re:Aromatherapy Scientific Challenge in US + hello

[Guest guest]

Hello All,

 

I have been out of things for a while due to the birth of my first child which

although it was ~ and still is the most joyful and amazing experience of my

life, it has nevertheless taken up all of my available time for the past year.

Rosie Burfield is now 13 months old, running around and becoming a little

independent and I can at last spare a small amount of time on my own pursuits! I

am obviously not made of as strong a stuff as Kathleen ~ I can recall her making

copious posts to idma with a new-born on her knee! I am an older mother is my

excuse!

 

It is nice to see the old crowd still getting stuck in to the issues and it is

the issue of the silly paper as I refer to the Ohio University paper as that has

prompted a response out of me ~

 

 

On Sat Mar 8 22:32 , 'Marcia Elston' sent:

 

>> (snipped for brevity)

" If you have read the complete paper, it is a comprehensive, well done double

blind study, using rigorous protocols. "

 

I am quite surprised that Marcia takes this view to be honest ~ I had to look at

the paper again to make sure I wasn't mistaken but no, this paper is to my mind,

reminiscent of Neil Martin ~ he of " The failure of aromatherapy -The effect of

exposure to odour on the perception of pain. " unpublished poster (private

communication April 2006) Led to the eventual paper " The Effect of Exposure to

Odor on the Perception of Pain " Psychosomatic Medicine 68:613-616 (2006) We

discuss Martins' work in our article for Aromatherapy Today " Aromatherapy - the

truth laid bare " - Burfield/Kirkham, the updated version which can be found at

http://www.cropwatch.org/newsletaug07.pdf Employing this cold pressor

technique, utilised in both studies, amazes me ~ stick somebodys hands or feet

in freezing cold water until they feel pain and then give them a nice essential

oil to smell and ask them if their pain has decreased! It doesnt even matter

which essential oil either ~ Lemon in the case of Neil Martin, Lemon & Lavender

in the Ohio Uni. study. Why those eo's anyway? Why Lemon at any rate?

 

We obtained the Ohio University paper under discussion last Thursday and both

agreed that the authors were clearly incapable of carrying out a proper

literature study to unearth previous relevant work carried out in the area, and

that some of the experimental techniques & methodology used have previously been

thoroughly discredited e.g. in a review paper by Buchbauer. The failure of the

research team to find positive evidence for olfactory influences on mood and

autonomic, endocrine, and immune function, reflects in our opinion, on their

ill-advised selection of essential oils (botanical & geographical source &

authenticity not stated) & the methodology employed, & should have rung alarm

bells in the authors' heads (that something was dreadfully wrong) at the time.

 

Tony would like to communicate to the list , if he may, that " the situation with

respect to essential oil authenticity is especially critical, with the failure

of last years European lavender crop, and the volatility associated with lemon

oil prices. This means that most of the material on the market is adulterated or

reconstituted in both cases. Even the most common adulterant of lemon oil, lemon

terpenes, has seen enormous price hikes in the last few weeks. All things

considered it cannot be concluded that failure to find these effects

(influences on mood and autonomic, endocrine, and immune function) is

necessarily down to the inherent properties of essential oils themselves. In

summary, this paper contributes nothing to increased knowledge of the

physiological & psychophysiological properties of essential oils and should

never have been published - the fact that it has been, merely rewards failure.

The referees of any respectable publishing journal would have returned the paper

to the authors for a complete rework. The problem is with finding referees who

can cross several disciplines - as can be concluded from the errors of

scientific fact & judgement regarding adverse effects from contact with natural

products published in many modern day toxicology journals "

 

Hmmmph!

 

Best to All,

 

Kendra

[Guest guest]

Hi Kendra and First a great big fat Congratulations on Rosie :-) she sounds

adorable. :-) Any chance of some photos in the photo secion?

 

Second - another big thanks for your insight into the

Lem/Lav-cotton-balls-on-noses research. The more critical analyses

research like this gets the better.

Thanks again, and nice to see you back.

LLx

 

 

 

On 12/03/2008, Kendra Kirkham <kendra wrote:

> Hello All,

>

> I have been out of things for a while due to the birth of my first child which

although it was ~ and still is the most joyful and amazing experience of my

life, it has nevertheless taken up all of my available time for the past year.

