... New Scientist article ...

[Guest guest]

As essential oil use has been discussed here recently, I thought I might

send an article that dealt with scientific tests and EOs. It was posted on

an aromatherapy list I'm on. If anyone has already seen this, I apologise!

 

=),

 

Anne-Louise.

 

 

 

While the list was offline, we had a flurry of media interest in

aromatherapy in the UK after a critical article in the New Scientist

magazine. I reproduce an offline discussion below. I hope the individuals

concerned are happy with my editing of their comments which has been

restricted to reformatting the paragraph breaks etc. The comments appear in

chronological order of posting.

 

I asked:

 

>What do people think about this article?

>John Kane

 

[NEW SCIENTIST ARTICLE]

 

Damning Study Shows It Only Works If You Believe It Will

Reviewed by Dr Michael Peters

Apr 19, 2001 --

 

The popular complementary treatment aromatherapy may just be all in the mind

and is only likely to work if you believe it will, according to a new study.

 

Austrian and German researchers found the essential oils used in

aromatherapy did not have a direct effect on the brain but only affected

people if they thought the smell was stimulating.

 

Although most people's impression of aromatherapy is a scented candle or

bath, it is actually a form of alternative treatment where concentrated

essential oils are added to a base oil and massaged into the skin.

 

As well as relieving tension, the oils are claimed to have other medicinal

properties, such as improving wound healing, blood circulation and

digestion.

 

However, scientists remain uncertain as to whether the oils enhance the

effects of massage or whether the effects of the treatment are just due to

the massage process itself.

 

'Scientific research on the effects of essential oils on human behaviour

lags behind the promises made by popular aromatherapy,' say the authors.

 

To scientifically test whether the oils had any effect, the researchers

studied whether essential oils that are supposed to make you more alert

actually improved people's reaction times.

 

Volunteers were all asked to wear surgical masks. Water was sprinkled on the

masks and their reaction times were tested.

 

Then some of the volunteers had oils such as peppermint, jasmine and

ylang-ylang sprinkled on their masks while others were given water again and

their reaction times were re-tested.

 

The researchers found no difference in reaction times between those people

given water and those given the essential oils. This suggests that the oils

don't have a direct effect on the brain when inhaled, says lead author Dr

Josef Ilmberger, at the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation,

Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich.

 

But they also found that the people's response to the oils was inconsistent.

The volunteers were asked to rate how pleasant, strong or stimulating they

found each scent. Those who rated the scents highly did show improvements in

reaction times.

 

This, says Dr Ilmberger, indicates the effects of essential oils are mainly

psychological. 'If people thought an oil was stimulating, they got faster,'

he says.

 

While previous animal studies of aromatherapy have shown definite effects,

experiments on people have produced contradictory results. This could mean

we are more complex in our reactions to smells, says Dr Ilmberger.

 

The researchers now plan to test the effect of massaging the oils into the

skin to see whether there is any effect when they are absorbed that way

rather than inhaled. The findings are reported in the journal, New

Scientist.

 

'Many studies, including this one, have not supported the case that

essential oils used in aromatherapy may be benefiting people,' says

Professor Edzard Ernst, head of the department of complementary medicine at

the University of Exeter.

 

But Professor Ernst tells WebMD aromatherapy can be useful if people

understand its benefits and limitations. 'If people enjoy aromatherapy and

see it as providing some form of healthy relief without actually being a

medicine then I see nothing wrong with it.'

[END OF NEW SCIENTIST ARTICLE]

 

>What do people think about this article?

 

[TONY BURFIELD'S COMMENTS PART 1]

Hi folks, Now that the press have got hold of this story in a big way over

here, I have been asked by several magazines for a comment this morning, so

I guess others have too....I'm not so sure that we need to get very excited

by the results of these studies just yet:, I am not sure you can damn

aromatherapy at a stroke like this. However it does make the need for an

evidence based medicine approach for our treatments much more pressing. We

need scientific credibility out there!.....

 

Tony AIA UK www.TonyBurfield.co.uk

[END OF TONY'S COMMENTS PART 1]

 

[LOWANA VEAL]

I think it's a load of crap. I don't know where they got the idea in the

first place that jasmine and ylang ylang are stimulating oils: were the oils

chosen for a specific reason?

 

Also, I went to a conference/seminar in March on medical uses of

EOs/scientific aspects of Icelandic EOs, and there were 2 German guest

lecturers, one a doctor and the other a physiotherapist in a German

hospital. The physio descried in detail how EOs are used in the hospital -

and the last thing they are used for is psychological stuff.

 

Originally they were used as room scenters, but then the physio used some

EOs in a footbath on a patient whose foot was about to be amputated as

nothing had worked on a festering wound for 4 months. Well, the EOs worked

and the foot wasn't amputated. That made the doctors sit up and take notice

and now 150 oils are used.

 

EOs were used first in surgery, then in intensive care, then in cancer care

(to aid with side effects of chemo etc.) and then the psychologists picked

it up. They are also used in gastroenerology, cardiology, endocrinology,

gynaecology, pain wards, in physio and occupational therapy, and in

geriatrics (but not in children's wards). No dermatologists visit the

dermatology wards as they don't need to - the EOs cure everything.

 

In surgery they do aromatograms first to find out which oils work best on

the bacteria in question. Eucalyptus is used for asthmatics. Lavender or

peppermint are used on first and second degree burns, drop by drop directly

on the burn. EOs are also used to calm anxiety and help with sleep problems

- in the latter, the nurse often puts some lavender + carrier oil in the

palm of her hand and wafts her hand up to the patient when saying good

night. That is enough.

