Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Dermal Safety Testing

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Yo Martin,

 

> Butch said:

> >There is a large community out and about .. I'm on over 30 lists.

>

> Agreed, but there is no co-ordination mechanism and no checking to

> see if these reports are real. The vast majority of newsgroup members

> do not know how to spot a sensitization reaction. Most AT courses

> still do not teach this subject, therefore how can therapists or joe

> public possibly know if there is a real problem or not and what the

> nature of the problem is? Even with what I know on this subject, I

> cannot be certain if someone has got a sensitization reaction or

> simply irritation. Only a dermatologist can tell that for sure. So

> I put no credibility at all in vague reports on newsgroups giving any

> idea on safety.

 

I think a point I might have not placed enough emphasis on is .. that

sensitization .. almost without exception .. occurs later .. sometimes

much later .. than the occasion of application and the immune system

being alerted to a possible foreign invader. So unless dermatologists

maintain constant contact with those they are using for testing it is

highly probable that they could become sensitized months .. or even

years after the application. This came to mind back when I was doing

some heavy thinking of having Peppermint tested here in Turkey by one

of my Professor buddies who had the students who would volunteer. At

that time we both agreed that it would be difficult if not impossible

to follow up on these folks. So .. we might find the same situation

existing in many of the dermal tests conducted otherwise. For sure,

irritation will be noticed inside 24 hours .. but as you know, Martin,

sensitization often occurs months or years later. And it might occur

from exposure to something other than an essential oil .. all it takes

is reexposure to whatever single chemical component .. or perhaps a

combination of chemical components, the immune system alerted on in the

first place .. might even be a common food that can cause it later.

 

> Butch said:

> >I fall back on my comments that if we wait for formal testing then

> >the number of EO we can use will be cut drastically

>

> I dispute that statement. In Plant Aromatics I have listed well over

> 150 oils where safety is known. In addition, most if not all the

> therapeutic uses claimed for novel oils can be met from among those

> oils which have been formally tested.

 

Granted .. and if I didn't believe in the results shown in Plant

Aromatics .. I would not offer it in North and South America .. I made

that clear yesterday. But 150 oils is not even half of the number we

can find on the market .. granted, there are many we don't need but

as long as folks are folks they are gonna use most of them. We have

no dermal testing data on Peppermint .. and that is certainly gonna be

used by 99% + of the folks who use EO. And .. its recommended that it

be used in very low dilution .. whatever that is. To me, that's like

2% or so and that's sufficient as it can overpower other oils.

 

> >Instead, AT suppliers operate on a bandwagon effect selling anything

> >that there seems to be a demand for.

>

> >You are too general .. be more specific. Are you talking about ME?

>

> Not specifically no, I am talking about 99.5% of aromatherapy oil

> suppliers. This trade is NOT pushed by the *need* for new

> therapeutic oils, it is pushed by the suppliers wanting to

> *sell* 'new' oils as if they are magic bullets. I have sitting on my

> table 20 samples of novel oils from Australia. With the exeption of

> lemon tea tree, none of those oils have anything to offer that our

> existing oils don't, indeed some smell dreadful. We do not need them

> so why are they produced? For nothing other than commercial reasons,

> often from Government sponsored projects to increase exports. In

> other words, the oils are produced first and then the market for them

> among aromatherapists in particular is invented.

 

I agree with the above .. Melissa EO is a good example .. and it is a

fact that the Australian gummit is concerned with increasing exports.

In fact, there's a new oil out and about now .. relatively expensive it

is too. I can find nothing on it and doubt if there is any traditional

use .. though Young Living is trying to say it is some magical oil just

discovered and the Aborigine have used it for centuries and such .. and

this is hawgwash cause Aborigines did not distill. For sure they most

likely used the leaves or the pulp of the wood .. which is (I believe)

the source of this oil .. its Blue Cypress (Calistris intratropica).

 

> Butch said:

> >I am going to stick with my comments that there is a big difference

> >in saying something is UNSAFE and saying something has not been

> >tested.

>

> I agree, and I never say untested extracts are unsafe. What I say is

> we do not know and until we have at least some idea, why use them

> when we have hundreds of known oils that can do whatever is claimed

> for most of the untested oils.

 

Well .. as for oils like Blue Cyprus .. I can go along with that. But

as a matter of fact I know that the French have been using the Cocoa

Absolute (Theobroma cacao) for some time in cosmetics, perfumery, etc.

What dilution? I don't know.

 

> Please people remember my comments are only to do with skin safety, I

> have no problem with novel oils being used in diffusers, candles and

> suchlike as that is far less risky.

 

Right .. and maybe we should remind folks that its dermal application

that causes problems .. not inhalation (with some rare exceptions). Its

from dermal application that we find three potential problems .. that of

irritation .. which pretty much goes away after the irritant is

removed .. photo sensitization .. which can be far more serious and

require medical treatment .. and the most serious and long lasting one

that lasts a lifetime and can manifest itself in any number of ways,

sensitization. There are some exceptions for toxicity .. Wintergreen

and Sweet Birch .. for example. They can cause toxicity problems via

frequent dermal application.

 

> I hope people on this list don't get confused by these conflicts of

> opinion, there will always be differing opinions on this subject

> particularly where sales are involved. The first person in

> aromatherapy to investigate adverse skin reactions in depth was

> myself and I started that nearly 15 years ago. I have far more

> detailed information than I can publish. It is the result of all

> those years of study and data collection that leads me to my

> conclusions in regards the safe use of plant extracts.

 

I think folks who have been around a while understand that differences

of opinion are a norm in this industry .. and that you and I agree on

most all the safety issues .. except I am not as adamant on some as you

are. And for the new folks who might not know Martin or me well, he

and I are buddies .. personally and professionally .. if we weren't ..

we'd probably only disagree one time and never again. Friends argue

often .. enemies but one time in most cases. ;-p

 

> When I can find the time, and feel well enough, I intend writing a

> series of exposes of certain claims for various essential oils, where

> the claims originate and compare that with the claims made for them.

> Martin

 

I think we can find many, many, many sites assigning therapeutic claims

to this and that oil .. and in many cases, its extrapolation from the

known benefits of the aromatic plants from which the oils are produced.

In other cases its folks taking advantage of the misinformation and

rumor found in most .. not many .. most .. of the aromatherapy novels

out and about .. novels that regurgitate unreferenced materials from

previously unreferenced sources.

 

And then .. we have the idiocy and out and out lying found in the Young

Living realm .. as was reported this morning from a YL list .. someone

wrote .. " I've heard Gary (meaning Gary Young) say helichrysum will

clear heavy metals from the blood and from the liver. It's quite

complex, but he simply said helichrysum is a blood chelator. "

 

The above is not only false .. it is plain STUPID and anyone who would

accept it is plain GULLIBLE.

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...