aromatherapy

[vanilla]

My son and I went to a program at the library on this.
The guy passed arounds the smelsl and told eveyrone the benefits of aromatherapy.
Of course, he gave a personal anecdote about how his wart wouldn't heal until he used (i forget which smell) on it.

I know this stuff is bunk, as was the feng shui program, but have there been any real tests on aromatherapy?
I suspect not.

[slortar]

Hm. Looks like there's been a few, if you scroll down to "suggested reading" here:

Skedkic.com's entry on aromatherapy. (http://www.skepdic.com/aroma.html)

[Early Out]

I highly recommend this site (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/aroma.html). It's also worth going back to his home page (there's a link on the upper right corner of that page), and checking out the other stuff.

Basically, he says:
Pleasant odors can be enjoyable and may enhance people's efforts to relax. However, there is no evidence that aromatherapy products provide the health benefits claims by their proponents.

[vanilla]

The guy claimed that putting the oils (diluted) on the body is what really works.
I am sure ther should be some double blind tests.

[Early Out]

Scientists rarely bother wasting their time double-blind testing a theory that has absolutely no basis. In other words, if there's no rational reason to think that something will work, if no one can even hypothesize a plausible mechanism by which it would work, then why spend time testing it?

If I said that spinning around on my desk chair twice a day would cure cancer, would the National Cancer Institute conduct an exhaustive round of tests to see if it works? A silly example, to be sure, but you get the point!

If one at least observes a consistent effect from a treatment, that might lead to further research, but when the only evidence is purely anecdotal, no one's going to spend much effort on it.

The fact that some of the purveyors of this nonsense have been issued cease and desist orders by the authorities also tells you that they, themselves, haven't done any testing. So they can't demonstrate that their potions do any good, either.

[ianzin]

There are really two types of aromatherapy. The first type, when you get down to basics, just advances the proposition that we have a sense of smell that perhaps we don't use as much as we could, there are some preparations that smell very nice, and these can affect a person's mood in a benign way. Affecting mood can lead to a change in state of mind, and perhaps assist efforts to relax, or to calm down, or feel better about life. I don't think this is particularly contentious, and people have been finding ways to make their environment smell nice ever since the first cave woman plonked the first flower in the first cave.

The second type advances the proposition that different nice-smelling preparations have healing, cleansing or other therapeutic properties which go far beyond anything that is theoretically plausible or empirically verfiable. It is hokum, of course, but it's what many people want to hear so it's big business.

By all means be skeptical, but be discerning as well. Reserve the serious challenging for well-deserving targets, not people selling pretty-smelling bath salts.

[KidCharlemagne]

Originally posted by slortar
Hm. Looks like there’s been a few, if you scroll down to “suggested reading” here:
http://www.skepdic.com/aroma.html” (”Skedkic.com’s entry on aromatherapy.

Now I remember why I don’t subscribe to Skeptic Magazine anymore. Rest assured I don’t buy into the claims of aromatherapists either (EDIT: after researching this post perhaps I’ll rethink it) but professional skeptics should be vanguards of truth and logic and I expect them to be meticulous in both respects. What I don’t expect is the slant and fallacy that this article is replete with:

Aromatherapy is a term coined by French chemist René Maurice Gattefossé in the 1920’s to describe the practice of using essential oils taken from plants, flowers, roots, seeds, etc., in healing. The term is a bit misleading, since the aromas of oils, whether natural or synthetic, are generally not themselves therapeutic. Aromas are used to identify the oils, to determine adulteration, and to stir the memory, but not to directly bring about a cure or healing. It is the “essence” of the oil—its chemical properties—that gives it whatever therapeutic value the oil might have.

Well there is an unsubstantiated thesis for ya. Where is it said that inhalation of the particulates of a scent is the only mechanism by which any treatment could work if it did? Smelling food when I’m hungry makes me salivate. Granted that may be a learned response but it nevertheless shows a link between olfactory sensation and physiological processes. I’m not going to make an argument for it, but I’m not going to make one against it without knowing.
Furthermore, vapors are used in some but not all cases of aromatherapy. In most cases, the oil is rubbed onto the skin or ingested in a tea or other liquid. Some aromatherapists even consider cooking with herbs a type of aromatherapy. The healing power of essential oils is the main attraction in aromatherapy. It is also the main question for the skeptic. There is very little evidence for all the claims made by aromatherapists regarding the various healing properties of oils. Most of the support for the healing power of such substances as tea tree oil is in the form of anecdotes such as the following:
In the plane on my way to India [from Europe] a few years ago, my index finger began throbbing violently. A rose thorn had lodged in it two days before, as I pruned my roses. It was now turning septic. I straight away applied tea tree oil undiluted to the finger. By the time I arrived in Bangalore, the swelling had almost gone and the throbbing had stopped (Daniele Ryman, Aromatherapy).
This kind of post hoc reasoning abounds in the literature of alternative health care. What would be more convincing would be some control studies such as the following:
Professor Tomas Riley of the Department of Microbiology at the University of Washington has published a paper in [blah blah scientific journal] which demonstrates that tea tree oil kills many bacteria present in common infections, including some staphylococci and streptococci.*

