Myths and Perspectives

Q: Why are there different recommendations for oils use
   among the different species of animals and even between
   the genders among people? 

A: The real problem in using a particular oil on a particular species or genders is that many times you are trying to be God in sense. Here is how we can look at this, in nature a cat for
example will usually not self-medicate with a round leaf type plant. They are a carnivore. In nature, the first choice of self-medication of a carnivore is a long stem type of grass, not around leaf plant. So the first choice for a cat would be to select a longleaf grass sourced oil. There are many of them out there. That is why you would not use a plant like Peppermint as a first choice.

Think of the shape of the leaf. Oblong... Now when it comes to a dog, which they are supposed to be a carnivore, which I question that because of the high amount of grain used in dog food diets.  They will do ok with grain diets, not as good as with a meat diet, but none the less ok. The big problem is the more grain the bigger the dung heap, more the meat the smaller the dung heap. So with dogs, you can use different oils. When it comes to humans then you have to consider a vastly different perspective. With kids, you have to approach them with more subdued
aromas. With adults, that is all over the board with the exception being that if it doesn't smell
"Great" then they won't take it, no matter how much good it will do for them.
Now let's get back to the oils that can be a concern. In the area of Aromatherapy, we find all sorts of myths. In my research I have found that back in the 1800's they had it all figured out from a medical approach. At least from the way I see it. Really, they did. 

Then we go through the dark ages of essential oil use. Meaning that there just was not a whole lot of advancements or discoveries in the aromatherapy world.Then in the USA it comes back to life in the 1980's and really they got it all worked up in the early 90's. They then billed a lot of it as original material. At that time in the USA we had a lot of this stuff related to emotions with all these fancy terms from foreign sources and those were being billed as original material as well, and from a more enlightened source. (Don't you just like my political correctness?). But the hot sellers, were the Tea Tree and Eucalyptus oils. Which were also billed as actually being the more toxic ones, based on clinical research? At least the studies were supposed to be.  But those that have used them can attest to how mild they are. On those oils an adult would have to take on Tea
Tree-148 ml. and on Eucalyptus (globulus) which is supposed to be a spooky one, an adult would have to take 345 ml.  Many of the toxicity testimonies are related to this one issue, that being one event being tied to another event erroneously. This is where a lot of diagnosing is done by people that have no real understanding of what they are doing, yet they think they do. 

Here I want to cite a quote from a book that I reference on occasion, "Valnet (1980 p. 11) cites the loss of eyebrows and headaches in workers handling vanilla, but vanilla ice cream is produced, eaten and enjoyed without any ill effect. An essential oil may be both safe and toxic depending on the amount administered - it all depends on the knowledge, skill, and experience of the
therapist. For example, we have observed that while Lavender is sedative at a low dose, a high dose can cause insomnia". The key to all of this is to know and understand what you have, what you are doing and be responsible. I have been done a lot of experiments and by noting the observations, I am more and more convinced that many of these oils can be used externally with very good results and by using carrier oils at the time of application can be very effective. So that will be another issue to be addressed in another email.  Anyway, just a bit of information, for perspective, of course.


Kent King