Critiques of Reference Publications ** LONG ** Was: Niaouli promotes testosterone?

[Guest guest]

Thanks Butch - an excellent essay on criticism and evaulation - in my opinion,

of course!!

Ann - Scotland

 

Because one claims to be a critic does not make their opinion right and

yours wrong ..

 

 

[Guest guest]

Butch--Thanks so much for your response. I have heard too many good things

about you, and do trust your thoughts and opinions.

 

I have to say though that I did not realize Anya had put our private, off-list

e-mails back on the lists, and I am a little annoyed by that. At the same time,

I guess I would not be able to hear others' opinions otherwise.

 

Thanks,

Tracy

New email address: rubberjunkie

 

*Some people only dream of angels; we held one in our arms.*

Remembering Jacob March 8 - 9, 1996

Our Angel: http://sids-network.org/fp/jacob.htm

-

Butch Owen

Wednesday, May 05, 2004 3:59 PM

Critiques of Reference Publications ** LONG ** Was:

Niaouli promotes testosterone?

 

 

Hi Tracy,

 

> Ugh. So did I just waste $125? That was my Mother's Day present. LOL!

 

If you believe the opinion of one person you might conclude that you

wasted your money. If you believe hundreds and hundreds of other folks

you will come to a different conclusion. There are NO AUTHORITIES in

this industry .. not a SINGLE ONE!! This includes Martin Watt and Butch

Owen and Anya McCoy!! There are folks in this industry who have a lot

of experience and knowledge .. Martin Watt and Sylla Sheppard-Hanger and

Robert Tisserard are three of them .. there are others.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

YES! My husband says it is not good enough to always point out the negative

unless you have ideas on how to turn it to the positive, or something like that.

:-)

 

*Some people only dream of angels; we held one in our arms.*

Remembering Jacob March 8 - 9, 1996

Our Angel: http://sids-network.org/fp/jacob.htm

-

 

 

>I could present the facts to correct the incorrect .. and that is a lot

more useful than merely saying a publication is worthless as tits on a

boar hawg because it does not do this or that .. anybody can make such

claims .. even those who cannot substitute the correct information.

<

 

 

[Guest guest]

At 10:24 AM 5/5/2004 -0600, you wrote:

>YES! My husband says it is not good enough to always point out the

negative unless you have ideas on how to turn it to the positive, or

something like that. :-)

(snipped a vulgar bit)

 

Well, Tracy, I have just read you were 'annoyed' with me in my response.

Your email to me came with (oils_herbs) in the subject heading, and was in

response to my group response to you. I thought you had erred in hitting

the send button, so I sent it back to the group. I get a lot of emails

privately, and they usually have the group header snipped out, and so I

know it's private. Sorry I tried to help you, and sorry you felt the need

to chastize me publicly.

 

In response to your post above, I suggest you reread my 'bad books' page.

My suggestions for improvement are very clear. Don't plagerize, use proper

citation, etc. I learned this when I researched old herbals in the 70's.

Same story as what is going on in AT today. No excuse for it. It's thievery

and bad science. No excuse. Period.

 

You might want to know - the group at large - that with freedom of speech,

anyone can comment on anything. I don't call myself a critic, I never have

-- I comment on stuff, some good some bad, just my opinion from having to

produce legally-defensible documents for developers and lawyers and

professors and editors.

 

Please also be aware that not one of the authors (with the exception of

shrill emails from Sylla) have ever challenged my stance. Not one has sued

me for restraint of trade -- because they can't prove they didn't

plagerize! Plagerization is theft, plain and simple, and the work of an

incompetent author. I don't care if they're writing a biography or a

technical manual. Poor research, poor writing and poor ethics add up to a

con job.

 

BTW, I originally obtained sample pages of the manual from a nurse who had

purchased it, and she was appalled by the claims. (She now has an AT

business now, using very traditional, conservative methods.) She faxed me

many pages, with her comments on them. Valid comments. They'd stand up in a

court of law, if anyone ever caused injury to themselves or others

following some of the outlandish claims. If an editor or attorney I worked

for ever caught me using such poor/unethical writing tactics, I would have

been mortified. I also would have probably been fired. That's the real

world, not the world of AT fairy tales and con artists.

