PDA

View Full Version : More News For Placebo County



Zeno Swijtink
03-04-2008, 10:18 PM
https://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/aromathe.htm

AROMATHERAPY MAY MAKE YOU FEEL GOOD, BUT IT WON’T MAKE YOU WELL

COLUMBUS, Ohio – One of the most comprehensive investigations done to date on aromatherapy failed to show any improvement in either immune status, wound healing or pain control among people exposed to two often-touted scents.

While one of two popular aromas touted by alternative medicine practitioners – lemon – did appear to enhance moods positively among study subjects, the other – lavender – had no effect on reported mood, based on three psychological tests.

Neither lemon nor lavender showed any enhancement of the subjects’ immune status, nor did the compounds mitigate either pain or stress, based on a host of biochemical markers.

In some cases, even distilled water showed a more positive effect than lavender.

The study, published online in the journal Psychoneuroendocrinology, looked for evidence that such aromas go beyond increasing pleasure and actually have a positive medical impact on a person’s health. While a massive commercial industry has embraced this notion in recent decades, little, if any, scientific proof has been offered supporting the products’ health claims.

“We all know that the placebo effect can have a very strong impact on a person’s health but beyond that, we wanted to see if these aromatic essential oils actually improved human health in some measurable way,” explained Janice Kiecolt-Glaser, professor of psychiatry and psychology at Ohio State University and lead author of the study.

The researchers chose lemon and lavender since they were two of the most popular scents tied to aromatherapy. Recently, two other studies focused on these same two scents.

For the study, Kiecolt-Glaser; Ronald Glaser, a professor of molecular virology, immunology and medical genetics, and William Malarkey, professor of internal medicine, assembled a group of 56 healthy volunteers. These men and women were screened beforehand to confirm their ability to detect standard odors. Some were proponents of the merits of aromatherapy while others expressed no opinion on its use.

Each person took part in three half-day sessions where they were exposed to both scents. Participants were monitored for blood pressure and heart rate during the experiments, and the researchers took regular blood samples from each volunteer.

Researchers taped cotton balls laced with either lemon oil, lavender oil or distilled water below the volunteers’ noses for the duration of the tests.

“We all know that the placebo effect can have a very strong impact on a person’s health but beyond that, we wanted to see if these aromatic essential oils actually improved human health in some measurable way.”

The researchers tested volunteers’ ability to heal by using a standard test where tape is applied and removed repeatedly on a specific skin site. The scientists also tested volunteers’ reaction to pain by immersing their feet in 32-degree F water.

Lastly, volunteers were asked to fill out three standard psychological tests to gauge mood and stress three times during each session. They also were asked to record a two-minute reaction to the experience which was later analyzed to gauge positive or negative emotional-word use.

The blood samples were later analyzed for changes in several distinct biochemical markers that would signal affects on both the immune and endocrine system. Levels of both Interleukin-6 and Interleukin-10 – two cytokines – were checked, as were stress hormones such as cortisol, norepinephrine and other catacholomines.

While lemon oil showed a clear mood enhancement, lavender oil did not, the researchers said. Neither smell had any positive impact on any of the biochemical markers for stress, pain control or wound healing.

“This is probably the most comprehensive study ever done in this area, but the human body is infinitely complex,” explained Malarkey. “If an individual patient uses these oils and feels better, there’s no way we can prove it doesn’t improve that person’s health.

“But we still failed to find any quantitative indication that these oils provide any physiological effect for people in general.”

The wound healing experiments measured how fast the skin could repair itself, Glaser said. “Keep in mind that a lot of things have to take place for that healing process to succeed. We measured a lot of complex physiological interactions instead of just a single marker, and still we saw no positive effect,” he said.

The project was supported in part by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health. Kiecolt-Glaser, Glaser and Malarkey are all members of Ohio State’s Institute for Behavioral Medicine Research.
#
Contact: Jan Kiecolt-Glaser, (614) 292-0033; [email protected]
Written by Earle Holland, (614) 292-8384; [email protected]

Braggi
03-05-2008, 10:36 AM
Gee Zeno, what a crappy study.

Let's look at the title:
AROMATHERAPY MAY MAKE YOU FEEL GOOD, BUT IT WON’T MAKE YOU WELL

I think many would argue that "feeling good" is a major component of wellness, so ...

That aside, this was such a limited study and, please, cotton balls taped under the nose? Distilled water as a control? Nobody uses aromatherapy in this way and a reasonable way to do a control is with an active placebo such as a scent not known as a "healing" scent.

As you know, I'm a big time skeptic, but this study sucks.

Studies also tell us there's no such thing as an aphrodisiac, and yet I find dozens of substances have an aphrodisiac on me. One of the main differences is in how you define the term, which goes back to the title of this article.

And isn't Marin County "Placebo County?"

-Jeff

Lorrie
03-05-2008, 10:59 AM
Studies also tell us there's no such thing as an aphrodisiac, and yet I find dozens of substances have an aphrodisiac on me. One of the main differences is in how you define the term, which goes back to
Oh, I haaaaave to ask.... Name a few Jeff. What works on you?

Zeno Swijtink
03-05-2008, 11:15 AM
As you know, I'm a big time skeptic, but this study sucks.

