If a smell can make people nauseous ... actually vomit, might not other smells have beneficial effects?

You didn't bother to read the articles I linked, otherwise you would have seen the explanations and the linked science studies.

Vomiting is driven by nausea, not smell. This is why not everyone vomits every time they smell something displeasing and why you "get used to" bad smells.

Tim, the url didn't look too interesting, but I have read it now, and it isn't very convincing. Of the references at the end of the article, the only 'quality' one has a link that doesn't work.

I thought I would find some articles in PubMed to support my claim that smells could cause nausea, but I can't be bothered going past the first one that came up which has in the abstract:

"Our laboratory has been asked to elucidate the origin of a strong "toxic smell" present in a prominent politician's office, private house and motorcar. This stinky and pungent atmosphere has caused serious nausea and vomiting to several individuals ...Detailed examination of the spectra as well as GC/MS analysis of commercially available skunk secret allowed us to relate the identified compounds to those present in the defence spray of skunks."

Are you not capable of following the links and searching the linked sites for the referred article? Because I found them easily enough. Unlike you, I cited evidence, which you didn't even bother to read, this is not the way a proper discussion is held.

I also found the some really simple articles on what drives vomiting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomiting Even easier to find science articles on the topic. Your quoted part is a joke and actually supports my statements.

Following the link didn't get me far, however, yes, you can google up an author's draft, which ends with:

"We found clear and consistent evidence that lemon oil inhalation enhances positive mood and also boosts norepinephrine release (in line with its activating properties), but no other obvious physiological or health-related benefits from either lemon or lavender; ..."

Tim, are you actually saying that odours don't produce a physical effect in our bodies? That you've never salivated when the scent of something delicious has wafted over you? Or gagged at a particularly disgusting smell?

What is it with CAM supporters and strawmen? I never said that odours can't or don't have an effect on the body. The olfactory senses are tied into the limbic centre of the brain, which is tied to memory, so that is bound to illicit memories.

But that doesn't change the fact that aromatherapy can't be used to treat anything.

Tim, you wrote, of aromatherapy: "I don't know why the idea is even entertained."

I offered the opinion that the idea could be entertained: "If a smell can make people nauseous ... actually vomit, might not other smells have beneficial effects?" A speculation.

You responded "Vomiting is driven by nausea, not smell" which seemed to me an odd response to the suggestion that an odour could cause nausea!

Then finally you write that: "I never said that odours can't or don't have an effect on the body"

So we seem to agree that odours can have an effect on the body. I think that's worth investigating and, although I've never considered trying aromatherapy, I wouldn't dismiss the claims of people who say that it works for them. Not everything is known yet.

Show me the evidence. There has been plenty of research, none of it concluding anything solid or tangible. Weaseling meaning out of my statements that were not intended nor implied is also not evidence, nor are presumptive statements, show me your evidence.

To say that we don't know everything is to try and create a red herring, to imply that we haven't investigated aromatherapy. The fact that this modality has been around passing itself off as a medical treatment means it has had plenty of time to provide evidence of how it works and what it can actually be used for. The fact that it hasn't done either shows that there is either nothing of interest to be found or that the practitioners have deliberately avoided testing for fear that their house of cards would fall.

So, show me the evidence. I've shown my tangible proofs of aromatherapy being rubbish as a medical treatment, time to show me yours.

Tim, have a look at Dr Geiger's presentation ... loads of 'evidence'.

Oh you have to be kidding. 10mins into his presentation and he still hasn't presented anything of any value.

First he starts with completely unrelated statements like "Look at this study, it shows drug companies are using plants as sources of drugs." Really? I never!

Then he moves in for a killing blow with "Look at this study that shows peppermint aromatherapy is no different from a placebo, so exciting." So the aromatherapy did nothing? This is meant to convince me? http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/14770380/reload=0;jsessionid=NpaBP4ZIIaiAuFPEapHe.0

At the 26min mark he cites another study about lavender oils that has no adequate control measures (no placebo). These are just the couple of papers I've bothered to look up, as most of what he cites is unrelated to aromatherapy at all (e.g. dogs smelling cancer, unrelated and not yet proven, yet cited as evidence, WTF?).

