself in the same dead end as you. I'd invite the creator of this article to revise it in full, since he/she must be familiar with the subject. Phædriel 20:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Chill out folks. I don't work there - in Boiron. I'm not Boiron partial too. I'm glad you know I'm bulgarian; and to, in fact, clearly disappoint you: I (as far as i can very well remember) have studied not at courses of Boiron, but LCCH - the London College of Classical Homeopathy [look at the issue of classical homeopathy who is vs. Boiron and french homeopathy, sorry i havent yet very well written it but with the time, please have patience, muse dont come easily], as such courses in Bulgaria (like everywhere in the world almost too) exist - these of Boiron. But if you have ever studied homeopathy may be will know - Boiron is widelly accepted as a fairly "GREAT Manifacturing Cycle" pharmaceutical company. If you disagree please comment. :)))) Best regards, Alex, 11:44, 5 January 2006 (GMT +2)

Thank you, I shall comment. Unfortunately, it is irrelevant whether you, or I, or Phædriel, or anyone, is against Boiron, or for them. One's personal opinions are not presented in a NPOV article. The fact is that to describe any company as 'great' and 'best' is point-of-view dependant. What, for example, do Boiron's competitors think? Do they agree that Boiron are the best? Wikipedia just reports the facts: it has no opinions.

If it is your contention that they are the largest supplier of homeopathic products in France, then you need to demonstrate that this is the case by means of verifiable facts. Notwithstanding this, as it stands the article contains a clause that is untrue: "most famous pharmaceutic enterprise". What, for example, about Bayer or Pfizer? Aren't these more famous pharmaceuticals?

(Also, please sign your comments on talk pages with 4 tildes: ~~~~. They get converted to a signature when you save.) --BillC 22:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

it is the FACTS. I said if you have anything to say that boiron are not the best. Do you? Can you prove they do not make properly the single remedies? can you? Can you say they do not have GREAT manufacturing cycle. No? Look, you may be a great wikipedian, but you are still not a homeopath :))) though you can try learning it. Ud be interested in it.

However, you are right. What the competitors will say. they do not have major competitors from long-long time ago, as i know, as i have been said by our lecturers. I hope they said the trueth, but i dont think they could lie to us :)))

If anyone could say anything against boiron production it is ive heard such comments (im not sure i remember exactly) - that what is produced, so understand potentized, by hand is better then factory potentization, and that Hahnemann or Kent, cannot remember who of them, used his Bible to potentize his remedies and that this could have had matter in curing too and making them stronger - but this is a kind of superstition to me, though it has some strange logic. Thats all i can say.........If anyone knows atall any competitors of Boiron except for the potentizing-by-themselves hemopaths, he can tell. Id like to hear. Seems like im not informed.

Dont forget - Boiron are ONLY HOMEOPATHIC Company, bayer if produce any homeopathic remedies. produces majorly allopatic, thats y is not usually here and in England considered "a homeopathic company". Such company is Boiron. even if they are not the last and only, somehow they made thier name, among homeopaths. You'll see. You can ask anybody around the globe. This is the reality. I see you are not aquanted but even strange from the outside, the things are such. Funny, strangelly, or not. Maybe because they held courses of education of homeopaths and in this way engage closely with the homeopathy.......the explanations can be many. May be they came to be known with advertising. But we knew them even before they came in the bugarian market and become famous, so they has to be famous around the globe.

Im not sure you understand me. I hope you do. :))

Thank you for the signing help :)) best whishes, 23:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not for me, or anyone, to show that Boiron is not something. The burden of proof lies with anyone who claims that they are something. 'Best' is a value judgement, that is, that it depends on one's point of view. Is Boeing the 'best' aircraft manufacturer, Italian the 'best' language, or Manchester United the 'best' football team? These things depend on one's opinion. It may be true that Boiron are the biggest-selling homeopathic pharmaceutical in France, the world or wherever, but this is not what the article says. So, if facts matter (and they do), then you need to find out some facts about this company, and use them. I know that Bayer and Pfizer are conventional pharmaceutical companies (the term allopathic is deprecated). My point was that the article said that Boiron was the "most famous pharmaceutical", and did not say "most famous homeopathic pharmaceutical". "Most famous" is difficult to establish in any case. --BillC 01:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Boiron is a multinational France-based homeopathic manufacturing company, having an operating presence in 59 countries worldwide. It is the largest manufacturer of homeopathic products in the world, and in 2005, were the second largest manufacturer in over the counter medicine in France. In 2004, it employed a workforce of 2,779 and had a turnover of €313 million.