Rosie Burfield is now 13 months old, running around and becoming a little

independent and I can at last spare a small amount of time on my own pursuits! I

am obviously not made of as strong a stuff as Kathleen ~ I can recall her making

copious posts to idma with a new-born on her knee! I am an older mother is my

excuse!

>

> It is nice to see the old crowd still getting stuck in to the issues and it is

the issue of the silly paper as I refer to the Ohio University paper as that has

prompted a response out of me ~

>

>

> On Sat Mar 8 22:32 , 'Marcia Elston' sent:

>

> >> (snipped for brevity)

> " If you have read the complete paper, it is a comprehensive, well done double

> blind study, using rigorous protocols. "

>

> I am quite surprised that Marcia takes this view to be honest ~ I had to look

at the paper again to make sure I wasn't mistaken but no, this paper is to my

mind, reminiscent of Neil Martin ~ he of " The failure of aromatherapy -The

effect of exposure to odour on the perception of pain. " unpublished poster

(private communication April 2006) Led to the eventual paper " The Effect of

Exposure to Odor on the Perception of Pain " Psychosomatic Medicine 68:613-616

(2006) We discuss Martins' work in our article for Aromatherapy Today

" Aromatherapy - the truth laid bare " - Burfield/Kirkham, the updated version

which can be found at http://www.cropwatch.org/newsletaug07.pdf Employing this

cold pressor technique, utilised in both studies, amazes me ~ stick somebodys

hands or feet in freezing cold water until they feel pain and then give them a

nice essential oil to smell and ask them if their pain has decreased! It doesnt

even matter which essential oil either ~ Lemon in the case of Neil Martin, Lemon

& Lavender in the Ohio Uni. study. Why those eo's anyway? Why Lemon at any

rate?

>

> We obtained the Ohio University paper under discussion last Thursday and both

agreed that the authors were clearly incapable of carrying out a proper

literature study to unearth previous relevant work carried out in the area, and

that some of the experimental techniques & methodology used have previously been

thoroughly discredited e.g. in a review paper by Buchbauer. The failure of the

research team to find positive evidence for olfactory influences on mood and

autonomic, endocrine, and immune function, reflects in our opinion, on their

ill-advised selection of essential oils (botanical & geographical source &

authenticity not stated) & the methodology employed, & should have rung alarm

bells in the authors' heads (that something was dreadfully wrong) at the time.

>

> Tony would like to communicate to the list , if he may, that " the situation

with respect to essential oil authenticity is especially critical, with the

failure of last years European lavender crop, and the volatility associated with

lemon oil prices. This means that most of the material on the market is

adulterated or reconstituted in both cases. Even the most common adulterant of

lemon oil, lemon terpenes, has seen enormous price hikes in the last few weeks.

All things considered it cannot be concluded that failure to find these effects

(influences on mood and autonomic, endocrine, and immune function) is

necessarily down to the inherent properties of essential oils themselves. In

summary, this paper contributes nothing to increased knowledge of the

physiological & psychophysiological properties of essential oils and should

never have been published - the fact that it has been, merely rewards failure.

The referees of any respectable publishing journal would have returned the paper

to the authors for a complete rework. The problem is with finding referees who

can cross several disciplines - as can be concluded from the errors of

scientific fact & judgement regarding adverse effects from contact with natural

products published in many modern day toxicology journals "

>

> Hmmmph!

>

> Best to All,

>

> Kendra

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Kendra,

 

My complete statement was:

" If you have read the complete paper, it is a comprehensive, well done

double

blind study, using rigorous protocols. Yes, Marge the press release talked

about 'wound healing', however, the actual study only addressed skin

irritation (intentionally caused by taping) and they saw no significant

improvement with inhalation of lavender. Remember, they were only concerned

with claims of " aromatherapy " as practiced by inhalation. Using the

specific methodology in their protocol, we can't really call this bad

science. "

 

I did not mean to intimate that I found relevance in their source material,

their premises at the onset or the ultimate conclusion of their study; just

that it was the kind of study that the medical community would support

because they do follow a well defined, rigorous protocol - meaning, their

process. Of course, their premises were flawed, and ultimately their

conclusions; we know that. My meaning was that their process was quite

acceptable to the medical community and it would be difficult to change the

mindset that this paper and its subsequent media blitz will create. Our

initial responses on aromaconnection are certainly not in support of the

conclusions and had more to do with the media blitz. Rob and I have been

working with more scrutiny on this; we will have two more blog posts

completed tomorrow (had to stop and do the stuff that brings in the money) .

