Randomized Trial of Aromatherapy. Successful Treatment for Alopecia Areata

[Guest guest]

Hey Chris,

 

There appears to be some major problems with this test - maybe (they

don't give enough information to be sure) - I think it is simple and the

conclusions are simple and they might be fruit of the poison tree.

 

Might should be called Randomized Haphazard Trial to Support the Future

Introduction of Expensive Commercial Toiletries Products to Unsuspecting

and Gullible Consumers - or maybe Haphazard Trial of Aromatherapeutic

Value of Use of a Conglomeration of Essential Oils in the Treatment of

Alopecia Areata With No Clear Statement of Objectives and No Valid

Conclusions on Which Essential Oil Did What.

 

They DO NOT state whether or not subjects were fitted with rebreather

devices that would prevent inhalation of odors (the volatile molecules

of the EO - molecules containing the therapeutic chemical constituents).

This means that the test was merely to see which essential oils could be

INHALED to increase hair growth - had nothing to do with rubbing them on

the head and nothing to do with absorption .. but there might be a bunch

of new, expensive products coming out with this conglomeration of EOs

with slick and catchy commercial names that you rub on bald heads. If

the money is right, the FDA will approve it - we know this already.

 

If this was truly a test of Aromatherapy (as they stated) .... then we

should rightfully assume there was no restrictions on the subjects being

able to smell the danged EOs .. that is, to suck'em into the olfactory

system which we all know is how the real benefits of aromatherapy or use

of essential oils is gained. Doesn't mean rubbing them on the scalp did

a thing - could have rubbed'em on the chest or on the neck .. volatile

vapors containing small molecules would (always) rise and be taken in

via the olfactory senses - and then enter the blood stream.

 

They DID NOT prove which of the EOs caused the increased hair growth -

could have been only one of them - likely the Rosemary as it stimulates

circulation. If they had added milk or bourbon to the conglomeration

would the results have been different? What about changing the PH of

the skin .. introduce any substance .. including hydrosols or soap - and

you change the natural PH or the skin. PH problems can be the cause of

lots of skin abnormalities .. including problems in growing hair.

 

See below.

 

> Interesting ...

> *Smile*

> Chris

>

> Turkish Rose Items To Delight

> http://www.alittleolfactory.com

 

Randomized Trial of Aromatherapy. Successful Treatment for Alopecia

Areata

 

http://www.medscape.com/medscape/Dermatology/journal/2001/v02.n02/ca-md0

327.01/ca-md0327.01.html

 

> Hay IC, Jamieson M, Ormerod AD

> Arch Dermatol. 1998;134:1349-1352

>

> Objective: To investigate the efficacy of aromatherapy in the

> treatment patients with alopecia areata.

 

The stated Objective was investigate the efficacy of Aromatherapy - not

investigate dermal absorption of essential oils. You gotta understand

that in scientific tests - like military combat operations - ALL effort

is conducted with a view to the stated objective - no variations allowed

and the mission is cut and dry. Aromatherapy is about introduction of

EO through the olfactory system. We know that works - and why it works.

We are not sure which chemical components are readily absorbed into the

skin since the skin (the body's largest organ) is Mama Nature's way of

giving us frail critters a major first line of defense. If all chemical

components we came into contact with absorbed, we'd live in the hospital

most of the time .. just cleaning house with the crap under the kitchen

sink would be enough to eventually put many folks below snakes.

 

" Easy penetration may occur on parts of the body where skin is thinner

e.g. behind the ears, eyelids and inside wrist. The skin regions of the

legs, buttocks, trunk and the abdomen are less permeable than those of

the soles, palms, forehead, scalp, and armpits (Balacs 1993) "

 

But even Balacs doesn't mean to apply this to ALL chemical components as

FEW chemicals have been properly tested for true absorption and it would

require one helluva assumption to say chemicals in general absorb - in

the case of Rose Otto - one of the most complicated substances known in

AT and thus one that can't be duplicated in a lab, it would require at

least 600 assumptions as there have been more than 600 chemicals found

already in Rose Otto. Plus we know that the head is not an area where

even those chemicals that do absorb could easily absorb.