Tim

Anesth Analg. 2012 Mar 5.
Aromatherapy as Treatment for Postoperative Nausea: A Randomized Trial.
Hunt R, Dienemann J, Norton HJ, Hartley W, Hudgens A, Stern T, Divine G.
Source

From the *Department of Anesthesia, Carolinas Medical Center University, Charlotte, NC;
Abstract

Background:Postoperative nausea (PON) is a common complication of anesthesia and surgery. Antiemetic medication for higher-risk patients may reduce but does not reliably prevent PON. We examined aromatherapy as a treatment for patients experiencing PON after ambulatory surgery. Our primary hypothesis was that in comparison with inhaling a placebo, PON will be reduced significantly by aromatherapy with (1) essential oil of ginger, (2) a blend of essential oils of ginger, spearmint, peppermint, and cardamom, or (3) isopropyl alcohol. Our secondary hypothesis was that the effectiveness of aromatherapy will depend upon the agent used.Methods:A randomized trial of aromatherapy with patients who reported nausea in the postanesthesia care unit was conducted at one ambulatory surgical center. Eligibility criteria were adult, able to give consent, and no history of coagulation problems or allergy to the aromatherapy agents. Before surgery, demographic and risk factors were collected. Patients with a nausea level of 1 to 3 on a verbal descriptive scale (0-3) received a gauze pad saturated with a randomly chosen aromatherapy agent and were told to inhale deeply 3 times; nausea (0-3) was then measured again in 5 minutes. Prophylactic and postnausea antiemetics were given as ordered by physicians or as requested by the patient.Results:A total of 1151 subjects were screened for inclusion; 303 subjects reporting nausea were enrolled (26.3%), and 301 meeting protocol were analyzed (26.2%). The change in nausea level was significant for the blend (P < 0.001) and ginger (P = 0.002) versus saline but not for alcohol (P < 0.76). The number of antiemetic medications requested after aromatherapy was also significantly reduced with ginger or blend aromatherapy versus saline (P = 0.002 and P < 0.001, respectively).Conclusion:The hypothesis that aromatherapy would be effective as a treatment for PON was supported. On the basis of our results, future research further evaluating aromatherapy is warranted. Aromatherapy is promising as an inexpensive, noninvasive treatment for PON that can be administered and controlled by patients as needed.

There are a lot of issues with that paper. The first is that the controls are not suitably blind, you would expect the patients to not know which treatment they are getting, but the two actual treatments would have been obviously different. This can be seen directly in the change in distribution of the pain scores: the reaction to isopropyl alcohol was the same as the ginger and barely significantly less than the blend. The stats themselves show that the nausea is not improved relative to the alcohol.

So unless you are telling me that alcohol is also an essential oil or aromatherapy oil, then the paper doesn't show anything.

Another issue with this trial - the participants only took three (3) breaths of the substance. This makes it unlikely that there was any effect at all, but that the results are spurious.

It's also interesting that the blend oils had the same effect as ginger - so it doesn't seem to matter what the oil is - just that it smells nice.

Maybe it comes down to this: there's nothing wrong with a quick trial of some nice-smelling agent if you have nausea, with a back-up way of treating it, if it doesn't work.

It can only be a good thing to make health care settings more pleasant and humane - using music, colour, massage, clowns, games, television, fragrances - so long as these dont interfere with, or substitute for, effective therapies.

Tim and Sue.
I am fairly certain you are aware that essential oils from plants are rich in various chemical constituents, including alcohols. I have used one drop of essential oils of ginger on the palm of very many high risk for post op nausea anesthesia patients to smell ad lib. It works. The article substantiates the hypothesis. Picking it apart with your desperate Cochran like review does not change the results of the study. Inhalation of ginger vapors aka aromatherapy, works in the recovery room for many people. The diatribe voiced here does not serve people. Rather it cheats people of something simple and cheap that both prevents and TREATS nausea and is devoid of the cost and side effects of the various multi-modal patches, pills and intravenous drugs.

