Talk:Bach flower remedies

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.)
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.

Contents

[edit] Vague and unsupported blanket dismissal of the remedies

I find the standard knee-jerk Wikipedia dismissal of all natural or holistic therapies tiresome and unfair, especially when it comes to vibrational or energy medicine (homeopathy and flower remedies/essences). No information whatsoever is given about the studies involved, only a blanket, knee-jerk, unilateral denunciation, repeated frequently in the article so as to create maximum discredit. No information is given on what the trials were, how the remedies were chosen and prescribed, or how they were administered or for how long. Any decent practioner of energy medicine knows that each of those elements (in particular, the correct choice of remedy out of, in this case, 38 remedies) is critical in creating a successful response in the patient. No double-blind clinical trial can recreate the correct and accurate prescribing of the precise remedy, and so any double-blind randomized clinical trial is fatally flawed, and its results are inadmissable.

Why are these things even included in this article, especially repeatedly in the same article, when they carry no objective weight (and no particulars at all), besides giving the appearance that Wikipedia is being "scientific" and "rational"? Softlavender 01:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about... there are three peer-reviewed articles from legitimate scientific journals listed in the notes. That makes this article better sourced than most of the stuff on Wikipedia. If you have a similarly legitimate source that points to the remedies' effectiveness, then please add it. But "neutrality" doesn't mean we have to pretend that things that are false are as legitimate as actual facts. We're not going to give equal weight to arguments that the earth is flat, even though there are a lot of earnest people that really really believe it.—Chowbok ☠ 21:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Softlavender, it's true that some natural medicine advocates do claim their techniques are difficult to demonstrate under controlled conditions, and critics claim this is just evasion and they could be fairly tested. There's some discussion of this on the alternative medicine page and maybe it could be improved, or linked from the BFR page. I agree that a double-blind technique would be difficult for something like reflexology, but other techniques are possible.
However, personally I don't see any difficulty in doing a double-blind test. The practitioner would examine the patient and select a remedy as usual. Some fraction of the bottles would be replaced with an water/brandy mixture without flower essence, with only the investigator knowing which was which. Subsolar 22:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't worry, skeptics need Wild Oat

I was under the impression that WikiPedia is an open forum for anyone with useful knowledge to contribute. The spirit of imparting knowledge so that others can learn from those who have experience and insight to share. What a beautiful gift to pass on to others don't you think? I am therefore dissapointed that when ever I come here to share my knowledge to find I and others before me are treated with a sense of arguement by a select group of individuals who seem to claim rights over what can and cannot be said. Hijacking every opportunity to have anything presented in their way. Individuals who justify their beliefs by grounding their shortsighted views in the ruthless opression of other peoples knowledge. Fortunately this phenomena is limited to WikiPedia and like many people, I will no longer be visiting or making reference to WikiPedia, instead I will choose another resource who welcomes a fair expression of beliefs, whilst maintaining an accurate impersonal view of the bigger picture on many interesting subjects.

If you can cite a reference there's no problem though? Wikipedia is a dictionary of facts and if you can back them up they are welcomed hartely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.144.133.30 (talk) 10:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rescue Remedy

I'll post more info when I find it. In South Africa an off-the-shelf tablet medicine is available called simply "Rescue Remedy". I am very sensitive to medication, and dissolved one of these tablets in my mouth. It caused a brief euphoria lasting about 30 minutes, after which mild fatigue. What I would like to know is what compounds I ingested. Was it a powder alcohol? (If there is such a thing) or some other substance. The euphoric sensation is much different from that of codeine, alcohol or caffeine.

To reply on the post above about the "Blanket Dismissal" - I believe it is more or less warranted if you look at the scope of this wikipedia article - remedies for anything from fear, compulsivity, impulsivity. I mean, really, do you have any idea how complex te brain is - do you really think theres a "pretty" compound that targets just one facet of a complex subconcsious intellectual function? Do not underestimate the power of the placebo effect - it is not a "dismissal" as in saying it "doesnt do anything" - it is rather a dismissal of the chemical action of the substance. The effect has to do with the labelling rather than the substance. 41.208.48.1 06:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odors

