Talk:Aromatherapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
Complementary and Alternative Medicine Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

All the "Copyright Graham Sorenson, http://TheGuidetoAromatherapy.com" material was removed.

I've seen several references on the Web to farnesols in sandalwood killing germs, but finding the research may take a trip to the library. -phma 18:53, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] POV dispute

"While pleasant scents can make a room a nicer place to be in and therefore relaxing, lowering stress and related effects, there is no scientific basis at all for aromatherapy or any form of proof it does anything other than make a room smell nice. There are some that give a form of relief for the airways when having a cold or the flu, such as most citrus-based essential oils. While there is no scientific proof that essential oils cure diseases, many people have found great success in their usage."

This paragraph is POV. 'No scientific basis at all' is false, there have been a number of double-blind studies attributing therapeutic effect to aromatherapy. --Dforest 8 July 2005 02:52 (UTC)

I've been working to rewrite the POV parts of the article to be more neutral. I also moved the critical paragraph to the Criticism section. However, now there is little content to the article besides criticism, so I am marking it POV. Someone care to contribute? Dforest 10:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Abowt Phytonsides - it is not a part of EO, but it is native organic substances emitted by plants (Allium cepe, Tagetes, Pine, Narciss, Brassica niger and so on). It wide using in Russian, Japanese, Ukrainian folk medicine, phytotherapy, aromatherapy... So I thinc it may be present in AT article. Best regards, Alex Alexandrov

Thanks for your edits. Can you point to some sources about phytoncides, showing their use in aromatherapy? When I google for the words: phytoncide aromatherapy (I believe that is the correct spelling), I find only 49 hits, and several of them imply it is a fraction of essential oil. Dforest 10:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your letter and advices, and I seek in this week for corresponded information for You - or may be translate it from Ru to Engl. Alexandrov 15:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Alexandrov. I reverted some of your changes because, well, they didn't make sense to me. For example, contraindications--'Inperception of scents'. I've never heard of this as a contraindication. Do you have a source for this? It would be more useful to have more specific contraindications such as:

  • Fever
  • Infectious diseases
  • Under the influence of alcohol

and according to EOs:

  • use of EOs having emmenagogue properties during pregnancy
  • use of EOs in case of known allergy
  • use of EOs with known interactions with medications

etc.

Also I question the last sentences you added about the different sense of aromatherapy. You already mentioned the difference between home and professional AT. Is that not sufficient? --Dforest 06:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dforest!

It can be discudssed - contraind. in AT. E.g. "1-st trimestr of pregnancy" (this time embrion has high sensibility to more VOC in EO)... (as emmenagogue EO work most in big/sometimes near toxic concentration, orally)... We will see about it.

About the different sense of aromatherapy. May be yes... But it is really VERY different AT legislation statut in many countries. And very different medical - social practice. In France AT is more conventional Med. then in US. In UK AT = massage. In Russia, Ukraine most CAM branches is'n conventional (exept partically Homeopaty at last times). And moderator of Italian AT page admit and translate that my sentence (by the way look at big Italian Wiki-AT, and Nl. And it is very strange that France page is very short!). Really we now create AT as science and denotation (implication) of AT transformation step by step.Alexandrov 07:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

82.45.131.196 (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC) I always had my doubts about Complementary therapies as i am a Scientist; but from the recent literature that has been presented, i do believe that it does have benefits. Even if aromatherapy has its positive effects based on the scent of the essential oils alone, it is still a major thing. The psychological effects that it seems to have which in turn have an impact on our body, is quite profound. We are all aware that the placebo effect does exist and that the human brain is a powerful tool. It can be manipulated to a certain degree. I look at all Complementary therapies just like how i look at Chinese medicine. They are different treatment options, based on totally different philosophies and you do need to be open-minded in order to understand the theories. Kings College London did a study on aromatherapy about a year ago and they found that it helps greatly with patients suffering from anxiety and depression.

I do agree that the article needs to be written in a more neutral form because this site is a huge source of information for people out there, so it does need to be fair for everyone.

[edit] Aromatherapy, Massage & Reflexology as a career?

Hi All

I hope you would be able to give me some feedback. I am thinking of studying massage, reflexology & aromatherapy in the UK and then returning to my home in South Africa to open a practice. I have been a secretary for 8 years & am so sick of the mundane work! I am very interested in holistic healing & think this might be something I would enjoy.

As I am a bit short on cash at the moment I have decided to do as much of my studying via the internet to get a feel for what it would entail to study the above before I make my choice and commiting myself to my studies.

I was hoping that those that have qualified as any of the above could give me feedback on your path to qualification and working life thereafter? At the moment it is seeming a little bit daunting as there are so many different oils with so many uses and properties in aromatherapy, plus all the anatomy etc in massage. Although I am very interested in the subject I wonder if it will be manageable to go back to studying after 8 years while working a full time job?!

Did you enjoy studying aromatherapy/massage/reflexology - did you find it quite a challenge? How long did it take you to qualify and have you found it quite easy to establish a client base? Do you make a decent salary?

I would really appreciate any feedback you could give me.