But if stress or anxiety can be relieved with music or scent, why isn't this a therapy? Or are they not significant medical conditions?

i think the problem is that the effects of aroma and music on sick people can't be quantified - they are subjective & cultural and can't be easily generalised & extrapolated to other sick people's situations with the same results.

having said that, when i was recovering from an operation 5 years ago, i flooded my flat with music of beethoven for 12 hours a day. not the big symphonic stuff, but the string quartets, trios, piano sonatas, violin & cello sonatas. i'd swear on a stack of darwins that it made me feel better, if not get better. i mean, i felt less "sick" (post operation) when i filled the air with hours of beethoven than when i didn't.

i like to think my recovery was better for this, that being in a happier mental state assisted my rate of recovery and lessened my physical distress. this is, of course, highly subjective, and i expect beethoven wouldn't work for everyone. and there's the nub. i wouldn't dream of recommending beethoven to anyone who's sick, but, based on my own experience post operation, i would encourage them to fill the air at their home with hour after hour of beautiful harmonies, after their own taste, because it will make them feel better, if not get better, and feeling better is really important when all you feel is crummy.

i knew a woman in newcastle upon tyne in 1976 who taught therapists in the use of music and movement to help mentally distressed children. it was apparently quite effective and enthusiastically supported by the university of newcastle. but this was a component in a therapeutic program.

for my periods of sadness i use schubert - for me no one is better than schubert at giving shape to inchoate melancholy. and giving shape to melancholy is the first step in getting a grip on it and putting it behind you. but i don't expect schubert would work as well for other people. and there again's the nub. -a.v.

Hi Alfred - (Nice to hear from old acquaintainces from LP)

Agree. I guess that, while we know that listening to music can change the rate of your heartbeat, and odours can make you salivate, the effects of music and aromas can also be subtle and different for every person. If I got a bad sore throat I would like antibiotics to get rid of it, I wouldn't try aromatherapy. But our conventional medicine seems to have some difficulty in anything other than the 'big guns' approach to fighting disease. The wellness movement seems to be more about creating an ongoing positive, preventive state of health, in many small ways. State of mind has an effect on health, so I wouldn't dismiss music, aromas, 'affirmations' or anything else people use that works for them.

Hi Russell
thanks for the comment. for some reason you got a down-thumb for it - i remedied that, for now. its obvious to me tha,t as you say, state of mind has an effect on health, and, as i say, music has an effect on state of mind. i wouldn't use music for my sore throat either but for post operation recovery i couldn't recommend it enough. here's looking at you! -a.v.

Hi Alfred,

I was thinking about your use of music for alleviating sadness, and wondering, do you think that one of the reasons it works is because listening to good music isn't just a passive activity, but a creative one? There's something about the energy of creativity in you, ignited by the music, that recharges you?

hi Russell
this thread is fast disappearing into the archives below the fold so i'll keep it short(ish).

i'm biased but i think music is indeed special. in essence its an acoustic communication that's non-verbal (when its instrumental). i like mendelssohn's response to the critique that music is too indefinite to express anything like significant thoughts:- "what the music I love expresses to me, is not thought too *indefinite* to put into words, but on the contrary, too *definite*" (mendelssohn's emphases).

i read a bit of schopenhauer while researching my thesis on music & nationalism. schopenhauer's view was that music alone of the arts provides the means to attain release from the wheel of existence. momentarily. he held that, unlike arts like literature, theatre, or painting (in his time) music, especially instrumental music, is not about or representative of anything but itself. instrumental music, in schopenhauer's time, was uniquely the abstract art form. This abstraction & the absence of correlates in the "real world" gives music the unique ability to release listeners from the wheel of existence.

intriguingly, schopenahuer was first exposed to indian philosophy in his student years by way of an 18th century french scholar's latin translation of a 17th century farsi (persian) translation of 50 of the upanishads.

if you're interested, this stanford philosophy site has a fair overview of schopenhauer's music aesthetics. right or wrong he's been enormously influential & not only in his own century:- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer-aesthetics/#HieAmoFinArt

this wiki article presents an overview of empirical studies into music & brain/mind:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_neuroscience_of_music
alf