 

Please also realize that lengthy, insulting, laborious posts from people

who sell stuff they defend need to be examined in that light. (I didn't

receive it, but someone forwarded a bit to me. Whew. Such energy. Such

defensiveness.) You won't see a reply from me to that. My response is here,

to you, Tracy, and others who use the AT fairy tale books. Please don't be

swayed by my personality or anyone else's. Now that you have both sides of

the story, make your own decision. That's what it's all about.

 

http://member.newsguy.com/~herblady

[Guest guest]

Hi Tracy,

 

> Ugh. So did I just waste $125? That was my Mother's Day present. LOL!

 

If you believe the opinion of one person you might conclude that you

wasted your money. If you believe hundreds and hundreds of other folks

you will come to a different conclusion. There are NO AUTHORITIES in

this industry .. not a SINGLE ONE!! This includes Martin Watt and Butch

Owen and Anya McCoy!! There are folks in this industry who have a lot

of experience and knowledge .. Martin Watt and Sylla Sheppard-Hanger and

Robert Tisserard are three of them .. there are others.

 

There are degrees of validity in each publication and we evaluate that

validity based on what we are seeking, but there is no single Bible for

Aromatherapy or Essential Oils .. there is no single authoritative

source of info in this industry and that includes those scientific

references that discuss EO in an all encompassing manner but which some

folks are criticized for not including in their reference publications.

If we want perfection then we have to find those 250-300 page

scientific pubs that deal with only ONE oil and take it from, " On the

first day, Gawd created the Heavens and the Earth! "

 

Because one claims to be a critic does not make their opinion right and

yours wrong .. opinions are like butts .. we all have one. Some guys

and gals like slim butts .. others prefer a bit of meat on a nice butt.

 

Rare is the critic who can avoid showing favoritism toward folks they

like and condemning those they might have had a peeing contest with.

 

Rare is the critic who is perfect enough to sweep aside personal likes

and dislikes when establishing the criteria upon which they will claim

to " objectively " evaluate others .. or whatever they are evaluating.

 

I spent 30 years in uniform in a system that struggled with and failed

to create a totally objective rating system for Officer Efficiency

Reports .. and these reports were the path to success or failure for any

and all officers .. one tick mark in the wrong block and the ratee got

the message that they should be thinking about another career. We did

get close .. and the system we created was one that is often used by the

folks in the know to evaluate reports from critics .. its called a Rater

Profile .. a profile that rates the Rater's ratings instead of just the

Ratee's fitness reports. I think y'all can see my point in this.

 

Captain Smith is a dedicated officer who continuously places the mission

before all else. Is this a positive comment? I think not .. Captain

Smith is a dedicated officer who has an uncanny ability to accomplish

the mission without sacrificing the morale and welfare of his troops.

That is a positive comment. But I can take the words in the above four

lines and cause an officer to be promoted or passed over for promotion.

Its all based on how I want to present those words.

 

> I don't understand where one is supposed to get information then.

 

There is no Bible in aromatherapy .. there is not ONE SINGLE publication

in existence that cannot be critiqued and from which a laundry list of

negatives cannot be drawn .. if that is our mission. If we are inclined

to be more positive than negative in our approach then we can find a

laundry list of positive things to comment from most critiques.

 

Tracy, the two volume set you have purchased is as close as you are

going to find to concise information in this industry. The alternative

is to dedicate your life to study of AT and EO and try to compile all of

the data available into your mental hard drive .. that is, after you

become knowledgeable enough to separate the white from the black in the

chicken manure .. actually, both colors are the same thing .. manure.

 

> All the 'experienced' people on the lists, how do they get their knowledge?

 

I am not sure what an " experienced " person is in this cottage industry.

I was once criticized by a smart aleck on another list .. this was

like in 2000 I think .. this person said I didn't know my ass from a

hole in the ground and he could remember when I was asking basic

questions on AT and EO. He disregarded the fact that 4 years after I

learned what EO meant I was asked to lecture on the subject at a major

conference .. and according to those in the audience it was an

acceptable presentation .. so I reckon the point of experience could be

defined as some having 10 years experience and some having 1 year of

experience 10 times. But asking where one gets their knowledge is

simply asking where does one get an education in aromatherapy or better,

use of essential oils.

