Absorption: Was: EO Info and Disinfo and Myths

[Guest guest]

Hi Lisa,

 

You asked:

 

>>>Can you point me in the right direction?

 

And Martin replied:

 

>>Certainly, go to a major library/s like I did and get copies

>>of the dozens of papers on this subject. Read them and analyse

>>what is being done and how. You will find some references in my

>>article on this, so I am puzzled as to why you are saying there

>>is no proof for or against. The Internet is of very little help

>>on such subjects.

 

Then you replied:

 

> I meant on your website, since you had said that the proof

> was there. Yes, I can go to a library, but that is not what

> I'm asking about.

 

What are you asking for? Do you want to receive information that

absolutely, positively states .. ESSENTIAL OILS do NOT absorb through

the skin to a degree that will allow them to enter the blood stream?

 

If that is what you are looking for .. such proof has been presented

more than one time .. its just not laid out in a format that would be

presentable to an elementary school science class. There is a need to

read all of the material and then come to the logical conclusion.

 

Read the entire page .. those who have not read the entire page should

not be writing on this subject. And .. its my opinion that those who

keep claiming that whole essential oils do absorb .. should support

their words with at least SOME proof .. we've seen none yet.

 

In fact .. Martin has stated on his site link .. that two essential

oils, Cumin & Tansy .. are absorbed WHOLE .. I'm not sure why he did

this and I'm wondering if its a typo .. because both of those oils are

composed of MANY chemical constituents and I am pretty sure that ALL of

those constituents do NOT absorb .. thus, the Whole Essential Oil does

NOT absorb.

 

http://www.aromamedical.com/articles/skinabso.html#ref-10

 

And on his site .. in the Summary .. it states:

 

" It still remains to be shown that whole essential oils penetrate

through the skin into the bloodstream, especially in any significant

amounts, although single constituents may.

 

Just because whole essential oils may not be absorbed via skin into the

bloodstream creating a systemic reaction, does NOT mean beneficial skin

affects and certainly the mental effects (relaxation) are very much

possible with essential oil treatments. Skin treatments affect the

external layers where many problems are found. The antimicrobial and

anti-inflammatory properties, as well as others, have proven essential

oils remain quite efficient at treating many minor complaints. And the

relaxing mental effects produced from the joy of using a pleasing

fragrance will never be denied. " UNQUOTE

 

What this is saying .. and what I have been saying for 12 + years .. is

that it is irrational, blind faith to believe that ALL of the HUNDREDS

of chemical constituents of ANY essential oil (save one .. which, in

fact, is not really an essential oil) can absorb to any degree .. and

those chemical constituents that CAN absorb (with an exception) do not

absorb when used in a rational manner .. to a degree that one could

expect physiological results to occur.

 

The exception I mentioned was so-called Wintergreen and Sweet Birch ..

but neither of these oils are TRUE Essential Oils .. the names I just

presented are common names for the chemical Methyl salicylate .. which

is not found in oil veins in the living plant .. and is produced via a

laborious process which results in creation of an artifact .. or a

chemical .. that can be very dangerous depending on frequency of use and

the condition of the liver of the user.

 

Back to chemical constituents .. I wonder how many on this list have

ever seen a detailed Gas Chromatographic/Mass Spectrometry analysis of any

essential oil .. by detailed .. I mean one that takes the percentages of

chemical constituents beyond the .01% level? In such reports we can

often find 50 or more chemicals listed .. but if we go into the more

sophisticated, more costly analysis tests .. we can see chemicals

present in the 1/1000th of a percent range .. and its often these

" trace " chemicals that have a major effect on therapeutic value .. the

absence of one could well upset the apple cart. So .. if ALL the

chemical components do not absorb .. and it is true that we need to use

WHOLE essential oils in order to gain benefits from the natural synergy

of the oil .. then we are wasting our time even discussing absorption!

 

> I didn't see any references in any articles, hence my asking for

> you to point me in the right direction. Again, the right direction

> on your website.

 

Its all there .. the references are there .. in the link provided above.

 

But .. if someone does not want to believe .. they will not accept any

information that is contrary to their mindset. This does not bother me

much in that its not a safety issue .. folks who believe that whole EO

absorb and provide therapeutic gain are not harming themselves unless

they disregard proper dilution rates .. but when they try to pitch that

belief as a basic foundation of Aromatherapy .. they are going to be

challenged .. and if they are using that belief as a basis for creation

of misinformation for monetary gain .. i.e., marketing hype, then they

are likely to be seriously challenged .. in fact, someone might report

them to the FCC .. it has been done before!

 

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

[Guest guest]

Hi Butch,

 

I wrote a response to your last post but I lost connection when I

tried to post it. Basically it just said thanks, because although

you deny it, that post was long! But I appreciate you taking time to

explain things rather than just say ImRight! And, I mentioned

theory, to which you responded undisputed fact... I want to clear up

that what I meant was not as in the general connotation of the word,

but as in The Theory of Relativity. It's true because it's never

been disproved, and it likely will never be, but it's still thought

of as theory. As you know, the science world, just like all other

aspects of life, is constantly changing, so what is True today, may

not be True when more information is found. Anyway...

 

> What are you asking for? Do you want to receive information that

> absolutely, positively states .. ESSENTIAL OILS do NOT absorb

through the skin...

 

Yes, but to be honest, I'm tired of this arguement. You have stated

that some chemicals in some oils can be absorbed through the skin,

which would lead me to believe that no, the blanket statement that

essential ols can not be absorbed is untrue. But then you say that

there is evidence that proves that the blanket statement is true. So

either way, I don't know how to respond and I'm going to drop it for

now. And, I just want to clear up that I never said YesTheyDo, I

only said it is counterintuitive for me to think they don't. That's

it. I have no proof that they do, and it's not a solid belief of

mine that they do, I just " feel " like they do. That's why I'm not

argueing for it or saying ItsTrue!, only questioning the againsters.

 

Also, I was tired when I was searching Martin's site, and it's a lot

of information to take in in one sitting, which was probably why I

missed any information about it and asked to be pointed in the right

direction.

 

Lisa

[Guest guest]

Lisa,

 

There seems to be something missing on this thread on absorption. This

is that if there were the slightest evidence that essential oils could

be absorbed by the skin in clinically significant volumes, then they

would be classified as pharmaceutical drugs and they would only be

allowed to be used by a doctor. That is what Buchbauer in Austria was

trying to prove and he failed to prove his case.

 

Martin

 

, " wunderbudder "

<wunderbudder wrote:

>

> Hi Butch,

>

> I wrote a response to your last post but I lost connection when I

> tried to post it. Basically it just said thanks, because although

> you deny it, that post was long! But I appreciate you taking time to

> explain things rather than just say ImRight! And, I mentioned

> theory, to which you responded undisputed fact... I want to clear