.. . we have already traced the sources for the essential oils used (and they

are found wanting based on solid aromatherapy standards), and we have also

come to a primary conclusion about the importance of authenticity of

essential oil material, as Tony does (and as we all concluded and reported

when we challenged the Lav/TeaTreeGynecomastia Study). I believe I sent

Tony a copy of the Ohio paper right after we purchased it . . . ??? If you

haven't yet traced the sources of the material used, we'll gladly share

those, as well.

 

Any and all challenges we can collectively get out there will help; it

takes time to appropriately research and annotate solid rebuttal . . . but

the damage is done; we will never see what we publish to counter this blitz

picked up by the wire services (which was the meat of my post that you refer

to) and it will never appear in our local newspapers. We will have to

depend on the blogosphere and people linking from their websites to

comprehensive challenges, much as we did the raindrop therapy white paper

and the Lav/TeaTreeGynecomastia farce. It still will never change the

negativity already created.

 

Because this study comes from the U.S., we can surmise it is an attempt to

further discredit aromatherapy by the pharmaceutical companies and

allopathic medical community . . . and, there are positive findings in the

study, hence, I said it would be more difficult to challenge.

 

I hope this clarifies my intent and opinion - I feel like you (like some of

the many journalists-as well as most politicians in this country) have taken

one tiny snippet from the several posts I have made about this (on numerous

lists and on aromaconnection) and have come to a very wrong conclusion about

my overall position, Kendra, more or less using your negative opinion as a

jumping off place to make your points . . . which I agree with and which

could very well have been made without making it a personal challenge to me.

Disappoints me because we are on the same side here. And especially because

we see so much of this tactic in our national dialog these days; it is

wearying.

 

Be well,

Marcia Elston

Samara Botane/Nature Intelligence, est. 1988

<http://www.wingedseed.com/> http://www.wingedseed.com Online 3/95

<http://www.aromaconnection.org/> http://www.aromaconnection.org Group Blog

2/07

" Historically, the most terrible things - war, genocide and slavery - have

resulted from obedience, not disobedience. "

Howard Zinn

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Congrats on Rosie. What a lovely name. Had to chuckle about being an older

mother being your excuse.... Actually I bellied laughed. Writing on idma

with a tiny one must have been when the last one was born. I had him a week

after turning 44... somehow I think you are a bit younger than I.

 

But... he was my fourth so I was used to hauling around wee ones by then.

And I also bet that you didn't get the shock I did when I went to my GP for

my first " real " appointment. I was given my records, went home and opened up

the file and printed in blue ink, at the top, in LARGE letters was

written " Geriatric Mother " . I was 35 at the time and pregnant with my first

child. I don't know HOW an old fart like me managed to go on and have three

more!!! ROFLMAO!!!

 

Again, Congrats on Rosie!

 

K

 

 

On 3/12/08, Kendra Kirkham <kendra wrote:

>

> .

>

>

>

 

 

 

--

Kathleen Petrides

Bead Hussy

http://www.BeadHussy.com

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Kendra Kirkham said:

>We obtained the Ohio University paper under discussion last Thursday

>and both agreed that the authors were clearly incapable of carrying

>out a proper literature study to unearth previous relevant work

>carried out in the area, and that some of the experimental techniques

> & methodology used have previously been thoroughly discredited e.g.

>in a review paper by Buchbauer " .

 

As a follow up to my last message about 'reinventing the wheel' on

antimicrobial studies and their associated therapeutic uses, what

Kendra and Tony say above is so similar on this issue. The fact is

most modern scientists and University students are too damned lazy to

do proper literature searches. If they can't find a reference on the

Internet, or on their data bases, they assume no work has been done

and try to give the impression their research is unique - then they

get more conference and lecture invites! The fact that the essential

oil trades, the medical and biological sciences and horticultural

sciences have been publishing books and journals on the effects of

essential oils for around 100 years is overlooked because that good

old research is buried in PAPER. It took me years to extract what I

could find, I was amazed at how much was out there and am still

sifting through it even now.