 

You must listen to the opinions of folks who can back up what they say

more often than those who can't. And like a good cop or attorney, look

for the motives of those who make claims .. or try to refute claims.

Its easier to criticize others than it is to fill in the blanks with

useful information. That's one of the problem in the world .. everybody

is a critic but if we back them up against the wall and ask them to

provide alternative information or solutions they generally start to

talk the humma-humma and dance the schuffle-schuffle.

 

> Where is a reliable source to learn? It gets kind of frustrating. :-(

 

I have read such words hundreds of times on many, many lists. Americans

(me included) have become accustomed to being spoon fed information ..

we often think the way our parents, teachers, peers and the media tell

us we should think. We look for sources to tell us what is right and

what is wrong .. but unfortunately, the world is not that simple and as

I stated previously, opinions are like butts .. we all have one. When

dealing with essential oils you must start from GROUND ZERO and work up

from there. I think its pretty logical once we get the hang of it. It

is wise to discount HALF of the claims made by reference publications ..

and perhaps TWO THIRDS of the claims made by those who sell essential

oils. There are ZERO claims on my website, but I do present my opinions

from time to time on lists like this and when I can provide scientific

data to support that opinion, I do so .. if I can't provide it I will

try to provide sufficient empirical data to come close to supporting my

position. But if we are to only accept that data that is scientifically

proven then we should avoid Aromatherapy all together .. and come to

think of it, we should avoid religion too!

 

I know that there are dozens and dozens and dozens of folks on this list

who own Sylla's Aromatherapy Practitioner Reference Manual, two volumes.

It and Plant Aromatics are the two BEST SELLING publications in the AT

industry .. BAR NONE!! I have sold MANY HUNDREDS of Sylla's pub and

MANY HUNDREDS of copies of Martin's Plant Aromatics. On this list I

have seen MANY people praise both. Are these people who praised Sylla's

pub stupid? Are they too dumb to see that what they think they like is

really something they should not like. If that is the case then it is

best that they not listen to their neighbor when they describe their

idea of what a perfect spouse should be.

 

I once started to do a critique on Suzanne Catty's, " Hydrosols: The

Next Aromatherapy " .. that might not be the exact name .. I just moved

and all boxes are not open yet and I can't find it. ;-) Before I got

to page 20 I had a list of problems .. but then I began to question the

attitude I was displaying. She wrote the FIRST reference publication on

this subject .. and I knew there was no way she could have personal

knowledge of all the points she discussed .. much of the data had come

from advisors who were so-called experts in this cottage industry .. so

I let the formal critique slide. I did make comments and pointed out

incorrect information on a few lists when particular issues came up ..

but only because I did not want that incorrect information to become

institutionalized .. as is the norm in this industry. I consider myself

to be knowledgeable when it comes to Hydrosols .. but I have not taken

the time to sit down and write a book .. so who am I to critique someone

who has? For sure, I have an obligation to point out obvious errors for

the reason I stated above .. but I understand that it is a lot easier to

criticize a job done than it is to do the job in first place. Without

regard to the problems I found in that pub, I salute Suzzane Catty for

making the effort and I recommend purchase of the publication. She has

created something that will be developed further by others.

 

But .. if I were to decide to critique that reference .. I could give

specific reasons why this and that tidbit of information was incorrect.

I could present the facts to correct the incorrect .. and that is a lot

more useful than merely saying a publication is worthless as tits on a

boar hawg because it does not do this or that .. anybody can make such

claims .. even those who cannot substitute the correct information.

 

I find it difficult to be objective in evaluating most any publication

regarding information in an industry that is not accepted as being

credible by any scientific body in existence. I think one who tries to

objectively determine perfection in any imperfect industry that has no

valid foundation to begin with is setting themselves up to be correctly

evaluated as being an imperfect perfectionist.

 

It might be easier to just evaluate the industry of Aromatherapy and all

the reference publications used in the industry by writing something

like, " Aromatherapy as practiced SUCKS .. it STINKS like crap! It has

become a dog and pony show .. it is a commercial SCAM! However, EOs

smell nice .. they work .. they work whether or not we know it or want

it to happen .. and we don't have to mix a bunch of them together and

call those blends fancy names that make them more marketable. Almost

all of the reference publications in the AT industry begin with flawed

assumptions so therefore we can say that almost all of them are Fruits

of the Poison Tree and the information contained therein should be taken

with a grain of salt! " This might be a good, concise critique of AT.

