In Medical Aromatherapy:

Kurt Schnaubelt touches on the sensitive issue of science and the truth of research.

Working in the holistic field and trained as a scientific researcher as well as an aromatherapist, reiki master and Feng Shui Master I understand both sides of the argument:

– science is funded by big pharma & governments and many people believe, this steers them from neutral, objective research discoveries to biased ‘these are the results we will use to sell our drug’ discoveries.

–vs–

– pseudo science, half bad, unregulated, anecdotal ‘healing just works’ research. Usually based on hearsay, or extracted from a variety of sources, or antiquated sources.

So, yes, I get why scientists have a hard time with holistic practitioners and why holistic practitioners have a hard time with scientists.

I wanted to quote Kurt for you, and then tell me whose side are you on?

That there are not more studies is a clear demonstration of the economic interests governing the scientific process. Given the extremely favorable track record of essential oils in treating viral diseases, one would expect researchers to jump on this opportunity to study cures that could be effective and, being relatively inexpensive, available to all.

But again, since oils cannot be patented and scientists are economically dependent, these potential cures elicit mostly yawns from the scientific establishment…Those willing to try aromatherapy will find nontoxic and effective solutions for herpes simplex and herpes zoster simply with topical application of certain essential oils.

Who’s side are you on?
Can you side with both?