Well, well, well, had anyone told me back in 1991 that I would still be writing the Newsletter in 2004, I would have bet heavily against the likelihood.....150!

Also I could never have anticipated the staggering response to last month’s “teaser”.  It was quite overwhelming - e-mail, phone, fax and letter! 

Although he did not win the prize, I was impressed particularly by the most erudite, and correct, answer from Kevin Orbell-McSean of the Evergreen Clinic in Cork....

The phrase probably entered the popular consciousness when it was spoken by Scarlet O’Hara as the last words of “Gone with the Wind”: Tara! Home! I’ll go home, and I’ll think of some way to get him back. After all, tomorrow is another day! But then, if you go back a little further in time, to 1527, in Rastell’s ‘Calisto & Melebea’ there occurs the line: Well, mother, tomorrow is a new day. Perhaps that was the first time the phrase was used in print or other open media, though I think in the modern era one can safely credit Scarlet O’Hara with having popularised the phrase, from the book by Margaret Mitchell.

The winner?  Pat Fenwick from Hull, by just fourteen minutes! Well done!

I was delighted also to receive advice upon the origins of Murphy’s Law.  According to Kay Galbraith it is accredited to Captain Edward A. Murphy at Edwards Air Force Base in 1949 at North Base, and she provided an excellent example of the maxim: You cannot successfully determine beforehand which side of the bread to butter. The chance of the buttered side of the bread falling face down is directly proportional to the cost of the carpet.

Nevertheless I do like very much Irene Schuster’s version....

As Patrick Murphy, ages past,
Filled up his glass, and swigged it,
He stood a round...and, quite profound,
To assembled mates regaling,
Bemoaned his lot - “the world’s unkind,
My mind won’t function clearly,
It’s all gone wrong” his doleful song
“I find life so confusing”.

“Is there some mighty Law on high,
That, jealous of us perfect men,
Prevents us all from winning?”
“Ah, yes, that’s it, I’ve got it now!”
Then Murphy staggered to the door,
“THAT’S THE LAW” proclaiming,
“THE LAW, I say”...and passed away.
And to this day, when things go wrong
THE LAW - as set by Murphy,
Makes total sense. So every time
Your plans don’t gel - DON’T yell,
But blame it all on Murphy.

And so, totally revitalized by your response, humour, and erudition, I am setting another little poser this month. A multiple choice question: Who wrote the following?

Send for them to a poor man’s house who is not able to give them their fee, then they will not come, and the poor Creature for whom Christ died must forfeit his life for want of money.

John Gerard, Nicholas Culpeper or Francis Bacon?

I firmly believe that if the whole materia medica, as now used, could be sunk to the bottom of the sea, it would be all the better for mankind - and all the worse for the fishes.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Samuel Hahnemann or Oscar Wilde?

That famous headmaster, Edward Thring.....first taught me botany when I was a baby.

Maud Grieve, Hilda Leyel or D.J. Mabberley?

The sun has set, yet night has not yet fallen. It is the uncertain hour. In a light of deepest blue, everything - the rustling leaves, the lapping waves - is focused to express a love, a kindness, an infinite tenderness. Suddenly, man is in harmony with the world of things, within the time of a moment, the time of a perfume.

Coco Chanel, Jacques Guerlain or Jean Patou?

But of the greatest interest is the effect of fragrance on the psychic and mental state of the individual. Powers of perception become clearer and more accurate and there is a feeling of having, to a certain extent, outstripped events. They are seen more objectively, and therefore in truer perspective.

Marguerite Maury, Julia Lawless or Valerie Ann Worwood?

If essential oils are truly made from nature they possess enormous beauty and healing potential. Aromatherapy based on such oils is in sharp contrast to the conventional medical paradigm, which itself is based on the culture of industrialization and alienation.

Robert Tisserand, Jean Valnet or Kurt Schnaubelt?

W.O.W.! MEANS “WONDERFUL OLD WOMEN”!

Shirley Price, Patricia Davis or Germaine Greer?

A £50 Essentially Oils Gift Voucher to the first correct answer out of the hat.  I’ll double it, if you can supply also the sources of reference!

Foiling felines.
As some may suspect I’m not really a cat person, because cats are natural born predators. Given the opportunity, they prey upon whatever is available. Indoor cats are restricted to batting at flies, the odd moth, and an occasional human ankle. Outdoor cats, however, have real prey to catch.  Some are prepared to restrict their efforts to moths, dragonflies, and butterflies, but others choose amphibia. Given the chance, most cats will prey upon small rodents, and wherever there are birds they will naturally stalk and kill them. On Stephen’s Island, off the coast of New Zealand, a single cat was responsible for driving one species of bird, the Stephen’s Island Wren, to extinction.