 

A lot of the misinformation on absorption comes from folks wanting to

believe that absorption occurs - and from some of the older studies that

were conducted back when medical science didn't require strict adherence

to valid testing methods - like this old one, " Most essential oils used

in aromatherapy pass through the skin and can be detected in exhaled air

within 20-60 minutes (Katz 1947). "

 

Katz made this conclusion based on faulty information - fruit of the

poison tree it was. Odors were taken in by the olfactory system - can't

prove otherwise as his subjects were NOT prevented from inhaling the

rising volatile vapors after dermal application of the EOs. Also, we

know that the direct path to the lungs (gotta get there afore you can

detect it in exhaled air) is through breathing and through introduction

to the bloodstream - which aromatherapy is all about but skin absorption

is not a very effective way of introducing a substance to the lungs.

 

" Until the second half of the 20th century, the skin was thought to be

almost impermeable (Stoughton 1959, Maibach and Marzulli, 1977) This old

idea still persits, even though the skin is now known to be a poor

barrier to lipophilic substances (Brun 1952). "

 

Getting a bit smarter they were but not all that smart - they still did

not prevent subjects from breathing in the vapors.

 

The idea that " oils go through the skin " is one helluva statement - and

it should be adjusted to say this and that chemical will penetrate and

this and that one won't .. we already know a bunch that will and a bunch

that won't ... problem is, they only make up a single digit percentage

of the total number of possibilities. We need to get rid of the myth of

total absorption - EDUCATION we need - not generalizations.

 

There are some folks around who want to believe in absorption - there's

even an almost defunct email list devoted to this - run by a friend of

mine who had some notions based on some very old, unscientific tales of

various monks and quacks in the Balkans - but like a feller who learned

to play three songs on his guitar and blows his wad after those three

are finished, this unscientific information was limited and when it ran

out - it was play it by ear from then on. There are still some folks

hanging onto these beliefs and the fact that they believe could do much

to heal them - there are few healing modalities that are not dependent

on acceptance by the patient/client.

 

There is nothing wrong with wanting to believe it either - or in wanting

to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny - as long as they don't

try to teach it as fact! Then they're doing nothing more than spreading

urban rumor, misinformation, disinformation and hype and that is counter

to the learning we should be dealing with in AT - and about EOs - huh?

It is also one of the main reasons that AT will never be more than a

pseudo-science with a foundation of misinformation and disagreement.

:-(

Many chemicals can penetrate the top layers of the skin -- and some of

those chemical constituents that are irritating and sensitizing do pass

into the deeper layers - but not that many as the skin is doing it's job

of protecting the body. As for which chemicals penetrate, we know too

little - but we do know that almost ALL chemicals can enter the blood

through the digestive and respiratory systems - ingesting and breathing

of the odors. The only ones that can't are those with massive molecules

too large to enter the olfactory ducts.

 

There are things in medical science called skin penetration enhancers

(substances used to ensure drug delivery into the skin) - that's one of

the ways nicotine patches work - and there is a book you can check out

called " Drug Permeation Enhancement " , which goes into these details.

So if all chemicals readily absorb, why do we need the enhancers? For

that matter - why would a person who bathes every day need to drink a

lot of water - water is nothing but chemicals so it should absorb into

the sking. Make sure you got your rubber ducky with you next time you

bathe - might keep you from drowning ... ;-p

 

> Design: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of 7 months'

> duration, with follow-up at 3 and 7 months.

 

Based on the Objective - they conducted the test - maybe! Might be the

prelude to the introduction of a commercial product - scientists and

researchers need to stay in business - there is always a shortage of

funds for research so they can easily become whores for the first dude

with the bucks to finance a study - normally a commercial entity or a

pharmaceutical company. There is no shortage of literature proving that

test results are often twisted - overlooked variables that will disprove

the results are neatly swept off the table and put in a drawer. Why do

the other scientists not criticize this? Because the folks who live in

glass houses .. etc., etc.

 

> Setting: Dermatology outpatient department.

 

Dermatologists are used to observing, identifying and treating skin

ailments .. they're the ones should be doing the tests on untested EOs

like Peppermint to determine minimum/maximum levels for dilution to

avoid irritation, toxicity, sensitization and photo-sensitization. Why

don't they do this? Because nobody cares so it is not something they

want to spend money on. When any agency finds a need or obligation to

test a particular chemical, they do it .. but no agency is gonna spend

all that money just to write a revealing scientific research project.

Same as most prostitutes don't give away free samples from their trade.

 

> Participants: Eighty-six patients diagnosed as having alopecia areata.

> Intervention: Eighty-six patients were randomized into 2 groups. The active

> group massaged essential oils (thyme, rosemary, lavender, and cedarwood) in

> a mixture of carrier oils (jojoba and grapeseed) into their scalp daily. The

> control group used only carrier oils for their massage, also daily.