Are we debating the efficacy of aromatherapy or making ad hominem attacks on the research skills of one aromatherapist? That tiny little asterisk at the end of his sentence is a link to a page that discusses that very study which, on first reading, I assumed he was just citing to illustrate what a good hypothetical study might sound like. Why attack evidence as only anecdotal when you know well there is clinical evidence to back it up? Rather than cite the 120-odd medline abstracts that essentially confirm that tea tree oil has anti-viral (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11338678&dopt=Abstract) anti-fungal( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9055360&dopt=Abstract), anti-bacterial properties (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12019108&dopt=Abstract), and even the antiedemic properties that was only anecdotal (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12056511&dopt=Abstract and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12088268&dopt=Abstract), I'll just stick to the notion that he is debating the efficacy of essential oils through inhalation.

When references are made to other aromatherapists, they are usually of the following type: Marguerite Maury prescribed rose for frigidity, ascribing aphrodisiac properties to it. She also considered rose a great tonic for women who were suffering from depression (Daniele Ryman, Aromatherapy, p, 205).
Such testimonials are never met with skepticism or even curiosity as to what evidence there is for them. They are just passed on as if they were articles of faith.Besides personal experience, the only kind of research aromatherapists seem interested in is in reading what other aromatherapists have said or believed about plants or oils. The practitioners and salespersons of aromatherapeutic products seem singularly uninterested in scientific testing of their claims, many of which are empirical and could be easily tested. Of course, there are many aromatherapists who make non-testable claims, such as claims regarding how certain oils will affect their “subtle body,” bring balance to their chakra, restore harmony to their energy flow, return one to their center, or contribute to spiritual growth. Aromatherapy is said to restore or enhance mental, emotional, physical or spiritual health. Such claims are essentially non-testable. They are part of New Age mythology and can’t really engender any meaningful discussion or debate.
When aromatherapists get into professional debates about empirical matters it is generally over such matters as whether natural oils are superior to synthetic ones, though even here references to scientific studies of the issue are sought in vain. The way aromatherapist Daniele Ryman, a defender of natural oils, treats the subject of “lavender” is typical. In her book, Aromatherapy, she gives some botanical and historical information about the plant, including a claim by Matthiole, a 16th century botanist, that lavender is a panacea which can cure epilepsy, apoplexy and mental problems. She tells us that the principal constituents of lavender are alcohols such as borneol, geraniol and linalool; esters such as geranyle and linalyl; and terpents such as pinene and limonene. Lavender also contains a high percentage of phenol, a strong antiseptic and antibiotic. She also notes that while many essential oils are very toxic, lavender is one of the least toxic of all oils. Then she tells us that lavender is “the oil most associated with burns and healing of the skin.” She says lavender is “very effective in treating cystitis, vaginitis, and leucorrhea.” Furthermore, as an herbal tea, lavender “is also good as a morning tonic for convalescents, as a digestive after meals, for rheumatic conditions, and at the first appearance of a cold or flu.” To prevent varicose veins, Ryman advises that you “massage the legs with an oil consisting of 3 drops cypress oil, 2 drops each of lavender and lemon oil, and 1 ounce of soy oil” (p. 143). Nowhere does she give any indication that anyone anywhere has done any control studies with lavender to test any of these claims. Now, it’s true that expressions such as ‘very effective’ and ‘is good’ are not very precise, but they are not complete weaslers like ‘helps’ (which is what she says lavender in your bath will do for cellulite). And ‘most associated’ with burns doesn’t actually say that it will do any good for burns. Still, I think these claims can be made precise enough to test, though I doubt if Ryman or most other aromatherapists have any interest in doing such tests. For some reason, Ryman doesn’t say much about lavender’s use to reduce stress in her chapter on lavender. However, in a section on “Insomnia” she says that “lavender is a gentle narcotic, recommended for mental and physical strain.” There has been a study done, not mentioned by Ryman, which compared the effects on intensive care patients of aromatherapy using lavender, massage therapy and rest. The study concluded that rest was best (Dunn).