 

Oh, and relevant to the study reported in New Scientist, the Munich medics

use rosemary for people who are disorientated and it works very well. I

could go on, but I won't here (I might repost a version of this to the list

when it's up again though). I seem to have got somewhat carried away, but I

took copious notes as the university will refund me for the conference and I

thought I ought to glean as much info as I could.

 

Bye for now, Lowana

[END OF LOWANA'S COMMENTS]

 

[TONY BURFIELD'S COMMENTS PT 2]

Hi again, Further to Lowana's mail, which I found interesting, and which

adds to our general knowledge of what is actually happening in AT practice,

I'd like to make a couple of further points. There are lots of people like

me who progressively collect data, write and lecture on essential oils,

amass papers from all possible sources including conferences. I have maybe

5000 to 6000 (I'm guessing) in my own library, of which maybe half are on

ethnobotanical or properties with a view to therapeutic uses. I'm sure there

are many individuals with larger collections.

 

It goes to show that there is an absolute wealth of data here on eo

properties, the potential of which for eventual therapeutic uses must be

very considerable. This in itself is difficult to consign to the scrap heap

on the basis of this one study, which has unfortunately set alight criticism

of our industry (now featured on UK National TV last night).

 

It is also unfortunate in my opinion, that many of the spokepeople who are

making these media comments seem to be drawn from the clositered academic

world who have little experience of actual AT practice, essential oils or

life outside of campus....but thats just my personal prejeudice coming out!

 

Lowana dealt at length with current aromatherapy practice which is great,

and the more widespread the belief and use of AT in clinical situations, the

more significant will be our credibility. However weeding through the papers

and magazines on AT and eo's, and looking for studies which has been

conducted say using double blind, randomised crossover trials, and which

show statistically significant results, and which have been critically

reviewed and proclaimed sound, there are really not too many. This is the

litmus test which the media (via the scientific community) is applying to

AT, not so much the practice or belief in the system as such.

 

I am willing to be persuaded that persuing this latter evidence based

medicine path is too difficult a prospect for many of us in AT in the

moment, I know that I have talked to many representatives of professional AT

groups in the UK who believe that even applying project studies to AT

coursres is not practically possible to this sort of level, and many of

these people in small colleges are actually resisting involvement.

 

I am interested in what others think on this - after all we are all in this

together. We have I believe 7000 registered AT professionals in the UK, out

of maybe 50,000 + who have studied AT at college (my own estimates). The

number engaged in AT projects is infinitessimal, yet we all believe

anecdotally in the evidence we see with our own eyes during the course of

our own work. There must be a better way forward so we dont get all this

adverse media attention....

AIA UK

www.TonyBurfield.co.uk

[END OF TONY'S COMMENTS ]

 

[KENDRA'S COMMENTS]

Hello again, Scuse me catching up - John has just sent me the posts from

Lowana and Tony below and I have some comments to make ~ I think few

professional AT's and everyone connected with and having a interest in the

legitimacy of Aromatherapy will disagree that in theory, we need proper

trials and studies.

 

The main obstacles to achieving this seem to be:

 

1. Money

In conversations I have had with people on the subject over the years, It

has always been stated that it is really only the large pharmaceutical

companies / corporations that have the kind of money needed to do this and

that if they did put any money up, It would only be for reasons of trying to

extract particular active compounds that they could utilise, patent and

market for the purposes of making more money so would not be in the

interests of Aromatherapy.

 

2. Expertise

Because Aromatherapists very seldom have a scientific back-ground, we do not

know the procedures for designing trials.

 

3. Time

Always a problem, because everyone is so busy, however, there have been

various hypotheses for possible trials whizzing around in my head for some

time and it only needs a few committed individuals to discuss the viability

of ideas that we all may have ~ In short, it needs the fusion of

Aromatherapists / Scientisits to discuss these things and work something out

that is workable.

 

I would be happy (if not excited) to be involved the first and last bits ~

ie. give the ideas and on completion of a properly designed trial, then

organise it (inc. whipping up enthusiasm ) ~ It is the middle bit that is

difficult. *~>~ *~>~ *~>~

 

My very first Aromatherapy teacher was an ex-nurse and the course I did with

her was very clinical, In fact, at the time, I was somewhat perturbed at the

lack of spirituality, but looking back, I am grateful for the amount of

thorough clinical applications that we covered, time and time again.

 

Also,she was always making reference to various hospital departments so I

can relate very much to what Lowana says - I have heard all that too :-)

 

Within the applications we covered there seems to be clear anecdotal

evidence for persuing various trials. One of these, to give you all an idea

of the kind of thing I am thinking, is to do with Chemotherapy.

 

Whilst it is the case that Aromatherapy can be very useful in dealing with

the side-effects of Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy, it

can go father than that even ~ My old teacher Ann, to this day in her

practice, will give a massage to someone three days before their' next

chemotherapy appointment, because she knows that by using a small amount of

Lemon and Tea-tree she is confident that when her client attends the

hospital appointment and blood is taken to accertain whether the white blood

cell count is high enough for treatment to be allowed, the doctor will

exclaim with surprise, that yet again, the wbc count is higher than would be

expected.

 

This happens over and over with any and every client she sees. (many people

are refused chemo. tretment because after waiting an hour for the results of

their blood test, they are informed that yet again, the wbc count is too

low)

 

I think it would be really exciting to have properly designed trials, but

then, would these ideas be workable? there a many questions / variables to

be considered and at the end of the day I have these exciting ideas but am

not a scientist (sigh) Anyway, maybe we can do something?