Debunking The Myth: Aromatherapy Is Real Medicine

Aromatherapy in the United States really suffers from an image problem, and a few degreed 'debunkers' are not really helping the matter. Googling 'aromatherapy' returns thousands of results, and in the top 15 are sites belonging to allopathic medical professionals who seem to only have given a cursory glance at the practice, and chalked it up to New Age, feel-good balderdash. Horse manure. Bull -hockey. The trouble with their analysis is that they're based on a very limited investigation, lumping all of aroma medicine in with every claim about the 'softer science' of psycho-emotional aromatherapy healing. The result is that many folks whom may benefit from aroma medicine may not get it, and many physicians investigating alternative medicine modalities may overlook the true potentials of essential oils. What can be done to change aromatherapy's touchy-feely image?

We can start by conceding that there is a soft-science side to a portion of aromatherapy's practices. Really pinning-down whether inhaling lavender makes a statistically-significant difference in people's emotional status seems pretty tricky anyway. How about we just leave this part up to the people that are into it? If lavender makes you feel good, whose to tell you differently? Aromatherapists are not out to convince the world inhaling plant scents will make you feel better -- they're just offering it as a possibility. Maybe it'll work for you and maybe it won't. Do try another aroma before you give up, but hey, maybe it won't work for you, no big deal. AT THE SAME TIME, there are A GREAT MANY VALID SCIENTIFIC STUDIES showing statistically significant results regarding the psycho-emotional effects of lavender (and other essential oils). Along with those are even more studies testing essential oils on a wide variety of serious illnesses. Here's a peek into the hard-science aspect of aromatherapy, and why the debunker's of this medicine should really have another look.


Aromatherapy's image problem is this: Most people hear the word, and believe it has really to do with 'the smell of things' rather than with 'things that smell'. Its a small but very important distinction. Aromatherapy is really the complete branch of medicine that uses the chemically-volatile (easily evaporated) constituents of plants for treatment of a wide variety of ailments. IT DOES NOT only have to do with the effects these plant chemicals have on people that smell them. Virtually every professional aromatherapist will tell you that the great medicinal promise of aromatherapy does not reside in their pleasing aromas, but rather in their abilities to successfully treat a wide range of infectious illnesses (like MRSA, the 'Superbug'), their action as chemotherapy agents, anti-inflammatory agents, wound-healing agents, and other 'hard' medical applications.

A quick look at the research available on Pub Med, a database of thousands of peer-reviewed life-science and medical journals freely available on-line reveals thousands of citations of research performed using essential oils. Yes, there are in fact some studies that did not result in convincing evidence that hand massages with lavender cream didn't make people feel better than hand massages with unscented lotion. But there is studies that show people sleep better after lavender inhalation. And there's a study that show stress makers of the immune system remained unchanged after inhaling linalool (an isolated constituent of Lavender), but there's also 15 studies (upon last count) showing positive significant results if one searches for 'lavender' and 'axiolytic' (the technical term for stress reducer). The results for 'acetaminophen' and 'pain' MAY be as strong; those for 'minoxidil' and 'hair' are almost certainly not.

So aromatherapists will even cede that there's mix results. While the naysayers use this data to say "aromatherapy doesn't work", the reasonable statement seems to be: "everyone's different. Some people respond and some don't. It may be that they would respond to a different aromatic, or maybe not at all". From Robert T. Carol of skepdic.com: "...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." Stephen Barrett, M.D. of Quackwatch doesn't really seem to make a point about essential oils, but to just sound disgruntled about the whole idea. Sure, there may be some unsubstantiated claims floating about, but let's play fair. How many deadly drugs have been pulled from the market after drug-manufacturer-paid rigorous scientific investigations claimed them to be "safe and effective"? One chart puts deaths attributed to "properly prescribed and used drugs" between those from alcohol and those from alcohol -- these just above "preventable medical" misshap, and all of these above traffic fatalities. How many died from using essential oils? Can you draw a circle? How about the letter that comes between 'n' and 'p'?

Really, the medical, therapeutic applications of essential oils (repeat: aroma-therapy!) are making huge advances in acceptance in the scientific community -- among the labs and scientists that do independent and educationally funded research. Important studies are released every month showing the strong efficacy of certain essential oils in treating serious bacterial infections. Try a Pub Med search on 'staphylococcus' and 'essential oil' or 'tea tree', or 'mrsa' and 'essential oil'. You'll find pages of results. The big test will be whether these result in protocols for medical use. The most important factor in this may be how much we all demand that natural 'alternatives' are available in the main-stream, as the profit-driven conventional medical system is just not designed to utilize very low cost natural treatments.

Then there's the myriad of studies showing essential oils' efficacy in destroying cancers. A recent study in the journal of "Chemico-Biological Interactions" noted that linalool, a common essential oil constituent, completely eradicated a particular liver cancer cell line at very, very small concentrations. Try 'essential oil' and 'cancer' in Pub Med and you'll get results like "Frankincense oil derived from Boswellia carteri induces tumor cell specific cytotoxicity"(perhaps this is terminology of "New Age spiritualism" I'm yet unaware of). Another result is "Anticancer activity of an essential oil from Cymbopogon flexuosus" (Lemongrass essential oil) with a conclusion of "Our results indicate that the oil has a promising anticancer activity and causes loss in tumor cell viability by activating the apoptotic process as identified by electron microscopy." The list, of course, goes on (there are in fact 388 results today for this search).

So why are these criticisms of aromatherapy so popular, at least in Google's eyes? Why do some folks like horror flicks and car crashes -- not sure, really. It might have to do with there being a closer relationship between 'aromatherapy' and 'Glade Plug-in Air Freshener (TM)' in many people's minds than there is between 'aromatherapy' 'frankincense' and 'tumor cell specific cytotoxicity'. One reality is that there's a lot more money pushing the Glad Plug-In concept. Because essential oils cannot be patented as medicines, the amount of money to be made by Really Big Business is negligible. So it's up to small natural health companies, individual practitioners, and the wonderful education and research facilities doing the technical work to get the word out. And particularly to rock the boat a bit when so-called authorities make truly dubious claims about the dubious nature of aromatherapy. Plant medicine has kept human beings alive for millennia -- essential oils are just very active molecules produced by plants, and aromatherapy is so-called as it deals with the therapeutic applications of these aromatic molecules. Aroma-therapy. Get the word out!