Forgetting for a moment the formidable records of Mickey, the factory cat, who killed over 22,000 mice in 23 years and Towser, the distillery cat, who dispatched 23,029 in 20 years, one survey in the village of Felmersham in Bedfordshire showed that 173 pet cats brought home 1100 corpses between them in a year, in the proportion of one bird to every two mammals. What cats bring home, however, is not the same as what they catch; they tend to bring home birds for their young or simply for sport.  Songbirds are also plentiful in gardens, especially when enticed with nest-boxes and bird-tables.  This small survey is the basis for the often-quoted “fact” that 20 million sparrows are killed by domestic cats each year in the United Kingdom.

I am very protective of my wild birds, rodents, and amphibia, but all my efforts to deter the “sporting specials” who reside next door have failed.  What’s more, in North Africa, where the domestic cat evolved, earth and sand were excellent for burying waste. They still are, especially earth that I have already broken up to make digging easier - that’s why the cats enjoy burying their droppings in the flowerbeds.  They have discovered also, with glee, the earth in Jan’s potted plants. The feel underfoot is very important to cats; generally speaking, the finer the feel, the more attractive the substance. It’s war!

I have given up trying to convince my neighbour to fit them with red (a colour birds see best)collars, with bells and reflectors attached, and I am reluctant to ask for them to be neutered (neutered toms bury all of their faeces). In his youth Mungu did a splendid job of defending the territory, but now he seems to have lost his taste for the chase: it’s up to me!

As I do not wish to harm the cheeky chappies, I have devised a system of natural defences.  I have companion-planted Rue (Ruta graveolens L.), which I am assured that cats absolutely hate, and have strewn dried holly leaves upon the flowerbeds.  Some suggest that scattering tea-bags around can do the trick, but I think it a little untidy and, in any event, I am a coffee man myself (the grounds of which are a useful slug deterrent by the way).

As several have asked what essential oils might assist in their battle against the feline foe, I have deduced that cats dislike eucalyptus, peppermint and citrus oils and the scent of onion, garlic and chive.  Of course I could perhaps lure them to another garden by laying a trail of attractive catnip, but is that really playing the game?

I shall plant thorny shrubs, such as hawthorn and berberis, clipped for density at the base, and spray the fences with dilute surgical spirit, which is said to deter cats. Failing that, I shall just have to have a truckload of soft sand delivered to my neighbour for his little terrors to dig in, be it a cursory paw, complex engineering works, sculpted pyramids, or a meticulously created excavation.  Cats are very individual!

Coriander chicken?
To be honest I have never been that keen on chicken because, of all the meats, I fear that it carries the highest risk of Salmonella, which can cause anything from mild gastroenteritis to severe and sometimes fatal food poisoning.  In reality I am sure that my fears are unfounded: Jan and Justin love it, and it has never done them any harm.

However, I was interested to read recently that, apart from getting my taste buds tingling, a handful of coriander leaves (Coriandrum sativum L.) could also protect me against a host of food-borne pathogens.

Researchers at the University of California Berkeley (UCB) and the Universidad Autonoma de Guadalajara have found that a compound in both the seeds and leaves of the coriander is twice as potent as the antibiotic gentamicin against Salmonella (a genus of motile rod-shaped, Gram-negative bacteria of the family Enterobacteriaseae).

The compound dodecenal is one of several antibiotic agents the team found in the plant, but it is far and away the most powerful.  Most natural antibiotics found in food are quite weak, says Isao Kubo at UCB who led the research, so this came as a surprise [Kubo, I. et al. J. Agric. Food Chem., 2004, 52, 3329].

The researchers suggest that the compound could help in the war against antibiotic resistance. It appears to eradicate its pathogen target by rupturing bacterial cell membranes in much the same way as detergent - something that bacteria would be unlikely to evolve a way round.

Apparently dodecenal is not associated with the unmistakable taste of coriander, and the researchers suggest that it could be used as a tasteless food additive for the prevention of food-borne disease. Although it seems that I shall probably have to eat almost the same weight of coriander leaves as the weight of the entire meal to achieve the same result, it is chicken with coriander from now on.  Fortunately Jan’s diminutive, supermarket-bought, coriander plant has burgeoned into a forest with the recent, heavy rain! 

A gander at Gentamicin.
Gentamicin is an aminoglycoside antibiotic and has a bactericidal action against many Gram-negative aerobes and against some strains of staphylococci. Aminoglycosides are taken up into sensitive bacterial cells by an active transport process which is inhibited in anaerobic, acidic, or hyperosmolar environments. Within the cell they bind to the 30S, and to some extent to the 50S subunits of the bacterial ribosome, inhibiting protein synthesis and generating errors in the transcription of the genetic code.  The manner in which cell death is brought about is imperfectly understood, and other mechanisms may contribute, including effects on membrane permeability.