I'm curious about this if someone would care to take the trouble to answer. Do these remedies have characteristic odors of the flowers and plants? Or are they so homeopathically dilute that the odor is the alcoholic preservative or the tincture vehicle? Alteripse 22:23, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Answer - No, flower essences do not have any odour or other physical characteristic from the plant. They are purely an "energy medicine", and the only odour is from the brandy that is used as a preservative. Peter alchemy 09:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to reply to the query on odours. when you smell or taste a Flower Essence, rather than stock dilution which is what people buy in shops you can sometimes detect a 'flowery' taste as the dilution is 1:1. With the stocks we buy and generally use, though, the taste and odour is of Brandy, since this is the substance Dr, Bach selected to use as the preservative of the flower essences; just as well if the remedy is Holly or Wlm - the actial liquor of the flower rmemdy when prepared is bitter! Julie Murray(87.203.108.189 18:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC))
As I understand it they're very dilute, but not technicall "homeopathically dilute" - ie there is actually some vegetable material there, just not enough to be detectable by the human nose. The dilution from the infusion is on the order of 100:1(fact?), not 1e9:1. Subsolar 15:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] categorization

Does this article really need to be in nearly every sub category of alternative medicine, as well as the alternative medicine category itself, new age and parapsychology?--CDN99 22:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, right, I see your point! --Slashme 07:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Why 38?. Threre's a want for remedies to such grave diseases. IE: Is there any plant to cure from skepticism?

[edit] Diagnosis

This article needs a well-written section describing just how an expert goes about prescribing the remedies; and, at the same time, the manner in which that expert reaches their conclusion that their patient is presenting with such-and-such a pattern, which then indicates such-and-such a remedy. It should also discuss the arguments for and against the use of pendulums for this purpose.

Agree. Subsolar 14:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simples or Compounds

This article needs a well-written section describing the arguments for and against using a single remedy as the sole form of therapy, as contrasted with a mixture of remedies.

Also, given that mixtures are commonly administered, is there an optimum number of ingredients? And, from this, is there a maximum number of ingredients beyond which the compounded mixture simply will not "work"? In the same vein, are there any mutually antagonistic or mutually synergistic remedies?

I don't think there is any reason not to use a single remedy, it's just that because there are no interactions practitioners use multiple to address different facets of the condition. Usually no more than 6 individual remedies are put into a single treatment, I guess because too much change isn't always beneficial. I have also seen general supportive remedies used in conjunction with those targeting specific issues, eg. Rescue Remedy at the same time as Crabapple for detox. There certainly are common pairings, eg. Larch (confidence) or Walnut (protection) will often be used with those remedies for fear or hopelessness such as Gorse, Gentian, Rose Rose to provide a positive factor when dealing with negative issues. This would be a great section to write, I might take a shot at it sometime. LTB Enterprises 05:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adjuvancy

Are the flower remedies ever administered as an adjuvant for other therapeutic interventions? Also, are they ever used to prepare a patient for other forms of therapy for which (in the absence of the treatment with the flower remedies) otherwise unsuited?

Flower remedies are often used as an adjuvant for energy work, eg. polarity therapy, reiki, reflexology, shiatsu. They work on an emotional level to support the energy work which can be mainly physical. I have not heard of them being used to facilitate treatment which the patient is unsuited for. I think most practitioners would see this as outside the scope of the remedies use as they are considered a "gentle" form of healing and used to support whilst other actions are being undertaken. LTB Enterprises 05:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bodhi33 and placebos

User:Bodhi33 wrote:

Since animals are not susceptible to Placebo effects the reproach that Bach flower remedies are merely placebos seems to be refuted by Bach flower therapists from all over the world who report sucessful treatments.

Bodhi33, the three studies cited here found that there was no effect stronger than placebo. If you find some reasonable alternative evidence please cite it, but don't just delete things you disagree with.

Animals can respond to a placebo just as humans can: they know when they're being given medicine or getting attention from a carer. I understand that it is common to give control groups a placebo when medicine is tested on animals from precisely this reason.

Anecdotal results are dealt with later. It is a fact that some people believe the BFRs work; that says little about whether they actually work. -- Subsolar 04:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally know nothing about medical research. So if you have a reference to a study that shows animals respond to placebos, could you post it, I would like to read about it. 71.57.59.212 10:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific studies, clinical use

There are scientific studies backing the effectiveness of flower essences, as well as voluminous empirical evidence from many decades of use. If flower essences were only placebos, it is unlikely that such extensive use would be made of them.

See http://www.flowersociety.org/scientific.htm, for some examples of scientific studies.

