Talk:Aromatherapy/Archive 1

Copyvio
All the "Copyright Graham Sorenson, http://TheGuidetoAromatherapy.com" material was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbc~enwiki (talk • contribs) 04:57, 15 November 2001 (UTC)

I've seen several references on the Web to farnesols in sandalwood killing germs, but finding the research may take a trip to the library. -phma 18:53, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

POV dispute
"While pleasant scents can make a room a nicer place to be in and therefore relaxing, lowering stress and related effects, there is no scientific basis at all for aromatherapy or any form of proof it does anything other than make a room smell nice. There are some that give a form of relief for the airways when having a cold or the flu, such as most citrus-based essential oils. While there is no scientific proof that essential oils cure diseases, many people have found great success in their usage."

This paragraph is POV. 'No scientific basis at all' is false, there have been a number of double-blind studies attributing therapeutic effect to aromatherapy. --Dforest 8 July 2005 02:52 (UTC)

I've been working to rewrite the POV parts of the article to be more neutral. I also moved the critical paragraph to the Criticism section. However, now there is little content to the article besides criticism, so I am marking it POV. Someone care to contribute? Dforest 10:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Abowt Phytonsides - it is not a part of EO, but it is native organic substances emitted by plants (Allium cepe, Tagetes, Pine, Narciss, Brassica niger and so on). It wide using in Russian, Japanese, Ukrainian folk medicine, phytotherapy, aromatherapy... So I thinc it may be present in AT article. Best regards, Alex Alexandrov


 * Thanks for your edits. Can you point to some sources about phytoncides, showing their use in aromatherapy? When I google for the words:  phytoncide aromatherapy (I believe that is the correct spelling), I find only 49 hits, and several of them imply it is a fraction of essential oil.  Dforest 10:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your letter and advices, and I seek in this week for corresponded information for You - or may be translate it from Ru to Engl. Alexandrov 15:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Alexandrov. I reverted some of your changes because, well, they didn't make sense to me. For example, contraindications--'Inperception of scents'. I've never heard of this as a contraindication. Do you have a source for this? It would be more useful to have more specific contraindications such as: and according to EOs: etc.
 * Fever
 * Infectious diseases
 * Under the influence of alcohol
 * use of EOs having emmenagogue properties during pregnancy
 * use of EOs in case of known allergy
 * use of EOs with known interactions with medications

Also I question the last sentences you added about the different sense of aromatherapy. You already mentioned the difference between home and professional AT. Is that not sufficient? --Dforest 06:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dforest! It can be discudssed - contraind. in AT. E.g. "1-st trimestr of pregnancy" (this time embrion has high sensibility to more VOC in EO)... (as emmenagogue EO work most in big/sometimes near toxic concentration, orally)... We will see about it.

About the different sense of aromatherapy. May be yes... But it is really VERY different AT legislation statut in many countries. And very different medical - social practice. In France AT is more conventional Med. then in US. In UK AT = massage. In Russia, Ukraine most CAM branches is'n conventional (exept partically Homeopaty at last times). And moderator of Italian AT page admit and translate that my sentence (by the way look at big Italian Wiki-AT, and Nl. And it is very strange that France page is very short!). Really we now create AT as science and denotation (implication) of AT transformation step by step.Alexandrov 07:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

82.45.131.196 (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC) I always had my doubts about Complementary therapies as i am a Scientist; but from the recent literature that has been presented, i do believe that it does have benefits. Even if aromatherapy has its positive effects based on the scent of the essential oils alone, it is still a major thing. The psychological effects that it seems to have which in turn have an impact on our body, is quite profound. We are all aware that the placebo effect does exist and that the human brain is a powerful tool. It can be manipulated to a certain degree. I look at all Complementary therapies just like how i look at Chinese medicine. They are different treatment options, based on totally different philosophies and you do need to be open-minded in order to understand the theories. Kings College London did a study on aromatherapy about a year ago and they found that it helps greatly with patients suffering from anxiety and depression.

I do agree that the article needs to be written in a more neutral form because this site is a huge source of information for people out there, so it does need to be fair for everyone.