Resistance revealed.
Resistance to aminoglycosides, which are any of the bacterial antibiotics which act by inhibiting protein synthesis, may be acquired by three main mechanisms. The first is by mutation of ribosomal target sites leading to reduced affinity for binding; this type of resistance is generally only relevant for streptomycin and, even then, it appears to be rare in Gram-negative bacteria.  Secondly, penetration of aminoglycosides into bacterial cells is by an oxygen-dependent active transport process and resistance may occur because of elimination or reduction of this uptake; when it occurs this generally results in cross resistance to all aminoglycosides. Thirdly, and by far the most important cause of resistance to the aminoglycosides, is inactivation by enzymatic modification.

Three main classes of enzyme conferring resistance have been found, operating by phosphorylation, acetylation, or addition of a nucleotide group, usually adenyl. Enzyme production is usually plasmid-determined and resistance can therefore be transferred between bacteria, even of different species. Resistance to other antibacterials may be transferred at the same time. 

In Staphylococcus aureus such transfer of resistance is reportedly facilitated when these drugs are used topically.  Each type of enzyme produces characteristic patterns of resistance, but their overlapping and variable affinities for their substrates result in a wide range of permutations of cross resistance to the different aminoglycosides.

In recent years, there has been particular concern over the increasing high-level gentamicin resistance among enterococci since they already possess inherent or acquired resistance to many drugs, including vancomycin in some cases; a similar problem exists with gentamicin resistance in methicillin-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus.  Such multiply-resistant strains pose a major therapeutic problem in those centres where they occur, since the usual synergistic combinations with other antibacterials are ineffective.

Gentamicin, for example, exhibits synergy with beta lactams, probably because the effects of the latter on bacterial cell walls enhance aminoglycoside penetration.  Enhanced activity has been demonstrated with a penicillin (such as ampicillin or benzylpenicillin) and gentamicin against the enterococci, and gentamicin has been combined with antipseudomonal penicillin such as ticarcillin for enhanced activity against Pseudomonas spp., and with vancomycin for enhanced activity against staphylococci and streptococci.

However, results from some centres indicate that rational use of a wider range of aminoglycosides (including amikacin which is not affected by most of the aminoglycoside degrading enzymes) has resulted in a modest decline in overall aminoglycoside resistance.

Defining Aromatherapy.
Recently I came across a bit of chat on the Internet about the definition of aromatherapy.

I do have a problem with the definition of aromatherapy....ITEC requires me to teach the ‘AOC definition of aromatherapy’....I think this goes along the lines of.... ‘An aromatherapy treatment is mainly used to promote relaxation, treat painful muscular conditions and reduce anxiety’....I don’t like this definition as aromatherapy does so much more, but it is probably the one to use as it makes no medicinal claims.

I think ‘painful muscular conditions’ and ‘anxiety’ are medical conditions under the definitions of the MHRA [Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency]. Certainly I’m not allowed to say that my lavender oil might be good for anxiety or pain. Also, if we are not to make medicinal claims and the only purpose of aromatherapy is relaxation, etc., why bother to teach/learn a minimum of 42 essential oils? We could get by with less than half a dozen!  In fact, my lavender would do the trick on its own, combined with a good massage!

I think the definition is completely contradictory.  It says also that application is usually via massage, but can also be by inhalation, bath or cold compress. If we’re only trying to achieve relaxation, treat muscular conditions, and reduce anxiety, why bother with all those methods of application?

I just don’t think it defines me or aromatherapy as I practise it. What does everyone else think?

In Complementary and Alternative Medicine: An evidence-based approach, aromatherapy is defined as a form of herbal medicine that uses various oils from plants. Routes of administration can be through absorption in the skin or inhalation.  The action of antiviral and antibacterial agents is proposed to aid in healing. The aromatic biochemical structures of certain herbs are thought to act in areas of the brain related to past experiences and emotions (e.g., limbic system).

Although this definition is little more punchy than the AOC definition, it does make the important distinction that aromatherapy is a form of herbal medicine. As Sylvia Baker, the ATC Administrator, points out most succinctly in the current edition of The International Journal of Aromatherapy.......

For many years now, professional aromatherapy training courses have been based on the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Medicines Act, 1968, and that this legislation allows aromatherapists to practise so long as the conditions in Section 12(1) are met, e.g., the treatment they provide falls within the definition of a herbal remedy and that a personal consultation takes place with the patient or client before the treatment commences. Following a consultation and treatment, a professional aromatherapist is likely to be supplying a product as a continuance of the treatment within the terms of Section 12(1) as a herbal remedy exempt from licensing.