 

All this is made worse by the useless peer review systems used by most

journals. Frequently the reviewers are professors of this that and

the other, but without a shed of knowledge on the subject they are

reviewing. I have not seen a copy of the research we are talking

about, but I would bet it is just as lousy as the previous work on

lavender and tea tree.

 

We do have an effect on this bad publicity by putting the key words

and articles on our web sites. People doing a search on the subject

then pick up our writings on the subject as well as the crap news. We

may not get the conventional media coverage, but we do what we can.

 

Martin Watt

http://www.aromamedical.com

 

 

 

 

ATFE2 , Kendra Kirkham <kendra wrote:

>

> Hello All,

>

> I have been out of things for a while due to the birth of my first

child which although it was ~ and still is the most joyful and amazing

experience of my life, it has nevertheless taken up all of my

available time for the past year. Rosie Burfield is now 13 months old,

running around and becoming a little independent and I can at last

spare a small amount of time on my own pursuits! I am obviously not

made of as strong a stuff as Kathleen ~ I can recall her making

copious posts to idma with a new-born on her knee! I am an older

mother is my excuse!

>

> It is nice to see the old crowd still getting stuck in to the issues

and it is the issue of the silly paper as I refer to the Ohio

University paper as that has prompted a response out of me ~

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Liz,

 

Nice to be back too :-)

 

Yes, when I get the more recent photos developed, I will put some up.

 

Best, Kendra

 

 

>>Hi Kendra and First a great big fat Congratulations on Rosie :-) she sounds

adorable. :-) Any chance of some photos in the photo secion?

 

Second - another big thanks for your insight into the

Lem/Lav-cotton-balls-on-noses research. The more critical analyses

research like this gets the better.

Thanks again, and nice to see you back.

LLx

[Guest guest]

>Hi Kendra,

 

Hi Marcia,

 

>My complete statement was:

> " If you have read the complete paper, it is a comprehensive, well done

>double

>blind study, using rigorous protocols. Yes, Marge the press release talked

>about 'wound healing', however, the actual study only addressed skin

>irritation (intentionally caused by taping) and they saw no significant

>improvement with inhalation of lavender. Remember, they were only concerned

>with claims of " aromatherapy " as practiced by inhalation. Using the

>specific methodology in their protocol, we can't really call this bad

>science. "

 

In the nicest possible way, I think that we can call this bad science. It is

precisely because this study has been embraced by the media and by those with a

predilection against natural healing to believe that merely following formal

protocol in

a rigourous fashion without respect to the finer details such as named botanical

source for materials used,

relevant and replicable content or perspective is the determining factor for

accurate conclusions to be drawn.

 

>I did not mean to intimate that I found relevance in their source material,

>their premises at the onset or the ultimate conclusion of their study; just

>that it was the kind of study that the medical community would support

>because they do follow a well defined, rigorous protocol - meaning, their

>process. Of course, their premises were flawed, and ultimately their

>conclusions; we know that. My meaning was that their process was quite

>acceptable to the medical community and it would be difficult to change the

>mindset that this paper and its subsequent media blitz will create. Our

>initial responses on aromaconnection are certainly not in support of the

>conclusions and had more to do with the media blitz. Rob and I have been

>working with more scrutiny on this; we will have two more blog posts

>completed tomorrow (had to stop and do the stuff that brings in the money) .

 

I aknowledge the value of the work you and Rob and others are doing and I have

always respected and enjoyed the knowledge you personally have shared with us

which is why I was sincerely surprised at your above words and I would like to

put forward the alternative idea that commenting in such a way is

counter-productive to the cause and sends out the wrong message.

 

Because this paper offers no new findings or ground-breaking data and serves to

cash in on the current anti-naturals

backlash. Stating the comprehensiveness and rigour of the study I believe serves

to escalate the problem you yourself aknowledge where the medical community

(and thus the media and those who blindly accept data with a complete absence of

scientific

skepticism) will misuse the science to further their agenda. I reall Martin

commenting a few days ago about scientists who cannot think " outside the box. "

I feel that some scientists responsible for papers such as this one have a deep

seated fear of simplicity and a near total lack of perspective.