Aromatherapy, Massage & Reflexology as a career?
Hi All

I hope you would be able to give me some feedback. I am thinking of studying massage, reflexology & aromatherapy in the UK and then returning to my home in South Africa to open a practice. I have been a secretary for 8 years & am so sick of the mundane work! I am very interested in holistic healing & think this might be something I would enjoy.

As I am a bit short on cash at the moment I have decided to do as much of my studying via the internet to get a feel for what it would entail to study the above before I make my choice and commiting myself to my studies.

I was hoping that those that have qualified as any of the above could give me feedback on your path to qualification and working life thereafter? At the moment it is seeming a little bit daunting as there are so many different oils with so many uses and properties in aromatherapy, plus all the anatomy etc in massage. Although I am very interested in the subject I wonder if it will be manageable to go back to studying after 8 years while working a full time job?!

Did you enjoy studying aromatherapy/massage/reflexology - did you find it quite a challenge? How long did it take you to qualify and have you found it quite easy to establish a client base? Do you make a decent salary?

I would really appreciate any feedback you could give me.

Claims presented as facts
Throughout this whole article, many claims by those who practice aromatherapy are being stated as facts. I think we need a fairly extensive rewrite with a more skeptical tone. --Jasonuhl 21:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to rewrite it with a skeptical tone; that implies POV language which would be against WP:NPOV. What this article needs is good research and a neutral tone. Reading the article in its current state, I don't see any obvious factual problems, though it needs references, particularly in the theraputic effects section.  Could you give an example of the language you take issue with?  --Dforest 01:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Even the lead sentence ("Aromatherapy...is the use of essential oils and other aromatic compounds from plants to affect someone's mood or health") implies that such treatment *does* affect mood and health. The opening sentence of the Theory section ("When aromatherapy is used for the treatment or prevention of disease,...") is similarly objectionable.  The article goes on to list specific compounds and their therapeutic effects as if their efficacy was a well-established fact.  --Jasonuhl 19:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Studies
If you enter essential oils and antiviral in Google Scholor you get a  bunch of in vitro studies. The same for antibacterial. Most of it is published in botany, virology or microbiology journals, not in journals aimed at the medical community. Cayte


 * This is not surprising. Aromatherapy counts for a very small percentage of essential oil uses. Also, in vitro studies are a lot cheaper to do that in vivo. By the way, please use ~ to sign your comments. Dforest 10:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

"Although there is little proof that aromatherapy can cure diseases, there is considerable anecdotal evidence of its benefits." This is a counterfactual in the light of in vitro studies plus clinial studies in France and Germany. It should be attributed or deleted. Cayte

Pseudoscience category
The pseudoscience category is disputed and was removed.

According to Categorization:


 * Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.

--Dforest 13:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Medical and scientific authority
Medical consensus on aromatherapy varies from country to country so the term medical professionals should be qualified.

Scientists are only authoritative within their specialty. In the context of aromatherapy, biochemists would be authoritative. Meteorologists would not. An unqualified reference to scientists is meaningless.

Its inaccurate to state that scientific literature contains only anecdotal evidence. A search of the literature turns up in-vitro and clinical studies. Their quality may be in dispute but not their existence.Cayte 04:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Cayte

I've changed the assertion by BenBurch at the start of the article from scientifically invalid to disputed. As there are clinical papers including RCTs suggesting their is an impact from the use of aromatherapy I considered this to not conform to NPOV. See for example the Cochrane review (2003) Aroma therapy for dementia. CD003150. Tomcrocker (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Commercial reference not
The following reference contains a journal of clinical studies not adverts. It is available on sciencedirect.com, a site of Elsevior. Elsevior is a publisher of science articles. I don't see how it could be construed as commercial except on the assumption that ANY studies of aromatherapy must be commercially rather than scientifically motivated. But that would be POV wouldn't it?
 * International Journal of Aromatherapy Clinical studies of aromatherapy

Cayte 01:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Cayte

POV information supression
Please resolve POV issues on the talk pages. The information removed was referenced. Thank you for your cooperation.Cayte 22:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Cayte

--Nightwatchman 09:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Edited out misplaced user signature under History section.

stuff
hello, there's some strange stuff at the very bottom of the aromatherapy page. it looks like some type of table and text that has not formatted properly. just letting you know (i don't want to remove it if someone intended for something to be there. maybe it can be properly formatted?) 68.34.158.128 22:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)alexis

"The best aromatherapy pendant"
If you don't think aromatherapy works, go talk to a skunk! If you know they work, here's one of the best ways to use them, [advertising removed], these amazing corkless pendants are designed to allow the user to smell their oils instantly, by turning the pendant over and sniffing. Check out our website at http://www.[advertising removed].com Elfintom 04:10, 31 March 2007

Please do not use Wikipedia to advertise your products. Thank you. Rhinoracer 14:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Mass spectrometry
The article notes: "Likewise, claims that an oil's purity is vetted by mass spectrometer or gas chromatography have limited value, since all such testing can do is show that various chemicals occur in the oil." Mass spectrometry measures the number of ions of each mass/charge ratio, with a response factor that varies somewhat between compounds. It can be used to determine the proportion in which chemicals are present in a mixture, and thus should be able to detect any differences that can be detected by a trained human nose. Someone should either clarify (e.g., is it known that tests do not compare the proportions of major and minor components, when the former are more likely to be used as adulterants?) or remove the claim from the article. Thiotimoline42 21:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Valnet and World War I
Valnet is reported to have been born in 1920 (http://biorganic.ifrance.com/biorganic/valnetviegb.htm) so the reference to World War I would be incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.25.122 (talk) 06:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

how about using a vaporizer?
I'd like to use my vaporizer to enjoy the scent of a plant like rose and spices like rosemary and basil. Is this safe? It is a known fact that vaporizers do not produce carcinogens because it does not burn, it vaporizes. So far rosemary has been wonderful... and catnip... parsley was good but I didn't like it. I wonder if any of the safety concerns in this article would apply to me vaporizing these materials, not from essential oils, but from leaves and flowers. I bet the concentration couldn't be that high. Thanks for any help. Yubal (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you use essential oils these are most suitable for burners and in many cases is the route of choice for treatments, I have a table somewhere which gives descriptions and modes of use I will try and dig it out and get it to you or if someone would like to code it as an appendix? Merlin-UK (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Most vapourisers use the essential oil, as its easier and more convenient to put a couple of drops of oil onto the surface of the water that is then heated by a candle. Its not going to be unsafe using fresh or dried herbs in a device like this, but it will be messy, might not smell that strong, and if the water level runs low you might get scorched plant material which will stink, and be as easy to clean off as burnt oatmeal in a panValueaddedwater (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point-of-View (NPOV) Bias Dispute
The introduction, efficacy, and article overall have condescending language from biased sources of modern western medicine. It should be recognized that different areas of medicine do not typically agree with one another: for example folk medicine may not agree with Ayurvedic medicine, so you would not base an article on Ayurveda on citations comprised entirely from folk medicine sources. In this case, the contributions thus far are mainly about the modern medicine point-of-view.

Moreover, I have personally noticed research being published as of late which adds credibility to efficacy for Aromatherapy from a modern medicine point-of-view: isolation of volatile compounds from essential oils that enter the bloodstream through the nasal mucous membranes and lungs, which characterizes definitive proof of efficacy and would spin this article right around. --Adifeldman (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not keen on the way a lot of the references to research / efficacy is written. It would make sense if aromatherapists only used one particular oil or combination of oils every time, but they don't. The studies therefore are of a particular essential oil rather than aromatherapy per se. (Do I make sense? If one study showed that essential oil A was ineffective but a second study showed that essential oil B was effective, would they show that aromatherapy was effective or ineffective?)The Old Trout (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Author's credibility
The aromatherapy section is not well written. I find it hard to believe that the author was familar with the sources he cited. Given the number of sources, I think it is logical to expect to see a much larger volume of text. It resembles a research paper that is reluctantly written, utilizing a few sources but because of course requirements or appearances, the author cites sources that were never read. It is obvious that his presupposition is that essential oils do not work. This is clearly shown by the authors habit of offering unsupported negitive points as the opening sentence of a section. The sections should first offer information explaining aroma therapy, different oppinions for, and then critisim and disent. The sources cited have a weatlth of information that could have easily doubled the content, giving readers a much broader knowledge base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaminona1 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is mostly fringe content. Please help by editing it. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with OP but I am not a native English speaker, so I'd rather not edit this article. I will say, that clove oil for example, is widely used by dentists. Just to give you an idea of where to look for information. --86.60.203.164 (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See Oil_of_cloves. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. That information alone is against what this article says. Does the English wikipedia have a "monthly" article that everyone improves? If you can suggest this to be one, it'd be great. --86.60.203.164 (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any policy like that. People are free to improve whatever articles they want. Most likely the reason this article is in poor state is that few people consider this an important subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. In Finnish one we have something like that, where everyone works on one subject monthly to improve the article. The problem is that only interesting subjects get chosen as the one we work on, so topics like aromatherapy never really get any attention, thus the article is in bad shape. --86.60.203.164 (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I contributed an edit to neutralize the bias but Ronz (talk) undid it. --Adifeldman (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Article name
Would it not make sense to change the article name to "Essential Oil Therapy" or something similar? It seems to me that some of the criticism of the validity of aromatherapy stems from the name "aroma," since the implication may be that just a scent can make a significant impact on health, whether the limited aspect mentioned is true or not. The article encompasses much more than just "aroma," in that it contains descriptions of treatments using essential oils to treat skin problems, using the oils in medicine and to repel insects.

I find it a bit ironic that the same people that call plant therapies "pseudoscience" speak of mainstream medicine as being so much more valid, when in 1994 alone, and just only in hospitals in the U.S., 106,000 people died from and 2.1 million were seriously injured by adverse reactions to pharmaceuticals administered there (American Medical Association ). I would say, as a scientist, that looking at plant medicine makes a whole lot more sense than many people realize.

Thank you to all who are working on the article. WriterHound (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The name was confused in translation from the French, a better description would be Aromatic Therapy as it uses aromatic oils... Merlin-UK (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's your POV, and you are welcome to it. I think we can all agree that the mainstream of expert medical opinion disagrees with you on this. There appears to be much in aromatherapy which is strongly associated with other clearly pseudoscentific topics (e.g. Homoeopathy), and there seems to be almost no research which demonstrates a useful therapeutic effect for essential-oils other than some in-vitro studies which have little relevance to actual aromatherapy practice. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No criticisms?
I find it odd that criticism is missing. Frankly, I usually get a headache when someone enters a room wearing this stuff. I want to be in a room with someone wearing this stuff about as much as I would want to be sprayed by a skunk or take a bath in cat urine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.136.5 (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Try reading the article again, close to 1/3 of the text is "criticism" Hardyplants (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Popular use" section somewhat problematic
The "Popular use" section doesn't have any citations/references. Other than that, it's OK, the statements therein are correct albeit incomplete. Blind cyclist (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Section Pharmacological effects attributed to essential oils is irrelivant to article
This section appears to be broadly irrelevant to the article since it consists only of references to in-vitro studies of essential oils rather than any studies which address in-vivo efficacy. Furthermore, none of these studies seem to pertain directly to use of the essential-oils as aromatherapy. I suggest that this entire section should be removed, and possibly added to an article on essential oils. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mis-categorization?
Can somebody explain the basis for putting Aromatherapy under Psychotherapy? From what I can tell, aromatherapy is not a technique used in mainstream psychotherapy. It's better thought of as a fringe-theory or alternative medicine? I can find no evidence that it is widely accepted by any authoritative psychotherapy body. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Links are mostly spam
I've been checking the external links section of this article. They mainly seem to be from non-authoritative sources (e.g. personal blogs or companies advertising proprietary aromatherapy products). I suggest that we need to tidy this up a lot! --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The list needs cleanup, so I've tagged it for the time being. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you really cure gangrene with lavender oil? (no)
Did you notice that a recently reverted edit re-added the claim that one of the original aromatherapists managed to cure his own gas-gangrene with essence of lavendar? As implausible as it sounds I'd like to find a way to include it since it appears to be one of the most widely reported founding myths of aromatherapy. The trouble is even though there are hundreds of sites which report this story I've yet to find one which is WP:N, they all seem to be repeating the same legend. Any ideas how we might proceed? --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I think they were probably referring to Gattefosse (can't do accents) though it wasn't gas gangrene - his arm was damaged in an explosion at the perfume factory he worked in (so presumably the injuries would be burns and maybe lacerations from flying debris). He put the arm in a nearby vat of lavender oil, the pain lessened and (longer term) the wound healed well and without scarring. I imagine the episode will be in one of his books. I can try to trace the source, though I don't have very much time. The Old Trout (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Of interest
People here might be interested in this, though I don't know if it could be used in the article. Becritical (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternative or Complimentary
Why is aromatherapy described as 'alternative medicine'? As a practising therapist, I'd call it a complementary treatment, not alternative, as would my colleagues. The Old Trout (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we just use the same kind of language that the most reliable secondary sources use. I suppose if we could find a reference that showed that one usage was more appropriate than another we could change it. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Choice and purchase
I have considerably changed this section as the comments regarding 'therapeutic quality' were grossly inaccurate. I have an honours degree in Biochemistry, experience using Gas Liquid Chromatography, 40 years as an Industrial Chemist and 18 years running my own business selling essential oils. I have therefore ammended this section to be scientifically accurate. I have to say that this whole page does not do justice to aromatherapy, and includes many contributions and comments that are clearly prejudice rather than factual. I started supplying the industry as a sceptic, but changed by view when learning something about it. The phamaceutical industry takes a great interest in the pharmacological properties of plants oils, but is only interest in marketing synthetic versions because it can get a patent on these but not on natural mixtures. Please discuss with me before replacing my scientific contribution with more grafitti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjsunbird (talk • contribs) 12:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome CJ Sunbird, since you are an expert in this field could I urge you to read Wikipedia's guidance on how to be an efeective expert-editor: Expert editors. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Salimfadhley. I made a quick revision because I was so appalled by the quality of what was written. I didn't really have time to do the subject justice, but I will follow your advice, read the guidance, and return when I have time to edit properly. I am reticent to call myself an expert, but if I'm not I have certainly learnt from many in recent years. I used Wikipedia a great deal in 2010 when writing profiles of essential oils, and signed up then as an editor to correct many of the pages that I consulted. I guess I'm now feeling it's time to return and continue that work for the more general related pages... Cjsunbird (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

'Pets' section
This isn't worded like an encyclopedia entry, more like an advice leaflet (eg 'Be very careful when using essential oil preparations around household pets' and 'it is always best to contact a licensed aromatherapist before doing so'. Will I upset anyone if I delete it? The Old Trout (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Efficacy
I cut the two first paragraphs of Efficacy (they read as if they weren't written by a native speaker of English and didn't add an awful lot) and replaced with a single introductory sentence. The Old Trout (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice work; well done! bobrayner (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am proposing to add some information from 6 studies showing that there was a positive correlation relating to a benefit of using aromatherapy over the control. It may not have long term effects but there did seem to be a positive correlation over control Nourelkhatib (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have a good source? bobrayner (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

there's more research than that
There's research on the mood and other effects of lavender (relaxant), lemon (stimulant), rosemary (stimulating) and chamomile (not clear). Also research on memory and smells, in one case that smells can being back more detailed and positive memories of the event in which the smell was present.

Can't be bothered to edit the main article etc.. I always get told off.

Here's some citations: "The lavender group showed increased beta power, suggesting increased drowsiness, they had less depressed mood (POMS) and reported feeling more relaxed and performed the math computations faster and more accurately following aromatherapy." "The rosemary group, on the other hand, showed decreased frontal alpha and beta power, suggesting increased alertness. They also had lower state anxiety scores, reported feeling more relaxed and alert and they were only faster, not more accurate, at completing the math computations"

" Relaxation has been shown to alter perceptions of pain. " " at least 1 state board of nursing has recognized the therapeutic value of aromatherapy and voted to accept it as part of holistic nursing care." no results in this article, boo.

"Improvements were shown in six out of eight subjects’ Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD) Scale results. " no details of substances used in the abstract

"Twenty-two subjects were asked to visualize positive and negative phrases following exposure to either chamomile oil or placebo. Chamomile oil significantly increased the latency for all images, and shifted mood ratings and frequency judgements in a more positive direction, suggesting a possible mode of action for such oils."

"self-report and unobtrusive mood measures provided robust evidence that lemon oil reliably enhances positive mood compared to water and lavender regardless of expectancies or previous use of aromatherapy. Moreover, norepinephrine levels following the cold pressor remained elevated when subjects smelled lemon, compared to water or lavender. "

"Types of memories where almost always emotionally charged rather than affectivly neutral." 'smell and memory', this one's totally free to read.

I've also got this to read:

and this looks good but you have to pay for it and there are no results in the abstract, again:

"In early childhood it has been observed that all variety of objects are tasted and smelled, and usually no avertive response to odorous substances is apparent. Quite often a child may derive pleasing olfactory sensations from things which later in life, as an adult, are perceived as unpleasant. "

one of the articles says that memories remembered when asked to view good and bad things in the presents of a nice smell where both more details and more positive. That's the bit I'm interested in really, so I can't be bothered to read any more. I may do a scan to find out exactly what smells where used.

this is also related in a way: "Humans Smell Fear, and It's Contagious"

google or google scholar for citations, apparently it was unconstructive with them in so I took them out. pretty much quoted everything anyhow so it should be easy to find — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.248.132 (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Question
The definition says: "Aromatherapy is a form of alternative medicine that uses volatile plant materials, known as essential oils, and other aromatic compounds for the purpose of altering a person's mind, mood, cognitive function or health". Does this, then mean that clove oil (for example) is a part of both, medicine and alternative medicine? I thought when something becomes part of medicine, it's not a part of alternative medicine any longer? Or can it be a part of both? --91.152.235.120 (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In general, the alternative to "alternative medicine" is "evidence based medicine" or more simply just "medicine". It is possible that evidence exists for specific applications of an aromatic oil, however this in no way justifies non-evidence claims for the substance or other substances in the same category. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Edit of Introduction
I would like to add the following to the introduction section of this article:

"Aromatherapy is considered effective because it has pharmacological, physiological, and psychological effects on the body"

I believe this should be included because the intro emphasizes that aromatherapy does not have much valid evidence. However, the article mentions specific studies conducted that actually yielded positive results. My proposed statement explains why exactly it has "therapeutic potential".--Ghas24 (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

complementary or alternative
It struck me when editing this the need to distinguish between complementary therapy and alternative therapy. The former is often given ALONGSIDE treatment (for example, a massage before an operation to reduce anxiety). The latter is more associated with something INSTEAD of standard (often scientifically proven) treatment. This is an important distinction but there is no page about complementary therapy. Jack Nunn 01:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)jacknunn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacknunn (talk • contribs)

Edits 2/10/2019
Hi, I have seen my updates to this article have been reverted and that the phrase "pro-woo perspective" was used. You have not assumed good faith and have needlessly reverted improvements to an article that was poorly written and referenced.

Here is a summary of the improvements I have made to the article, which I wish to be re-instated:

Effectiveness section was updated to include several additional, more recent systematic reviews (the highest level of medical evidence available).

The history section was improved by removing several dead links and adding in higher quality, more academic references.

The "choice and purchase" section was removed as this was completely un-cited and repeated information that could be found on the Essential Oils wiki page. I really don't know what this section was supposed to be about, it was so unclear and poorly written - a real mess.

The safety section was updated to focus on the safety of aromatherapy as a practice rather than essential oils as a product, as this information could also be found on the Essential Oils wiki page. In general, the article really suffered from a conflation of aromatherapy practice and essential oils. I used high-quality academic resources such as systematic reviews for this section, rather than the long, rambling single study focus of the original.

I added in a new, well-cited section about the various proposed mechanisms of action (or lack thereof) of aromatherapy. I was still working on this section when it was reverted.

I added in a new, well-cited section about the regulation of aromatherapy practice around the world.

What is it *exactly* that is the problem? I am genuinely baffled here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staceybridget (talk • contribs) 07:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Your edits changed the content completely, for example removing the well-sourced fact that aromatherapy is pseudoscience, which has been repeatedly discussed here. The proposed mechanism lacks WP:MEDRS sources, and cites the "placebo effect", which is not a thing. Basically the changes are too far-reaching and need to be discussed in detail here first, since this is a stable article that has been edited by a lot of people over the years. It would also be useful to know if you have any connection to the trade. Guy (help!) 07:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I am more than happy to add the statement about aromatherapy being a pseudoscience back in, if that's something that has been approved by consensus over time. I just believed it to be repetitive as the linked article on complementary and alternative medicine (the umbrella under which aromatherapy falls) already calls it a pseudoscience. I can easily improve the section on the proposed mechanism section as several of the systematic reviews I read comment on various proposed mechanisms of action, I was still working on that section when it was reverted.

I actually disagree that I was too far-reaching, I feel that I was merely being bold. I think you actually just got spooked and thought I was adding bias towards aromatherapy to the article, when that isn’t the case.

What other problems are there?

I have no connection whatsoever to the aromatherapy industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staceybridget (talk • contribs) 07:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the change, I see quite a lot of poor sourcing: The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, etc. etc. A WP:REDFLAG is flying here: sourcing needs to be strong, so fringe journals, medical sites/schools - and especially junk journals are not good sources for any non-mundane claims. Alexbrn (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I give up. As it stands this is a poorly written and cited article but improvements are clearly not very welcome. I hope you do decide to reinstate some of my improvements even if only to the particularly bad sections. I’ll leave you boys to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staceybridget (talk • contribs) 08:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Improvements are welcome, but not wholesale undiscussed changes. This is normal for a mature article on Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 10:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Reverted
basically rewrote the article from a pro-practitioner POV. That needs consensus here first, so I reverted. Guy (help!) 07:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Placebo claim
Judging by what is written in the article, this type of therapy can have some effects in of itself. Therefore it seems inaccurate, or at best contentious, to claim it is a placebo (as it does under the main image). When going to the edit section I could see no way to edit this claim as it doesn't seem to appear there. Does anybody know how to do so please? Helper201 (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Any non-trivial health claims in the article need to be backed by WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It still seems inaccurate to claim it to be a placebo when it has effects. The article has cited evidence that it can help improve general well-being. Its not like its a sugar pill. Helper201 (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not contradictory to call it a placebo when it has effects, because placebos can have effects. This is particularly true for vague and subjective effects like improving "general well-being".  Deli nk (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * But a placebo only has effects based on the individuals own perception and the perceived difference its making and doesn't actually have any effect in of itself. '...a substance or treatment with no active therapeutic effect'. So if aromatherapy does have an effect in of itself, which this article has citations to support, then by definition it can't be classed as a placebo, because it is having an active therapeutic effect in of itself. Helper201 (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aromatherapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080727011937/http://www.thelavendercat.com/3201/index.html to http://www.thelavendercat.com/3201/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"General Well-Being"
In two places in this article uses the phrase "General well-being". This seems very vague - interpretation of the phrase is probably heavily polarized by prior belief. I believe it requires further explanation or removal. I followed one of the sources but I can't find a definition of well-being.

In my opinion "general well-being" sounds like a load of pseudo-scientific hodge-podge new-age bullshit quackery, but the source I followed (but didn't read all of) could be evidence of minor positive effects (which might perhaps be better achieved with other methods, I'll add). Perhaps the source should be elaborated on here instead? 82.25.228.207 (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I had exactly the same thought - what is 'general well-being'? The Cochrane review certainly didn't use the phrase; I haven't gone and read the book that was cited so it might have come from that, but even still I think it's so vague as to be meaningless. I'll have a bash at rewording.Girth Summit (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No COI
Working on this article. More changes needed. Although I provide science consulting advice to companies in the dietary supplement industry, I have never had a project that involved aromatherapy nor a client that sold aromatherapy products. David notMD (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Too short
The sentence "Aromatherapy is pseudoscience" is too short and of low quality in comparison with the other sentences in Wiki. It's as good as "Fiat is car" or "Horse is animal". Consider revising. Vxsc (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is a good job such a sentence doesn't appear in our article then, isn't it? -Roxy, the dog . wooF 18:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Straw men
The article is highly biased, seeking to build and then destroy, a straw-man argument that aromatherapy is somehow contending against mainstream medicine. I am not sure where that perception arises, but if it can be substantiated, the article should do so, first and prior to any attempt to dissuade against such a possibility.

On the other hand, this not being supportable, the article should refrain from attacking aromatherapy and its users and practitioners, and instead describe what it is and how it is used and practiced.

"Leaves out of the Elf-country, gah! They stinks." -- Gollum, The Lord of the Rings, Vol. II: The Two Towers, J. R. R. Tolkien, George Allen & Unwin, London, 1954. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:4146:600:E860:F4E6:C623:BC55 (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)