Absorption of EOs

[Guest guest]

Anyone have an American source for kunzia ambigua? I Googled but can't find

any. TIA

Gayla

Bob and Gayla Roberts

Always Enough Ranch

Acampo, CA

-

" Merinda " <aromamerinda

 

Thursday, September 10, 2009 9:31 PM

Absorption of EOs

 

 

Afternoon all,

 

Just to through something else into the discussion on EOs and absorption.

One of the chemicals in Macadamia oil takes certain molecules/chemicals of

essential oils into the bloodstream. This I know, through usage and via

talking to a biochemist scientist, and because I make up an analgesic blend

targeting specific areas.

 

It works!

[Guest guest]

G'day Merinda,

 

Lemme clarify three things afore I put it in gear.

 

First .. for whoever asked what an EO is .. its an Essential Oil.

 

Second .. I have never heard anyone claim that NO chemicals can absorb deep

enough to enter the blood stream.

 

Third .. I have never heard any knowledgeable person claim that ANY complete EO

can aborb deep enough to enter the blood stream.

 

Fourth .. for anything I write all bets are off if the skin is broken but then

we are not really talking about absorption.

 

(Clipped)

> One of the chemicals in Macadamia oil takes certain

> molecules/chemicals of essential oils into the bloodstream.  This I

> know, through usage and via talking to a biochemist scientist, and

> because I make up an analgesic blend targeting specific areas.

 

There are many " aids " that can assist SOME chemicals to absorb to a level deep

enough to enter the bloodstream. That is how commercial skin patches work ..

but even heat can do this.

 

But those SOME chemicals are those that would normally have the potential to

cause Sensitization. They are chemicals that we hope would not absorb because

Sensitization is BAD NEWS!.

 

This biochemist might be speaking based on hypothesis .. or based on one of the

most difficult tests around .. that is determining HOW a chemical entered the

blood stream. Blood tests show it is there but HOW it got there is a horse of a

different color .. they must ensure it did not get there via inhalation .. when

they apply it to the skin the person's head (nose) must be shielded from

inhaling the vapors that will rise in the room .. or have the head in another

room. ;-)

 

And .. if SOME .. not ALL .. of the chemical components of an EO do absorb ..

what is the potential benefit vs the potential harm? Is not use of pure,

unadulterated whole oils .. one of the Sacred Cows in this industry? If there

is to be gain from use of SOME but not ALL of the chemicals within the profile

of an EO .. have we not just slaughtered this Sacred Cow? ;-)

 

> It works!

 

Good it is .. maybe. Wintergreen and Sweet Birch (both almost always 98% Methyl

salicyclate and NOT natural) also work .. also absorb .. also bring almost

immediate relief from arthtitis pain .. and that is what causes them to be

dangerous. I say almost always NOT natural because they can be produced

naturally .. just as we can blow glass to make our drinking glasses .. but its

rarer than rare in both cases.

 

These two dangerous oils are effective and so those who suffer from chronic pain

use them day in and day out .. and by doing so they are destroying their liver.

There is no debate on this issue.

 

Clipped

 

> OK, this is an anecdotal 'proof' of EOs getting into the blood

> stream, but many of us using EOs have seen this work.

 

Though it should not be so .. anecdotal proof is about as close as we get in

this industry. There is little reason to expend big bucks to prove anything

because pharmaceutical companies can't patent natural products. That's one of

the many reasons why AT will always remain a pseudo science. Its up there

higher than arts and crafts but its not likely to be widely accepted in the

world of science.

 

> There is unlikely to be any scientific work done on this because

> there are cheaper synthetic products available and you cannot

> standardised essential oils or any of the 'naturally grown' oils. 

> Nature just doesn't standardise.

 

True .. but other than academically, I can think of few pressing reasons why a

researcher would want to spend big bucks to prove or disprove whether or not a

particular chemical component within a profile would absorb while another

particular chemical component of that profile would not. A pharmaceutical

company wants to test one or more chemicals in a vaccum .. the synergy is broken

... thus we find a lot of " side affects " because the balance is not there.

 

I've been around this group since it began and there are certain subjects that

have come up over and over for many years .. this one is right up there at the

top amongst those subjects. They will never be put to bed because of lack of

definite testing but there is a lot of information available to make the average

person accept that unassisted absorption does not occur except for certain

chemicals .. which are generally dangerous .. and that the issue is really of no

significance in the first place unless we want to create a new Sacred Cow on the

use of WHOLE Oils.

 

I have written at least 50 posts on this over the years .. many other folks have

too .. an archive search using Absorption in the subject line will overwhelm

anyone.

 

Just a couple ..

 

http://health./message/11011

 

http://health./message/54108

 

Clipped ..

 

> OK, my viewpoint on absorption...

 

If you ever get real bored .. or have problems getting to sleep .. go to the

list archive and read a few hundred other viewpoints on absorption. ;-)

 

> Regards

> Merinda

 

Y'all have a good one .. and keep smiling. :-)

 

Butch .. http://www.AV-AT.com