You may call them "scientific studies", but I had a look at the one about using Rescue Remedy to reduce the stress induced by doing arithmetic. It was not published in a peer-reviewed journal (or anywhere except the web, as far as I can tell), and does not even follow the normal format of a research article. I would expect to see abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion and conclusion when reading a serious study. If this article had been organised that way, I would be able to see what kind of placebo had been used, whether single-blinding or double blinding had been used, and what on earth to make of a chart which represents the effect of the flower essence on the stress response of the lumbar chakra in "micarovolts", claiming the significance as "P<.95" (in other words not really significant at all?)--Slashme 12:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Flower essence therapy is currently a part of the National Health Care system of Cuba, and it is in the process of being added to the National Health Care system of Chile. In both countries flower essences are extensively used in hospitals, outpatient clinics, schools and other institutions. This information is based on extensive contacts with medical doctors in Cuba, and a recent visit to Chile that including meetings with officials of the Chilean Ministry of Health.

If you can cite newspaper reports or other sources, this is definitely encyclopedic information which you can include in the article.--Slashme 12:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There should be more scientific studies of flower essences, but funding is difficult due the the bias against this form of medicine, a bias demonstrated by the Wikipedia article.

Remember, Wikipedia is not there to redress the bias inherent in the medical establishment, but to represent a good overview of reliable secondary sources. --Slashme 12:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Author's disclosure: I am the founder of the Flower Essence Society and have been developing education and research in flower essence therapy for nearly three decades.

Richardakatz 19:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Flower therapies have been sold commercially since the 1930s, and are now widely available worldwide. To judge from the amount sold in retail, annual turnover must be at least in the tens of millions of dollars. So it is a bit disingenuous to claim that lack of funding prevents their efficacy being researched. No expensive equipment is required to do a controlled test. Indeed such tests have been done, but they've shown little effect.
If you've been researching this for nearly 30 years and have not yet demonstrated their efficacy, what have you been doing? Subsolar 22:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University of Miami study

This content was pasted and later removed by another user:

02 July 2007, Medical News Today (www.medicalnewstoday.com) Article: Rescue Remedy Is An Effective All Natural Stress, Anxiety Reliever, New Study Shows A just published scientific study conducted by researchers at the University of Miami School of Nursing in conjunction with the Sirkin Creative Living Center has found that Rescue Remedy, an all-natural remedy created from flower essences, is an effective over-the-counter stress reliever with a comparable effect to tradional pharmaceutical drugs yet without any of the known adverse side effects, including addiction.

Rescue Remedy, manufactured by Nelsons, contains five flower essences....

"The result of this independent study is not only welcome news for those of us who encounter stressful situations every day, but particularly for the 40 million Americans who suffer from physician diagnosed anxiety," said Ronald Stram, MD, who regularly prescribes Rescue Remedy to his anxious and stressed patients....

.....This study specifically examined the product for the reduction of acute situational stress. A double-blind clinical trial comparing a standard dose of Rescue Remedy against a placebo of identical appearance was conducted in a sample of 111 individuals aged 18 to 49. The Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory- a standard to evaluate anxiety- was administered before and after the use of Rescue Remedy or placebo. The results suggest that Rescue Remedy may be effective in reducing high levels of situational anxiety. The results were just published in the latest edition of Complementary Health Practice Review.

Pasting press releases into the article is obviously inappropriate. However, I did find the paper it refers to, and it is worth considering as a source. I think their post-hoc analysis is flawed, as they decided after the test to exclude some subjects. I'm not sure. Subsolar 22:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] assertion that randomized trials are ineffective

User:Dzogchen has asserted [1]

the randomization process precludes the diagnosis necessary to match a specific remedy to the specific patient needing it — thus, clinical testing of the remedies is inherently difficult.

I think this is incorrect. A controlled trial doesn't mean that the user is just given a treatment at random. Rather, typically the regular diagnosis procedure is followed and, unknown to either the practitioner or patient, they are given either the prescribed remedy or a placebo. No well-controlled trial has found a significant difference as far as I'm aware, or as far as we can tell from the cites of the article.

Unless you have some specific explanation or source for why the method of those trials was flawed, please don't assert it. Subsolar (talk) 07:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This does seem to come up fairly often, and perhaps a brief in-context explanation of a Randomized controlled trial would be appropriate? But there is already a pretty good explanation over there. Subsolar (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] repeated deletion of Bach flower remedies

Dear Anonymous Editors,

Bach flower remedies are indeed probably bullshit, but damaging Wikipedia is not a good way to prove it. Wikipedia should describe what they are, the history, what people claim or believe, and what has actually been proved or not, from a neutral point of view. Please stop trying to clobber the page. Subsolar (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)