Scientifically Proven

(This is a great article about the fallacy of the empirical supremacy of the double blind, placebo controlled study, especially in the field of aromatherapy, and the "myth" of objectivity.)

Written by Kurt Schnaubelt on 20 July 2010

Over three decades ago American philosopher and author Theodore Roszak formulated his ideas about, what he termed, the “Myth of Objective Consciousness.” (Theodore Roszak, The Making of a Counter Culture, Chicago, 1967) It is worth to step back in time to recall Roszak’s argument as it illuminates so many of the predicaments we find ourselves trapped in today:

Objective Consciousness in this context implies that if only we, or the tireless and unselfish scientist, stepped back from her or his emotions and subjective impressions and instead use the incorruptible tools of experimental laboratory science, that then, and only then, an objective – or in other words a truly true – glance at reality is possible. In the context of treating disease this has led to the perception that testing medicines in a process aptly termed “double blind” is best to determine the efficacy of a (new) drug objectively, because it removes the subjective perceptions of patient and doctor.

This idea of objectivity has solidly taken hold in American and most other Western societies. But in his book, Roszak goes on to contemplate how this state of objectivity is neither possible nor desirable. He calls our unchecked belief in scientific objectivity the “Myth” of our time, being the underlying belief of our cultural period that is never checked. It is considered to be self evidently true, needing no further proof.

So we believe that medicines whose efficacy has been demonstrated by the cost intensive double blind testing, must be ‘working.’ That is, if the patient is within the statistical segment of the population, for which the drug was shown to work.

The paradigm of corporate drug research depends on the assumption that there are close to perfect medicines, which treat a specific symptom as perfectly as possible and which provide the desired effect for all people, all of the time. Of course neither of these assumptions has ever been objectively established to be true. Instead, it is not so difficult to see that the “one drug fits all” idea arises from adherence to the economic model of the mass market. To sell as much as possible of one product to as many people as possible.

This is why the efficacy of drugs is demonstrated by means of statistics. If the double blind test shows that the drug is working for 89% of the test group we conclude it is working. But what if you are in the non responsive 11%?

In aromatherapy we accommodate our desire to rationalize the effects of essential oils by invoking the pharmacological effects of their components, which is often convenient since often some of the main components found in essential oils have been researched. But by focusing on the few investigated standard molecules we ignore that the full spectrum of activity of essential oils has remained hidden from the tools of reductionist laboratory science.

And this is the point of departure where the exploration of aromatherapy becomes an exercise much more involved and rewarding than the sometimes drab recitation of the “proven” effects of cineol or linalool, complex as they may be. In future installments I will discuss some of the approaches which are beyond the parameters of orthodox science.

(Reprinted with permission from the author)