Do a search for the term 'aromatherapy', and what do you find? In amongst several respectable and useful websites is a smattering of scathing reviews of aromatherapy's therapeutic value. It seems, once again, the baby has gone out with the bathwater (if you're too old to know what this means, look it up :-) Though to the uninitiated reader, these reviews from physicians trained specifically in Western conventional medicine seem authoritative, and may even sway a few folks to believe their 'dubious' claims about the 'dubiousness' of aromatherapy. But as natural medicines in general are gaining significantly in popular opinion, those in the know about the true value of essential oils are demanding a new assessment of these important medicines. Let's look into what the word aromatherapy really means, and how we can bridge the gap between the popular concept of aromatherapy and its true medical potential.
How about we'll start be agreeing on this: That SOME of aromatherapy is in-fact a 'soft science'? That SOME people may feel more relaxed when inhaling Lavender, for example, and some will not? Aromatherapists will not disagree on this point -- they will however put up a defense when the medical applications of essential oils are thrown out with the soft side of 'aroma' therapy. Science IS BACKING UP many of aromatherapy's claims with valid data, even on the 'soft-science' of the practice. Here's a look at the science behind aromatherapy, the holes in arguments of the popular debunkers, and why aroma-medicine has it's place in today's medical practices.
Aromatherapy's image problem is this: Most people hear the word, and believe it has really to do with 'the smell of things' rather than with 'things that smell'. Its a small but very important distinction. Aromatherapy is really the complete branch of medicine that uses the chemically-volatile (easily evaporated) constituents of plants for treatment of a wide variety of ailments. IT DOES NOT only have to do with the effects these plant chemicals have on people that smell them. Virtually every professional aromatherapist will tell you that the great medicinal promise of aromatherapy does not reside in their pleasing aromas, but rather in their abilities to successfully treat a wide range of infectious illnesses (like MRSA, the 'Superbug'), their action as chemotherapy agents, anti-inflammatory agents, wound-healing agents, and other 'hard' medical applications.
You can read these research abstracts yourself by Googling 'Pub Med', and searching for 'essential oil' and things like 'cancer' or 'staphylococcus' or 'axiolytic'. You'll find a few studies too that were inconclusive, like inhalation of a certain oil did not change the immune system stress marker researchers use. But there's also another showing that EVERY OTHER marker of stress WAS changed. It may be the study chose the right oil, or the study population was better treated with the selected oil in some studies and not in others (one showed a stress reduction in women from lavender essential oil, but not in men). You'll find a full page of results showing a statistically significant effect on stress from lavender and linalool. Try other combinations of pharmaceutical preparations and see if there are more significant results than that!
So aromatherapists will even cede that there's mix results. While the naysayers use this data to say "aromatherapy doesn't work", the reasonable statement seems to be: "everyone's different. Some people respond and some don't. It may be that they would respond to a different aromatic, or maybe not at all". From Robert T. Carol of skepdic.com: "...I have to conclude that aromatherapy is a mostly a pseudoscientific alternative medical therapy. It is a mixture of folklore, trial and error, anecdote, testimonial, New Age spiritualism and fantasy." Stephen Barrett, M.D. of Quackwatch doesn't really seem to make a point about essential oils, but to just sound disgruntled about the whole idea. Sure, there may be some unsubstantiated claims floating about, but let's play fair. How many deadly drugs have been pulled from the market after drug-manufacturer-paid rigorous scientific investigations claimed them to be "safe and effective"? One chart puts deaths attributed to "properly prescribed and used drugs" between those from alcohol and those from alcohol -- these just above "preventable medical" misshap, and all of these above traffic fatalities. How many died from using essential oils? Can you draw a circle? How about the letter that comes between 'n' and 'p'?
Really, the medical, therapeutic applications of essential oils (repeat: aroma-therapy!) are making huge advances in acceptance in the scientific community -- among the labs and scientists that do independent and educationally funded research. Important studies are released every month showing the strong efficacy of certain essential oils in treating serious bacterial infections. Try a Pub Med search on 'staphylococcus' and 'essential oil' or 'tea tree', or 'mrsa' and 'essential oil'. You'll find pages of results. The big test will be whether these result in protocols for medical use. The most important factor in this may be how much we all demand that natural 'alternatives' are available in the main-stream, as the profit-driven conventional medical system is just not designed to utilize very low cost natural treatments.
Then there's the myriad of studies showing essential oils' efficacy in destroying cancers. A recent study in the journal of "Chemico-Biological Interactions" noted that linalool, a common essential oil constituent, completely eradicated a particular liver cancer cell line at very, very small concentrations. Try 'essential oil' and 'cancer' in Pub Med and you'll get results like "Frankincense oil derived from Boswellia carteri induces tumor cell specific cytotoxicity"(perhaps this is terminology of "New Age spiritualism" I'm yet unaware of). Another result is "Anticancer activity of an essential oil from Cymbopogon flexuosus" (Lemongrass essential oil) with a conclusion of "Our results indicate that the oil has a promising anticancer activity and causes loss in tumor cell viability by activating the apoptotic process as identified by electron microscopy." The list, of course, goes on (there are in fact 388 results today for this search).