They take a concept or two and use existing models which in some cases arent

relevant or suitable for the purpose at hand (cold pressor?)

then they choreograph a complex dance of experiments suppoerted by graphs and

charts etc. then they include references, relevant and non-relevant and

comment on the references and soon all this comment becomes more important than

the true relevance of the original hypothesis

(which often isn't original) and the piece of work is deemed scholarship, the

work of academics, intellectuals, professors even! must be worthy! but does it

tell us anything worthwhile or useful?

that surely is the point?

 

>. . we have already traced the sources for the essential oils used (and they

>are found wanting based on solid aromatherapy standards), and we have also

>come to a primary conclusion about the importance of authenticity of

>essential oil material, as Tony does (and as we all concluded and reported

>when we challenged the Lav/TeaTreeGynecomastia Study). I believe I sent

>Tony a copy of the Ohio paper right after we purchased it . . . ??? If you

>haven't yet traced the sources of the material used, we'll gladly share

>those, as well.

 

Thank-you. Tony didnt receive a copy of the Ohio paper from you but then some

emails to him have been bouncing of late.

We (Cropwatch) intend to write to the authors on a couple of points in any case.

 

>Any and all challenges we can collectively get out there will help; it

>takes time to appropriately research and annotate solid rebuttal . . . but

>the damage is done; we will never see what we publish to counter this blitz

>picked up by the wire services (which was the meat of my post that you refer

>to) and it will never appear in our local newspapers. We will have to

>depend on the blogosphere and people linking from their websites to

>comprehensive challenges, much as we did the raindrop therapy white paper

>and the Lav/TeaTreeGynecomastia farce. It still will never change the

>negativity already created.

 

>Because this study comes from the U.S., we can surmise it is an attempt to

>further discredit aromatherapy by the pharmaceutical companies and

>allopathic medical community . . . and, there are positive findings in the

>study, hence, I said it would be more difficult to challenge.

 

I would like at this juncture to just say that it is not just the US

pharmaceutical companies / allopathic

medical community who are trying to discredit aromatherapy. Sense about Science

and the like are rife in the UK

and similar studies from the likes of Neil Martin as I have previously mentioned

and Edzard Ernst, the first Professor

of Complementary Medicine in the UK who seems to spend a great deal of time

discrediting homeopathy, aromatherapy etc.

 

>I hope this clarifies my intent and opinion - I feel like you (like some of

>the many journalists-as well as most politicians in this country) have taken

>one tiny snippet from the several posts I have made about this (on numerous

>lists and on aromaconnection) and have come to a very wrong conclusion about

>my overall position, Kendra, more or less using your negative opinion as a

>jumping off place to make your points . . . which I agree with and which

>could very well have been made without making it a personal challenge to me.

>Disappoints me because we are on the same side here. And especially because

>we see so much of this tactic in our national dialog these days; it is

>wearying.

 

I am now clear on your intent and opinion. I still feel that " the tiny snippet "

is not helpful to the cause nor that it paints a true picture. My intention was

to express my surprise to you which was my natural reaction to your words and

suggest with respect that it may give the wrong message even taking into account

all you have said on the subject and the stances and opinions highlighted in the

blog.

 

I am disappointed that you are disappointed because I wrote in a spirit of

cheerful but serious debate and wanted so much my re-introduction to AT

discussion to be positive. It is really the idea I am challenging which so

surprised me and not you as a person at all.

 

 

Best, Kendra

[Guest guest]

Hi Kathleen :-)

 

>Congrats on Rosie. What a lovely name.

 

Thank-you

 

>Had to chuckle about being an older

>mother being your excuse.... Actually I bellied laughed. Writing on idma

>with a tiny one must have been when the last one was born. I had him a week

>after turning 44... somehow I think you are a bit younger than I.

 

No, no - will be 48 in October so had rosie when I was 47

 

>But... he was my fourth so I was used to hauling around wee ones by then.

>And I also bet that you didn't get the shock I did when I went to my GP for

>my first " real " appointment. I was given my records, went home and opened up

>the file and printed in blue ink, at the top, in LARGE letters was

>written " Geriatric Mother " . I was 35 at the time and pregnant with my first

>child. I don't know HOW an old fart like me managed to go on and have three

>more!!! ROFLMAO!!!

 

I think I was an elderly prima gravida but my petite friend (5ft 2 " ) was deemed

Geriatric Dwarf - no word of a lie! She was devastated.

 

Best,

 

Kendra