-Jeff

I don't think you are a big skeptic. You tend to be skeptical about things you mistrust, and you are selective in your skepticism.

Zeno Swijtink
03-05-2008, 11:22 AM
Studies also tell us there's no such thing as an aphrodisiac, and yet I find dozens of substances have an aphrodisiac on me.

Oh, I haaaaave to ask.... Name a few Jeff. What works on you?

Some men get off on horse hair, even if it's not really horse hair but dog hair, as long as they believe that it is hair from a dog and they attribute magical powers to it.

It's not the hair that works but their beliefs about it: it's a placebo.

Braggi
03-05-2008, 11:40 AM
Oh, I haaaaave to ask.... Name a few Jeff. What works on you?

Ok, here you go: in small quantities, cannabis, preferably smoked. Actually, now that I think about it, any of these in small quantities (I'm a lightweight.)

Damiana, preferably in one of my fine liqueurs.

Wormwood, preferably in a fine absinthe.

OK, that's a "few." There are certainly others. The skeptics out there should note that these are all psychotropically active herbs and CNS stimulants, not just "placebos" as far as neurostimulation is concerned.

How they affect the individual depends on many factors including but not limited to mental and emotional state, physical health, and individual body chemistry.

While physical, or for that matter, emotional response to these herbs does not necessarily mean an aphrodisiac response, I find they all enhance sex in various ways.

-Jeff

Braggi
03-05-2008, 11:44 AM
I don't think you are a big skeptic. You tend to be skeptical about things you mistrust, and you are selective in your skepticism.

OK, that I might ponder your observations, name me a few things I'm not skeptical about that you've seen on this board.

-Jeff

Zeno Swijtink
03-05-2008, 12:21 PM
OK, that I might ponder your observations, name me a few things I'm not skeptical about that you've seen on this board.

-Jeff

Two recent cases come to mind: you lacked skepticism about the wisdom of the moth spraying campaign, and you seem to embrace the efficacy of substances as aphrodisiacs without publicly scrutinized evidence.

Braggi
03-05-2008, 12:31 PM
Two recent cases come to mind: you lacked skepticism about the wisdom of the moth spraying campaign, and you seem to embrace the efficacy of substances as aphrodisiacs without publicly scrutinized evidence.

I lacked information about the moth spraying and said so. BTW, did you understand by reading my posts that I was for or against the spraying? (Checking on you here. Were you paying attention?)

On aphrodisiacs I claimed subjective experience, not double blind placebo controlled studies. No fault there. I've given a lot of talks on aphrodisiacs. You should come to one.

Try again?

-Jeff

Lorrie
03-05-2008, 01:08 PM
Some men get off on horse hair, even if it's not really horse hair but dog hair, as long as they believe that it is hair from a dog and they attribute magical powers to it.

It's not the hair that works but their beliefs about it: it's a placebo.


YUCK!

scorpiomoon
03-05-2008, 02:56 PM
Oysters!!

Also Silent Spring by Rachael Carson is an excellent read. We can spray until we are all sprayed out. Eventually life will return to whatever course it chooses. I do not think its a great idea to kill an ant with an atom bomb, and there is absolutely no guarantee that you can kill all the moths no matter what you use. Another cargo ship from Australia and Bingo!! Back it comes, while corporate entitiies continue to spread their nasty lethal shit all over the place. Give the damn spray to the governor to drink or spray it on Dick Cheney and see what happens. If it isn't harmful they shouldn't have anything to worry about. Allow the advocates of these measures to be the ones exposed FIRST, they should not mind, its not harmful, right???

Melodymama
03-06-2008, 09:35 AM
Zeno wrote "I don't think you are a big skeptic. You tend to be skeptical about things you mistrust, and you are selective in your skepticism."

I love this concept. It creates a new category of hmmm...:idea:'selectiskeptic' or 'skeptiselectic'. Either way it seems to make for a good dose of questioning while entertaining new ideas. I, too, feel better with certain smells. And hopefully it will be a while before someone does a study that proves just smelling stuff, like the roses, is bad for us. Is Sebastopol planning to flood downtown with new aromas? Could they effect our affect? Could it be harmful or helpful to those who refuse to be helped? Smell the possibilities. Sorry to run on.....

CrystalWizard
03-06-2008, 10:16 AM
back OT for a moment:

gee, who partially funded this study? the National Institute of Health. and the scientist/authors of the study are all members of the Ohio State’s Institute for Behavioral Medicine Research. get it? Medicine research. patentable medicine. essential oils are (yet) patentable.

"While a massive commercial industry has embraced this notion in recent decades, little, if any, scientific proof has been offered supporting the products’ health claims."

wow, that's absolute and utter BS.

Aromatherapy doesn't work? c'mon gimme a break.

tell that to all the perfumers who survived the plagues.

there are so many scientific studies proving that aromatherapy DOES work, but ofcourse they are mostly from europe where BIG PHARMY isn't as in control of your health (or at least the info on your health) as they are here in Uncle Sellout. do some research on the research. use the internet even.

best of all:
the one authors name: William Malarkey, professor of internal medicine,
says it all...

thanks for the post Zeno, you got me typing at least.

aromatically yours,
crystal