[edit] Claims presented as facts

Throughout this whole article, many claims by those who practice aromatherapy are being stated as facts. I think we need a fairly extensive rewrite with a more skeptical tone. --Jasonuhl 21:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we need to rewrite it with a skeptical tone; that implies POV language which would be against WP:NPOV. What this article needs is good research and a neutral tone. Reading the article in its current state, I don't see any obvious factual problems, though it needs references, particularly in the theraputic effects section. Could you give an example of the language you take issue with? --Dforest 01:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Even the lead sentence ("Aromatherapy...is the use of essential oils and other aromatic compounds from plants to affect someone's mood or health") implies that such treatment *does* affect mood and health. The opening sentence of the Theory section ("When aromatherapy is used for the treatment or prevention of disease,...") is similarly objectionable. The article goes on to list specific compounds and their therapeutic effects as if their efficacy was a well-established fact. --Jasonuhl 19:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Studies

If you enter essential oils and antiviral in Google Scholor you get a bunch of in vitro studies. The same for antibacterial. Most of it is published in botany, virology or microbiology journals, not in journals aimed at the medical community. Cayte

This is not surprising. Aromatherapy counts for a very small percentage of essential oil uses. Also, in vitro studies are a lot cheaper to do that in vivo. By the way, please use ~~~~ to sign your comments. Dforest 10:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

"Although there is little proof that aromatherapy can cure diseases, there is considerable anecdotal evidence of its benefits." This is a counterfactual in the light of in vitro studies plus clinial studies in France and Germany. It should be attributed or deleted. Cayte

[edit] Pseudoscience category

The pseudoscience category is disputed and was removed.

According to Wikipedia:Categorization:

Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.

--Dforest 13:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Medical and scientific authority

Medical consensus on aromatherapy varies from country to country so the term medical professionals should be qualified.

Scientists are only authoritative within their specialty. In the context of aromatherapy, biochemists would be authoritative. Meteorologists would not. An unqualified reference to scientists is meaningless.

Its inaccurate to state that scientific literature contains only anecdotal evidence. A search of the literature turns up in-vitro and clinical studies. Their quality may be in dispute but not their existence.Cayte 04:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Cayte

I've changed the assertion by BenBurch at the start of the article from scientifically invalid to disputed. As there are clinical papers including RCTs suggesting their is an impact from the use of aromatherapy I considered this to not conform to NPOV. See for example the Cochrane review (2003) Aroma therapy for dementia. CD003150. Tomcrocker (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial reference not

The following reference contains a journal of clinical studies not adverts. It is available on sciencedirect.com, a site of Elsevior. Elsevior is a publisher of science articles. I don't see how it could be construed as commercial except on the assumption that ANY studies of aromatherapy must be commercially rather than scientifically motivated. But that would be POV wouldn't it?


Cayte 01:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Cayte

[edit] POV information supression

Please resolve POV issues on the talk pages. The information removed was referenced. Thank you for your cooperation.Cayte 22:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Cayte

--Nightwatchman 09:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Edited out misplaced user signature under History section.

[edit] stuff

hello, there's some strange stuff at the very bottom of the aromatherapy page. it looks like some type of table and text that has not formatted properly. just letting you know (i don't want to remove it if someone intended for something to be there. maybe it can be properly formatted?) 68.34.158.128 22:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)alexis

[edit] "The best aromatherapy pendant"

If you don't think aromatherapy works, go talk to a skunk! If you know they work, here's one of the best ways to use them, [advertising removed], these amazing corkless pendants are designed to allow the user to smell their oils instantly, by turning the pendant over and sniffing. Check out our website at http://www.[advertising removed].com Elfintom 04:10, 31 March 2007

Please do not use Wikipedia to advertise your products. Thank you. Rhinoracer 14:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mass spectrometry

The article notes: "Likewise, claims that an oil's purity is vetted by mass spectrometer or gas chromatography have limited value, since all such testing can do is show that various chemicals occur in the oil." Mass spectrometry measures the number of ions of each mass/charge ratio, with a response factor that varies somewhat between compounds. It can be used to determine the proportion in which chemicals are present in a mixture, and thus should be able to detect any differences that can be detected by a trained human nose. Someone should either clarify (e.g., is it known that tests do not compare the proportions of major and minor components, when the former are more likely to be used as adulterants?) or remove the claim from the article. Thiotimoline42 21:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Valnet and World War I

Valnet is reported to have been born in 1920 (http://biorganic.ifrance.com/biorganic/valnetviegb.htm) so the reference to World War I would be incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.25.122 (talk) 06:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] how about using a vaporizer?

I'd like to use my vaporizer to enjoy the scent of a plant like rose and spices like rosemary and basil. Is this safe? It is a known fact that vaporizers do not produce carcinogens because it does not burn, it vaporizes. So far rosemary has been wonderful... and catnip... parsley was good but I didn't like it. I wonder if any of the safety concerns in this article would apply to me vaporizing these materials, not from essential oils, but from leaves and flowers. I bet the concentration couldn't be that high. Thanks for any help. Yubal (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Most vapourisers use the essential oil, as its easier and more convenient to put a couple of drops of oil onto the surface of the water that is then heated by a candle. Its not going to be unsafe using fresh or dried herbs in a device like this, but it will be messy, might not smell that strong, and if the water level runs low you might get scorched plant material which will stink, and be as easy to clean off as burnt oatmeal in a panValueaddedwater (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)