In June 2005, the firm acquired Dolisos Laboratories, then the world's second largest homeopathic remedy manufacturer.

One of its key products is Oscillococcinum, claimed to relieve flu symptoms, and one of the biggest-selling homeopathic flu medicines in the United States.

• Official website of the company

• Datamonitor OTC Healthcare in France to 2009
• Wright Reports, company snapshot
• Yahoo! Finance company profile

All verifiable and neutral point of view. It is, of course, short. You may want to expand it. --BillC 01:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Perfect, Bill, you've just provided a great example of how a WP article should read and look like. I support your version wholeheartedly; and if no one complains, I'll replace the current text with your version. -- Phædriel ^*whistle* 11:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

The official link redirects to a Norwegian site on health food, bionature.no. Legit or hijacked? Hexmaster (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

While the homeopathic overdose is a marvelous demonstration that homeopathy nothing but sugar pills, vlogs and forums are not reliable sources. If high quality publishers (those presumed to do fact checking) have picked up the story, use those for the content basis rather than primary sources.Novangelis (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that while all the facts are true, this article still provides only a one sided view. I realize Homeopathic medicine is a sensitive topic, but Boiron is certainly not receiving universal criticism, as this article makes it seem. Also, seems a bit short for such a large company. Openflower (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Openflower! Per WP:BALANCE the article should be weighted toward viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in valid sources. Neutrality isn't giving all sides equal time, but rather it is following the evidence in as unbiased a manner as possible. Sometimes this can result in an article that seems one-sided. I'm sure the Flat Earth article is fairly one-sided too. ;-) If there are any peer-reviewed, study reviews from reputable sources that show Boiron products really work, those could go in the article. If Boiron were engaged in some noteworthy humanitarian effort (noteworthy enough to create media coverage that can be cited) that kind of thing could go in the article as well.Dustinlull (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Agree with Dustinlull. Not sure about your heading. Presenting facts from reliable sources can't really be called biased unless editors have deliberately omitted citations from aother view. When I update pages I look for a wide range of sources to give a balanced view, but haven't found any reliable sources confirming the efficacy of homeopathy. Quite the opposite. I note that the mass global overdose on these products was discussed above but is not cited on the page. I have several newspaper articles that cover the event and the results of the overdoses and will add the info here when I get time. Joolzzt (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Aye. There are small issues like the class actions and the fact that its biggest selling product is "flu remedy" based on a non-existent bacterium that isn't the cause of flu diluted to one part in ten to the four hundredth power, which is like dissolving one atom in the entire known universe, taking one atom of that and dissolving it again in the entire known universe, and again, and again, and again. Bonkers. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

(Moved to here as was out of position) —BillC ^talk 18:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes. So much can be said that is good about homeopathy. I studied it part time for three years. I have used it many times and has done me good. recently I had heart burn and Boiron has a product readymade called acidil. I used it and such a relief...no more stomach bloating. Also I was taking a well reputated medication for sleeping as prescribed by my regular doctor. I felt it was good bu 3 times already I feel that I overdosed and the day after taking it to sleep I was tired the whole next day. A tiredness that made me fear for my health. I witched to a sleep remedy of anther homeopathic company have slept so much better. So why Boiron...because one of the drawbacks of Homeopathy medicine is finding the right remedy. It takes time and experience. The fact that these remedies are pre-prepared is so good and convenient. That's why Boiron has become the largest manufacturer in the world (313 Euros). When yu are doing that kind of business people should take note especially those who would criticize the science behind it.65.34.239.20 (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)howard@efficiencyanalysts.comReply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boiron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.datamonitor.com/~d8c752c6872f43c1ab830a1b4e11b349~/industries/research/?pid=DMCM2069&type=Report
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311103643/http://biz.yahoo.com:80/ic/93/93100.html to http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/93/93100.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boiron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130316125202/http://www.gilardi.com/boironsettlement/pdf/BRGL_SettlementAgreement.pdf to http://www.gilardi.com/boironsettlement/pdf/BRGL_SettlementAgreement.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boiron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004080251/http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/01/38625.htm to http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/01/38625.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

We've entered an edit war concerning the addition of a section explaining, in considerable detail, a controversial urbanisation project Boiron is embroiled in Belgium. A similar edit war is playing out on the French language article. I really can't see the need for this section. Companies get involved in land usage disputes of this nature all the time, and the detail is unwarranted here. —BillC ^talk 09:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply