Smart Scents

A guide to effective aromatherapy

Singer Jürg, Rainer Dr. Schneider

• Publisher: Ebozon Verlag
• Year: 2016
• eBook ISBN: 9783959631525
• Topic: Medicine
• Subtopic: Alternative & Complementary Medicine

Scents play a much greater role in our daily lives than most people would assume. In fact, the sense of smell is in many ways very fascinating. When properly applied scents and aromas may calm or activate, balance or invigorate. There is almost no experience which cannot be enhanced by the application of scents. In this compactly written E-Book, you will learn what really matters when it comes to the use of scents. Another main objective of this book is to introduce a new aromatherapeutic method which can readily be used no matter what the circumstances. The authors also provide sound scientific evidence of this effective and ingenious method. In plain words, they outline how this method works and how mind and body can be effectively influenced.

VI. Scientific evidence

VI.1 Excursus: What exactly is scientific evidence?

Every claim regarding the effects of a specific (therapeutic) method has to be accompanied by evidence to support it. Not insisting on this specific requirement would catapult us into the world of speculation or – worse – wishful thinking. So, where is the evidence that says that there are specific benefits to be gained from using AromaSticks as part of one's aromatherapy treatment?

AromaStick® products do not make any claims regarding potential therapeutic effects, and they certainly do not claim to act in the same way as a medicinal product. On the contrary, AromaSticks are nasal inhalers whose main aim is to provide improved well-being in everyday life through the delivery of selected scents. In spite of this, we would like to provide evidence for the fact that they are effective as both an aromatherapy product and as a supportive measure, to be used alongside established treatment methods².

Before we do so, we should first ask a rather fundamental question in this context: what exactly is meant by clinical or scientific evidence? This question is particularly important when it comes to evaluating the performance of a particular product or method. At first glance, one may be tempted to think that it must be easy to provide proof of efficacy. After all, all one has to do is to observe how the results of a particular treatment method develop over time (in the form of a curve or measurement values), and to compare these with a standard of some kind (e.g. a different method, clinical experience or similar). A closer look, however, will show that it is far from easy to provide clear evidence of efficacy, the reason for which we will discuss in the following section. Before we do so, however, let us take a small detour into the recent history of medical developments.

Until well into the 1950s, it was quite common for a physician's subjective view of a patient's clinical status to be used as a measure for evaluating the efficacy of a specific treatment or intervention. In other words, if the physician felt something was beneficial in terms of its therapeutic effect, this judgment was regarded as sufficient evidence for a claim of efficacy. If a physician did not have sufficient personal experience of using a specific treatment method, he or she was able to make a determination by comparing outcomes with historical data.

Historical data used for such comparisons were data that had been collected in a more or less systematic way, and provided information on treatment outcomes in relation to a new substance, as well as data on how these compared to treatment outcomes that had been obtained using a more traditional substance. It is probably fairly obvious that both of these methods of providing proof of efficacy have their own specific problems.

A physician's personal opinions and experience cannot be regarded as scientific evidence. Even the opinion of a physician who is an expert in the field in question – and who has only ever had positive experiences with a specific therapeutic measure – does not count, as there is no guarantee that his/her views are shared by other physicians. Comparative medicine using historical data often did not produce convincing results – partly as a result of distortions caused by differences in the timing of treatments, the exact course ...

Table of contents

• I. Preface
• II. Definition of terminology
• III. Introduction
• IV. Essential oils: the good into the pot, the bad into the crop?
• V. Aromatherapy: what really matters?
• VI. Scientific evidence
• VII. Summary of empirical findings
• VIII. Conclusions
• IX. AromaStick® – same product, different packaging?
• X. One last word (well, nearly)
• XI. Postscript
• XII. Aromatherapy–Checklist
• XIII. References
• XIV. Index of Figures
• XV. Index of Tables
• XVI. Internet Links
• XVII. Footer
• XVIII. The Authors