And what hasn't been mentioned by the writer of this article is the second half of the study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7897075&dopt=Abstract

There is widespread belief that the use of aromatherapy and massage in an intensive care environment offers a means of increasing the quality of sensory input that patients receive, as well as reducing levels of stress and anxiety. Despite a wealth of anecdotal evidence in support of these claims, there have been few objective studies to evaluate the effects of these therapies. In this experimental study 122 patients admitted to a general intensive care unit were randomly allocated to receive either massage, aromatherapy using essential oil of lavender, or a period of rest. Both pre- and post-therapy assessments included physiological stress indicators and patients' evaluation of their anxiety levels, mood and ability to cope with their intensive care experience. Ninety-three patients (77%) were able to complete subjective assessments. There were no statistically significant differences in the physiological stress indicators or observed or reported behaviour of patients' ability to cope following any of the three interventions. However, those patients who received aromatherapy reported significantly greater improvement in their mood and perceived levels of anxiety. They also felt less anxious and more positive immediately following the therapy, although this effect was not sustained or cumulative

Since the subjective portion of the study doesn’t support his debunking he just doesn’t include it. He also conveniently left out reference to this article:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12690999&dopt=Abstract
and this one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10069621&dopt=Abstract
and this one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12625191&dopt=Abstract
and this one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12594973&dopt=Abstract
and this one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12551734&dopt=Abstract
and this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12442972&dopt=Abstract
and this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11994882&dopt=Abstract
and this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11806592&dopt=Abstract
and this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10997854&dopt=Abstract

Ok enough. I’m going to stop there because I’m only on the third page of seven on a medline search for lavender limited to those with abstracts. I think it’s safe to say that there are controlled studies and there is some reasonable evidence that warrants it being saved from relegation to the myth pile.

I would not reject aromatherapy out of hand, however. When I have a cold and a stuffy nose, I’ll use Vicks VapoRub, a mixture of camphor, menthol and eucalyptus oil. Strictly speaking, I suppose I am a practicing aromatherapist. However, when I look at what people who call themselves aromatherapists claim, I have to conclude that aromatherapy is a mostly a pseudoscientific alternative medical therapy. It is a mixture of folklore, trial and error, anecdote, testimonial, New Age spiritualism and fantasy. What aromatherapy lacks is a knack for sniffing out non-sense.
And this man lacks a knack for sniffing out research. He faults the claims as being post hoc but doesn’t see his own ad hominems, biased samples, suppressed evidence, argumentum ad ignoratium, argumentums ad logicam, strawmen, and fallacies of bad reason and company (and they are all there).

For what it’s worth, I’ve never given aromatherapy a moment’s thought until I opened up this thread and probably won’t when I close it. I’m not supporting aromatherapy – just pointing out that skeptics are now often as guilty of employing the same faulty logic and poor research as the mythmakers. Wow this turned into a rant. But at least it has cites ;)

[Early Out]

One problem revealed by all of the cited studies is that it's essentially impossible to conduct a double-blind test of aromatherapy. How do you set up the test so that the subjects don't know whether they're getting the real lavender oil (or whatever), or getting the equivalent of a sugar pill? Any attempt to obstruct the subjects' olfactory senses might interfere with the effects being tested for. So, you're left with some measured effects (many of them subjective, to begin with) that might just be placebo effects.

I don't pretend to know what the answer to this conundrum is. Do the tests only on comatose patients?

[KidCharlemagne]

Originally posted by Early Out
One problem revealed by all of the cited studies is that it's essentially impossible to conduct a double-blind test of aromatherapy. How do you set up the test so that the subjects don't know whether they're getting the real lavender oil (or whatever), or getting the equivalent of a sugar pill? Any attempt to obstruct the subjects' olfactory senses might interfere with the effects being tested for. So, you're left with some measured effects (many of them subjective, to begin with) that might just be placebo effects.

I don't pretend to know what the answer to this conundrum is. Do the tests only on comatose patients?

I meant to bring this up because I was thinking the same thing. Looking over medline abstracts on any subject is a depressing foray into poor experiment design. I didn't cite any of the experiments done on animals of which there were quite a few. Here are just a couple:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10928328&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9764765&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1817516&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?
cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12213626&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9762013&dopt=Abstract


Positive results still beg the question of whether or not the mechanism is olfactory or inhalatory but I would think that animal testing is a reasonable control against the particular placebo effects one might expect in humans in an experiment like this.

I gotta say, when I first went on this tirade of that article I was just expecting to find one or two questionable studies from the Yoga Journal that were completely subjective. I was really surprised at the amount of research from reasonably legitimate institutions that found significant results. There are definately studies that show no efficacy but they are far outnumbered by those that do. I've been searching for 5 minutes to find one that doesn't support a link and haven't yet (but I know there are a number of them).