 

A previous test - done some years ago in Scotland (?) I am pretty sure -

used ONLY Rosemary - and it showed increased hair growth. It too didn't

prevent the subjects from being able to inhale the volatile molecules.

 

> Main Outcome Measures: Treatment success was evaluated on sequential

> photographs by 2 dermatologists (I.C.H. and A.D.O.) independently.

> Similarly, the degree of improvement was measured by 2 methods: a

> 6-point scale and computerized analysis of traced areas of alopecia.

 

Medical hocus-pocus having nothing to do with the Objective vs Reality

in the test .. they measured results but failed in accurately describing

the Objective .. the Objective was not to learn about dermal absorption.

 

> Results: Nineteen (44%) of 43 patients in the active group showed

> improvement compared with 6 (15%) of 41 patients in the control group

> (P =.008). An alopecia scale was applied by blinded observers on

> sequential photographs and was shown to be reproducible with good

> interobserver agreement (kappa = 0.84). The degree of improvement on

> photographic assessment was significant (P =.05). Demographic analysis

> showed that the 2 groups were well matched for prognostic factors.

 

Meaning - we saw more hair - we photographed it and still saw more hair

so that means there was more hair ... ;p

 

> Conclusions: The results show aromatherapy to be a safe and effective

> treatment for alopecia areata. Treatment with these essential oils was

 

Conclusion is flawed - big-time flawed!

 

It doesn't show that aromatherapy is safe and effective. It showed that

use of the particular essential oils they used - in the dilution used -

was not unsafe and that there was increased hair growth. Choose a bunch

of other oils or change the dilutions of the oils - you might find folks

running out the door hollering and looking for a creek to jump into.

 

It also doesn't show WHICH of the essential oils was effective - they

would have had to test each one singly to draw a conclusion on this as

one or more of them could have been useless as tits on a boar hog.

 

> significantly more effective than treatment with the carrier oil alone

> P =.008 for the primary outcome measure). We also successfully applied

> an evidence-based method to an alternative therapy.

 

Means - jojoba and/or grapeseed doesn't grow hair .. means there are no

chemical constituents in jojoba and grapeseed that could enter the blood

stream through the olfactory senses that could cause hair growth.

 

Means some dermatologist wanted to publish a peer-reviewed paper likely

for the use of some commerical entity but didn't do a very good job of

it and proved exactly nothing!!

 

I said that such testing is not done routinely because folks don't care

until they are incentivized ($$$) .. and there are those who say it can

not be done anyway unless the subject of dermal application has the head

in the next county and the body in this county .. but that's not at all

true. It can be done easily. Think of the individual protection system

- MOP Gear or chemical, biological, radiological) equipment we provide

soldiers .. we understand that the molecular structure and size of most

sprayed agents is large so that explains the " Gas Mask " filter being

able to keep'em out - but what of the biological agents? Little bitty

critters they are - and we still have adequate protection.

 

I know that there are some folks saying that they know the skin absorbs

and they will give the old example of garlic on the feet and hands and

later being able to taste and smell it ... if you had a micro photo of

what happens when a clove of garlic is crushed or rubbed, you would see

something like a water ballon exploding after being dropped from a third

floor balcony - so understand that there will be lots of olfactory

introduction of that garlic.

 

I have NEVER heard anyone say that NO chemicals absorb. The point made

is that we should not assume that ALL chemicals absorb. Some will and

we know which ones generally - there are others we know WILL NOT absorb.

But to assume that all will absorb is making a mighty grand assumption

and the case I mentioned above on Rose Otto .. since we have identified

more than 600 separate and distinct chemical components in Rose Otto it

requires some incredible assumptions ... :-(

 

But think of this .. knowing as we do that some chemicals absorb and

some don't - even though what we know is far less than we don't know -

if we are to believe that in order for Aromatherapy to work, we must

have pure essential oils .. no adulteration, must have that old " nat'ul

synergy " everybody clings to .. what happens when the synergy is blown

to hell cause some of the chemical components of the oil absorbed and

others didn't?

 

So - the test appears to be invalid - the facts of absorption are not

facts - merely beliefs - and we have to accept that if absorption is an

effective means of healing then the belief in the necessity of perfect

synergy in EOs is but one of the other popular urban rumors ... ;-p

 

The skin is a PROTECTIVE barrier! Thankee Great Everywhere Spirit!

 

Y'all keep smiling, Butch http://www.AV-AT.com

 

Bulk/Wholesale/Retail GC Tested EOs and lots of other goodies.