Comments on: Aroma”therapy”

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 28 May 2010 17:01:53 +0000

How can we as laymen determine which studies are valid and which are poorly controlled? I went to the lavender study link you posted (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17273013) and was personally pleased with the results, but then followed another link in the pubmed sidebar (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19968674) which concludes that “lavender scent reduces state anxiety in dental patients.”

If I use the first study as supporting confirmation to friends that aromatherapy is bogus, how do I respond when they read those other studies which all say that it works? I’m not a scientist and don’t know how to spot flaws in studies.

By: MarkW

MarkW — Fri, 14 May 2010 08:44:16 +0000

I’m reminded of something Billy Connoly (I think?) said: If aromatherapy works, why do you not get someone at the scene of a road accident shouting “everybody stand back! I’m an aromatherapist”?

By: hippiehunter

hippiehunter — Wed, 12 May 2010 09:02:03 +0000

I am a registered nurse working in aged care in Australia.
I kid you not we have a publicly funded aromatherapist who has her own little office where she makes her potions.
The medical notes of the residents have care plans in place by this naturopath aromatherapist that just clutter the notes and she gives talks to the staff promoting woo.
I have actually arranged to not work on the day she is in because I can only bite my tongue for so long.
The reason we have an aromatherapy office and associated woo is the facility gets funding for it .
Should be in Ripley’s Believe it or Not !

By: Calli Arcale

Calli Arcale — Tue, 11 May 2010 19:35:02 +0000

Aromatherapy involves the use of pleasant scents with the implication of medical benefit.

That’s debatable. “Pleasant” is a matter of opinion, after all, and frankly, I find a lot of aromatherapy products to smell quite obnoxious. This is probably because most of them smell like flowers, and I’m allergic to a great many of those, so the mental association is one of imminent misery.

Aah…haa…CHOO!!!!

I was so happy when department stores stopped spritzing perfume straight in my face, after realizing they could get their butts sued (and possibly even get criminal charges for assault). Now it’s been replaced with aromatherapy, which is almost as bad for me, physiologically, and every bit as annoying (since the scents are usually excessive and cloying), but is kept on the presumption that nobody would sue for something that’s supposed to make you *better*.

Argh. I hate aromatherapy. To anyone selling it, take your stinking candles and oils and incense and get out of here!

(BTW, it’s also hazardous. We don’t need to burn candles for light anymore, but people now burn them for the scent, often with less appreciation for the fire hazard. Obviously scented plug-ins and the like don’t have that problem, but the candles do.)

By: theshortearedowl

theshortearedowl — Tue, 11 May 2010 15:46:35 +0000

Just realised, in a post complaining about inaccurate use of words, that I spelled the author’s name wrong. Heh.

By: tmac57

tmac57 — Tue, 11 May 2010 13:57:50 +0000

Now, if we can just get the general public to understand the word ‘Skepticism’ in the sense that we use it.

By: brainwise

brainwise — Tue, 11 May 2010 11:28:06 +0000

Steven, correct me if I am wrong but I think what you are getting at is the use of the term therapy in regards to the correct meaning of the word. Therapy is derived from the Greek word ‘therapeia’ which pertains to ‘to cure, treat’.
As such, it should then be used only for those treatments which have evidence to be a cure or treatment for a disease/condition. As stated, the evidence-base for the use of such things as aromatherapy is non-existent, so should it be used in the same way as medical/psychological therapy (which have strong evidence-bases)? I think not given that a large majority of people are unable to tell the difference.

By: theshortearedowl

theshortearedowl — Tue, 11 May 2010 02:25:06 +0000

@ Stephen Novella

Thanks for that clarification. I agree about the problem with fuzzy usage of words. “Shock” is another bad one.

By: ccbowers

ccbowers — Mon, 10 May 2010 22:30:26 +0000

The term “therapy” is just one of many terms which are shared by both medicine and everyday language. Anytime there is overlap you will have this problem, because medicine needs to be precise and everyday language does not need this level of precision.

By: ccbowers

ccbowers — Mon, 10 May 2010 22:25:36 +0000

We should worry about accuracy foremost when it comes to terminology much more than anything else. The sloppy thinking thing sounds more like a pet peeve than a true phenomenon… unless by sloppy you mean inaccurate. Caudal actually refers to being closer to the tail… Inferior is just as accurate and more intuitive (and means the same thing in humans), since we have no tail and walk upright.