The MHRA has now confirmed that an aromatherapy treatment may not necessarily be deemed to take place under Section 12(1) and that it may be carried out under the normal Consumer Protection Acts, in which case the competent authority for enforcement would be Trading Standards.  The aromatherapist - who may also be professionally qualified - could simply be offering a relaxing massage with a pre-blended product with no claims to treat or prevent disease.  Following the treatment, the aromatherapist would not be supplying a product within the terms of Section 12(1).  Aromatherapists therefore have the choice of use of Section 12(1) or not, depending on how they present themselves.

This, and far more, is available online at <www.sciencedirect.com>. Read it!

Nevertheless, how many can remember how it all started?  I couldn’t and so reached for Complementary Medicine and The Law by Julie Stone and Joan Matthews: a truly informative book and well worth a read.

Looking back in time.
Centuries ago, despite the fact that women were legally barred from entering university to study academic medicine, healing was still largely a domestic activity administered by the women of the household using traditional herbal remedies.  Should the severity of the sickness be beyond the skills of the housewife and her simple herbal preparations the village ‘wise woman’, with her more specialized knowledge of herbs, would be brought in.

The publication of the treatise Malleus Maleficarum (1486), the Witchcraft Acts, and the subsequent burning of thousands, and possibly millions of women across Europe, have come in for much conflicting interpretation among scholars.  Some feminist historians claim to have identified a connection between the Witchcraft Acts and an attempt by both the Church and the medical establishment to eliminate the women who held specialized knowledge of healing plants, but this interpretation is far from being generally accepted [See Thomas, K., Religion and the Decline of Magic (Penguin, London 1971), Chs. 14-18 and Achterberg, J., Woman as Healer (Rider, London, 1990)].  These were crimes against one-half of humanity that guaranteed that all women who chose healing as a vocation would be placed in the limelight of suspicion. The church fathers had predetermined much earlier that witchcraft was a woman’s crime.....!

However, it is hard to ignore entirely certain coincidences of time: most notably, the printing and distribution of large numbers of popular herbals during this period, and the fact that the first English Witchcraft Act was passed in the same year as the Herbalists’ Charter, 1542. Certainly the Malleus Maleficarum was chillingly explicit on the central point: ‘If a woman dare to cure without having studied, she is a witch and must die’.  Moreover, during the medieval witch trials, the ‘expert’ witness called by the Church to help determine the issue was, almost always, a male physician!

Fortunately for the majority of the population who could not afford physicians’ fees, the ambitions of the newly-organized medical profession were not to be realized quite so easily.  At first glance, the Herbalists’ Charter appears to be something of a royal U-turn. Attributed to, or at least supported by, Henry VIII, the Preamble castigated surgeons for, ‘minding only their own lucre’, and for allowing many to ‘rot and perish to death for lack of help’. The Act went on to exempt from the penalties of the Medical Act, 1512, those lay practitioners of herbal medicine who charged only for the herb itself. Thus the Act had the effect of legalizing lay practitioners of herbal medicine, providing their advice was given for free!

What brought about this regulatory volte-face is difficult to know, but it has been suggested somewhat unconvincingly that while the 1512 Act served to organize the medical profession, it subsequently became apparent that there were not enough doctors to meet the demand [A Social History of Medicine by F.F. Cartwright (Longman, London, 1977)].

I do wonder sometimes if things have changed that much!  However, as I am more lawyer and historian than physician and therapist, it is better that you attend the....

CPD Study Day
on
Saturday, 16th October, 2004
at
Oxford Brookes University, Headington, Oxford

where luminaries, Dr. Susie Wilkinson, Peter Makereth and Denise Tiran, will bring you up to date on current thinking and the use of essential oils in a clinical setting, and doubtless dispel any notions that you might be burnt at the stake!  

Further information available from Sapna Shankar.
E-mail cpcu@brookes.ac.uk or telephone 01865 857651.

An unsolicited testimonial!
Many thanks for hosting the “m” technique course - it’s always good to develop skills and meet up with fellow therapists, but it’s a bonus too to do so in a relaxed, well-provided location.  Generous hospitality, delicious food and an atmosphere gently aromatic with a blend of virtually every discovered essential oil on the planet [I wouldn’t go that far!] set the scene perfectly. Even the resident wasp was benevolent.

Jane’s course is impressive. Her teaching is first class; she inspires and informs and has enormous patience. The “m” technique will provide us with the ability to give hands-on care to people previously considered “out of bounds”, and fills what was a definite gap in treating the extremes of ill-health.

I was delighted also to learn that several thoroughly enjoyed the Carshalton Lavender Open Day.

Finally......

VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITY.
Would you like to broaden your experience by working with older people?
Hoxton Health Group, a Registered Charity based in Hackney, East London,
which provides complementary health care for older people,
is looking for a fully qualified Aromatherapist who could volunteer
3 hours per week on Tuesday afternoons.
Reimbursement of lunch and travel expenses.
Please phone Hoxton Health Group on 0207 683 4289.

previous     next