 

Then we move on to something that can be quantified and validated ..

like maybe the sex habits of the Somali Two-Toed, Bug-Eyed Piss Ant.

 

The page of Bad, Bad books on Anya's site is very long

http://member.newsguy.com/~herblady/atbadbooks.htm

 

The page of Good books is short. Martin is great .. Chrissy Wildwood is

great but she is a compadre of Martin's. I can find things to criticize

in Martin's and Chrissy's publications .. I think Chrissy is opinionated

about a lot of issues she can't support with facts and if Martin were

not her friend he would agree with me on THIS LIST. I can't comment on

David Williams' publication as I'm not qualified to do so but I have

heard nothing bad said about it.

 

Anya states on her list of Good books, " *** Martin Watt's review of

Buckle's book on my bad books page.) Martin doesn't mention the

referencing, he concentrates on the errors in chemistry and application,

bad science, etc. " ... My Comment: So, we have two folks using their

own criteria to determine what is Good and what is Bad. It would be

very interesting to have a critique of the Bible, the Koran, the Torah

and other historical books using similar criteria.

 

It would also be interesting to see this critic list those publications

by Jeanne Rose on her " Soon to be Reviewed " list. They are all very old

publications .. Jeanne Rose and Robert Tisserand (and Sylla for that

matter) are among the " pioneers " in aromatherapy. The fact that they

didn't pull their pubs off the market when more information was gained

does not negate the fact that they worked to create the foundations upon

which others did further work .. theirs was the spring board.

 

Pointing out obvious problems in a reference publication is honorable

even if one is not a paid critic but to list the publication as GOOD or

BAD is taking it a bit too far .. no need to throw the baby out with the

bath water. If we apply strict criteria across the board we must also

include Martin's work in the BAD list because there are some points that

can be criticized.

 

Back to Jeanne Rose, a few years ago I would guess those pubs would have

been listed on the Bad books page .. but today, its possible they would

move over to the Good books page. More likely is it that they will not

be addressed at all because it is uncomfortable to criticize (even when

its deserved) works of folks we have later found reason to like.

 

We are all critics .. even if we don't think of ourselves as such and

even when we try to avoid being so. The trick is in being objective for

real .. instead of objective for show. I like John so I can find a long

list of positives when I evaluate him .. I dislike Suzy and I can find a

long list of negatives when I evaluate her. I'm using the same criteria

when evaluating John and Suzy .. but is it not biased? Of course it is

because I established the criteria based on preconceived notions and

rules of my choosing. We are all critics .. some keep our opinions to

ourselves and others put them on paper. Personal likes and dislikes

are difficult to avoid in life .. and establishing criteria for judging

anything is almost always based on the parameters we establish based on

our own likes and dislikes.

 

I sell Martin's publications in North and South America .. and I sell

Sylla's Aromatherapy Practitioner Reference Manual .. they are the ONLY

publications I offer because they are among the best available .. but

still, I can find things to criticize in them .. including Martin's own

works. Martin is the worst editor I have ever seen .. aside from some

third graders. If I chose to use that as a single criteria for judging

his reference publications I would place them at the bottom of my list,

or maybe in a special category of " Lower Than Whale Shit. " But that is

not what I'm looking for when I judge Plant Aromatics .. I want to see

is the Safety Data or dermal application of essential oils .. and it is

there .. despite Martin's lousy ability to edit properly. ;-)

 

And I'm not looking for references in Sylla's pubs when I know there are

no references to quote .. and when she very clearly states that most of

the uses for this and that oil come under a heading of " Traditional &

Esoteric Uses/Actions. "

 

And on Niaouli .. she is very clear when she discusses Niaouli, 1.8

Cineole Type (Melaleuca quinuenervia) under the Endocrine column .. she

writes, and I quote:

 

" Hormone like: stimulates estrogen (?NEF), testosterone (?NEF).

 

She is making it clear that this statement is not a proven one and she

herself doubts the credibility .. but she is reporting traditional uses.