While its easy to snub aromatherapy as New-Agey and soft, it's so much more helpful to really know the score. We're talking about medicines with huge curative potentials, and limited side effects. And they smell good -- how many medicines have THAT going for them? Now it the time to change the miss-perception of natural medicine in general, and the therapeutic use of essential oils in particular. Educate yourself on the valuable research being performed. Use the term 'aroma-medicine' instead. Clarify that aromatherapy is really the therapeutic use of medicinal plant extracts, and while some folks appreciate the smell, that's just the surface of the entire branch of this healing modality. A little noise from us can change the way the graciously uninformed think about the healing potential of these wonderful oils. - 14130
How about we'll start be agreeing on this: That SOME of aromatherapy is in-fact a 'soft science'? That SOME people may feel more relaxed when inhaling Lavender, for example, and some will not? Aromatherapists will not disagree on this point -- they will however put up a defense when the medical applications of essential oils are thrown out with the soft side of 'aroma' therapy. Science IS BACKING UP many of aromatherapy's claims with valid data, even on the 'soft-science' of the practice. Here's a look at the science behind aromatherapy, the holes in arguments of the popular debunkers, and why aroma-medicine has it's place in today's medical practices.
Aromatherapy's image problem is this: Most people hear the word, and believe it has really to do with 'the smell of things' rather than with 'things that smell'. Its a small but very important distinction. Aromatherapy is really the complete branch of medicine that uses the chemically-volatile (easily evaporated) constituents of plants for treatment of a wide variety of ailments. IT DOES NOT only have to do with the effects these plant chemicals have on people that smell them. Virtually every professional aromatherapist will tell you that the great medicinal promise of aromatherapy does not reside in their pleasing aromas, but rather in their abilities to successfully treat a wide range of infectious illnesses (like MRSA, the 'Superbug'), their action as chemotherapy agents, anti-inflammatory agents, wound-healing agents, and other 'hard' medical applications.
You can read these research abstracts yourself by Googling 'Pub Med', and searching for 'essential oil' and things like 'cancer' or 'staphylococcus' or 'axiolytic'. You'll find a few studies too that were inconclusive, like inhalation of a certain oil did not change the immune system stress marker researchers use. But there's also another showing that EVERY OTHER marker of stress WAS changed. It may be the study chose the right oil, or the study population was better treated with the selected oil in some studies and not in others (one showed a stress reduction in women from lavender essential oil, but not in men). You'll find a full page of results showing a statistically significant effect on stress from lavender and linalool. Try other combinations of pharmaceutical preparations and see if there are more significant results than that!
So aromatherapists will even cede that there's mix results. While the naysayers use this data to say "aromatherapy doesn't work", the reasonable statement seems to be: "everyone's different. Some people respond and some don't. It may be that they would respond to a different aromatic, or maybe not at all". From Robert T. Carol of skepdic.com: "...I have to conclude that aromatherapy is a mostly a pseudoscientific alternative medical therapy. It is a mixture of folklore, trial and error, anecdote, testimonial, New Age spiritualism and fantasy." Stephen Barrett, M.D. of Quackwatch doesn't really seem to make a point about essential oils, but to just sound disgruntled about the whole idea. Sure, there may be some unsubstantiated claims floating about, but let's play fair. How many deadly drugs have been pulled from the market after drug-manufacturer-paid rigorous scientific investigations claimed them to be "safe and effective"? One chart puts deaths attributed to "properly prescribed and used drugs" between those from alcohol and those from alcohol -- these just above "preventable medical" misshap, and all of these above traffic fatalities. How many died from using essential oils? Can you draw a circle? How about the letter that comes between 'n' and 'p'?
Really, the medical, therapeutic applications of essential oils (repeat: aroma-therapy!) are making huge advances in acceptance in the scientific community -- among the labs and scientists that do independent and educationally funded research. Important studies are released every month showing the strong efficacy of certain essential oils in treating serious bacterial infections. Try a Pub Med search on 'staphylococcus' and 'essential oil' or 'tea tree', or 'mrsa' and 'essential oil'. You'll find pages of results. The big test will be whether these result in protocols for medical use. The most important factor in this may be how much we all demand that natural 'alternatives' are available in the main-stream, as the profit-driven conventional medical system is just not designed to utilize very low cost natural treatments.
Then there's the myriad of studies showing essential oils' efficacy in destroying cancers. A recent study in the journal of "Chemico-Biological Interactions" noted that linalool, a common essential oil constituent, completely eradicated a particular liver cancer cell line at very, very small concentrations. Try 'essential oil' and 'cancer' in Pub Med and you'll get results like "Frankincense oil derived from Boswellia carteri induces tumor cell specific cytotoxicity"(perhaps this is terminology of "New Age spiritualism" I'm yet unaware of). Another result is "Anticancer activity of an essential oil from Cymbopogon flexuosus" (Lemongrass essential oil) with a conclusion of "Our results indicate that the oil has a promising anticancer activity and causes loss in tumor cell viability by activating the apoptotic process as identified by electron microscopy." The list, of course, goes on (there are in fact 388 results today for this search).
While its easy to snub aromatherapy as New-Agey and soft, it's so much more helpful to really know the score. We're talking about medicines with huge curative potentials, and limited side effects. And they smell good -- how many medicines have THAT going for them? Now it the time to change the miss-perception of natural medicine in general, and the therapeutic use of essential oils in particular. Educate yourself on the valuable research being performed. Use the term 'aroma-medicine' instead. Clarify that aromatherapy is really the therapeutic use of medicinal plant extracts, and while some folks appreciate the smell, that's just the surface of the entire branch of this healing modality. A little noise from us can change the way the graciously uninformed think about the healing potential of these wonderful oils. - 14130
About the Author:
The author is a master aromatherapist for Ananda Aromatherapy and Essential Oils of Boulder, Colorado. She is also the creator of therapeutic blends at Synergy essential oils.
No comments:
Post a Comment