We must take the time to read the instructions in the manual .. and the

time to read the " How To Use This Manual " portion because it is clearly

stated that NEF means that there is uncertainty on that claim.

 

Throughout Sylla's Manual she qualifies a lot of the data presented ..

from the Preface, the Introduction and instructions on how to use the

Manual .. its pretty clear to me. Nowhere does she claim that all the

data presented can be supported with double-blind tested, peer reviewed

scientific data .. and good it is because if those of us in this cottage

industry only had access to info that would fit into that category we

would be able to digest most of it on a Saturday morning .. maybe during

commercial breaks while watching our favorite cartoon shows.

 

She states in the Preface .. and I will include most of the page:

 

" Although plants have been the major source of medicine for most of the

world's population even through today, their uses have not always been

understood. When one looks at the available books on Aromatherapy, many

repetitions, improper botanical nomenclature (i.e., oil obtained from

phyto-chemical variations) and misunderstandings of plant parts do not

relieve the resulting confusion. Often properties are assigned to

essential oils according to herbal uses, which does not stand up in

critical evaluation. This manual is an attempt to clarify many

questions on the commodity of essential oils and their properties

arising from the upsurge in the field of aromatic medicine.

 

To the best of these author and editors abilities, this guide compiles

most of the available information on therapeutic properties, actions and

chemistry of essential oils. It is based on scientific data from

clinical researchers around the world, original gas chromatographies (MY

NOTE: *** I leave out this part as it is not critical information) ***

In addition, Martin Watt and David Moyler contributed much to the final

revision, clarification & editing. Intended only as a reference and

guide, it is left up to an individual practitioner to draw the final

conclusion of what to use and how. That is where the responsibility

lies. " (PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF THAT LAST SENTENCE!!!!!!!)

 

I now stand on my reputation by making a statement in support of Sylla

Sheppard-Hanger's, " The Aromatherapy Practitioner Reference Manual " , a

Complete Reference Book of Over 350 Aromatic Plant Extracts, Index of

Biologically Active Phytochemicals, Clinical Index and Taxonomical

Index. " It is NOT perfect in every respect .. we can never ever hope to

see a perfect reference publication in this cottage industry .. BUT ..

it is the MOST COMPLETE, CONCISE, INFORMATIVE and USER FRIENDLY pub to

be found in the industry .. and it is worth TWICE the price asked for

it!!!!!!!!

 

NO Tracy .. you did NOT waste your money and I am sure you will find

this two volume set most useful .. it will soon become dog eared as you

will find yourself using it daily. I recommend you not let negative

comments about your purchase influence your own personal evaluation and

decision in that regard.

 

> Thanks for the response!

> Tracy

 

Y'all keep smiling. :-) Butch http://www.AV-AT.com

 

PS: I offer the following pubs on my site .. not a laundry list but a

select list. I think they are the best .. but if someone paid me enough

to take the time and effort I could criticize some points in each.

 

Martin's Plant Aromatics http://www.av-at.com/plantaromaticsavnp.html

Martin's EO Monographs http://www.av-at.com/monographs.html

Martin's Natural Beauty http://www.av-at.com/natbeauty.html

Sylla's AT Ref Manual http://www.av-at.com/manual01.html

 

> >Hello Anya, Sylla Hangar's " Aromatherapy Practitioner Reference

> >Manual " . Tracy

>

> OK, Tracy, I was afraid of that. For a review of that " manual " , please

> see: http://member.newsguy.com/~herblady/atbadbooks.htm

>

> I'm supposing the bit you're quoting has no reference, no footnote, no

> anything to signify that the information came from a valid source?

>

> Anya

> http://member.newsguy.com/~herblady

[Guest guest]

This must just be *my lucky day*. I was just thinking after receiving an email

from you a week or so ago that I had not seen one of your " this is my opinion

posts " Thank you Butch for the effort and time you took to make your comments.

I have always found you to be fair and make excellent analogies.

 

 

I do have one problem though, I personally purchased Martin's Natural Beauty

publication from you a while back and I do not look any different. So what is

up with that LOL .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sharon

 

" You must be the change you wish to see in the world "

Mohandas Ghandi

 

 

 

 

Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at HotJobs