Humans can say what they want, but I barking for one canine LOVE the Raindrop technique and could care one dog biscuit or raw meaty bone less about any white paper…maybe for toilet paper, WOOF!

Some additional resources you may enjoy since my mom, veterinary naturopath and her partner, Jeannie Thomason (also a veterinary naturopath) have done these two shows sharing all about raindrop technique and Young Living Essential Oils

Aromatherapy for Animals
Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head
_________________________

by David Stewart, PhD, DNM, IASP, BCRS, LSH

The so called “White Paper on Raindrop” is actually an anti-raindrop publication. It has been available on the internet since 2003 and is still running on the internet. People finding it without any foreknowledge or experience with raindrop are confused by it and discouraged from engaging in or receiving a raindrop. Young Living regularly gets inquiries about the possible dangers of raindrop as suggested by this paper. If anyone asked you about the “White Paper on Raindrop” and you want to have an informed answer, here it is.

The paper originated as a committee project of the National Association of Holistic Aromatherapists (NAHA). This organization is a British oriented group who believe that many essential oils (sold and used by Young Living distributors) are intrinsically dangerous and should not be used at all for any purpose. They don’t believe in oral ingestion of oils. They also don’t believe any oil (with few exceptions) should be applied neat to the skin, i.e. without dilution in a neutral massage oil. The typical British recommendation is to apply essential oils to the skin only when reduced to a 2-5% concentration in a fatty oil such as jojoba, almond, grape seed, olive, etc. (For more info, the NAHA and the British point of view is clarified and explained, along with its fallacies, in the book, The Chemistry of Essential Oils Made Simple, Chapter One.)

Based on this white paper, NAHA has ruled that the practice of raindrop technique is “unprofessional.” The basis for this ruling is that raindrop uses several of their forbidden oils, such as oregano and wintergreen, and that all or most of the oils applied in raindrop are applied neat, directly to the feet and back.

When the paper was first commissioned by NAHA, they set up a committee which originally included two women and Dr. David Stewart, who had asked to be included on the committee. Dr. Stewart was a member of NAHA at that time. However, when it was discovered that Dr. Stewart does raindrop and teaches raindrop, he was thrown off the committee because, in their words, “He knows about raindrop, teaches raindrop, and does raindrop. Therefore, he would be prejudiced and should not serve on the committee.”

Thus, the paper was written by only two authors, one of them a Registered Nurse. When quizzed as to their knowledge and experience with raindrop that would qualify them to write such a paper, it was discovered that neither of them had ever seen, experienced, or done a raindrop and neither of them had ever had any training in raindrop. Their main source of information on the technique, itself, was from the Essential Oils Desk Reference (whatever edition was available in 2002). When they were offered opportunities to actually receive a raindrop to experience first-hand its effects, they vehemently declined saying, “We would never submit ourselves to receive a raindrop because it is too dangerous.”

While the grounds for my disqualification to serve on the NAHA White Paper Committee was too much knowledge and experience with raindrop, the grounds for their qualifications to write the paper appears to have been their lack of knowledge and inexperience of raindrop. NAHA seems to believe that the best basis for objectivity in the pursuit of truth is ignorance.

To those unacquainted with raindrop technique, the White Paper may appear at first to rest on a valid basis by a superficial perusal of the bibliography of sources. Eventually, one realizes that nowhere among their many sources are any studies on raindrop, itself. No where do they cite any data from an actual raindrop. The paper is a review of scientific literature on specific properties of the oils used in raindrop, which are, for the most part, animal studies or studies of single compounds extracted from an oil. In no case does their bibliography include a study of a completely intact, therapeutic grade oil, applied to a human being. None of their conclusions are based upon the outcome of an actual raindrop session.

Furthermore, in noting that blue tansy (Tanacetum annum) is an ingredient in Valor, one of the basic blends applied in raindrop, they confused that species with Idaho tansy or wild tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), which has a completely different chemistry than blue tansy. When this error was pointed out to them in 2003 after the paper was published, they ignored my suggested correction and chose to retain this error in their paper.

One can pick their paper apart and expose many errors, but the only important point to remember is that this so called “White Paper” on raindrop contains no actual data on raindrop nor does it contain any information on the effects of therapeutic grade oils on people. While most of the sources they quote are legitimate scientific studies, they are not studies that relate to the safety and effectiveness of raindrop nor to the human application of therapeutic grade oils. They have used good science in an inappropriate, misleading, and fallacious way.

The ultimate rebuttal to the white paper is this: When Dr. Stewart was removed from the NAHA committed working up the paper, he realized that at that time there were no scientific studies on raindrop, itself. In late 2002 Dr. Stewart initiated a survey of raindrop practitioners and raindrop receivers to compile data for a statistical report on raindrop. He wanted all the information he could find from actual receivers and practitioners of raindrop, good and bad. It was to be an honest study.

Aromatherapists from NAHA and others from Great Britain had been circulating criticisms of raindrop via the internet for years, including on some aromatherapy email chat groups, of which Dr. Stewart was a participant. In order to be completely objective, Dr. Stewart solicited data from the NAHA and British sources who had been critical of raindrop asking them to submit actual data, including when and where the raindrop techniques had been performed and the problems encountered, that would support their accusations on the alleged dangers of raindrop. Some of these individuals had claimed that people had actually been sent to emergency rooms following a raindrop suffering anaphylactic shock and other injuries resulting from raindrop. Dr. Stewart asked them to send documentation of these claims so he could include them in his study.

The response of the NAHA people and British aroma was to boycott Dr. Stewart’s study. They circulated email messages to everyone they could saying, “Do not cooperate with Dr. Stewart’s raindrop study. Do not send him any data or information.” As a result, none of these people sent Dr. Stewart anything to confirm their claims for the alleged hazards of raindrop, even though he had sought their input and would have included their data. They also embarked on a campaign to discredit Dr. Stewart, alleging that he was a fraud, did not actually hold a Ph.D., and had never taught in a university as he claimed to have done. All of these were false claims.

It took more than nine months for Dr. Stewart to collect, compile, and complete the study. It contains information on more than 10,000 raindrop sessions. It documents the safety and efficacy of raindrop technique very thoroughly. None of the dangers alleged by the NAHA and British aromatherapists were uncovered by this study, which, if they had been real and true, would have been revealed and reported. The study is available as a 60-page book entitled “A Statistical Validation of Raindrop Technique,” available from www.RaindropTraining.com, Essential Science Publishing (ESP), Abundant Health, and other sources.

The “White Paper” continues to be posted on the internet and continues to be accepted by NAHA as the basis for their opposition to raindrop. Addressing and arguing with the details of the paper, itself does not answer the question of whether raindrop technique is a safe and effective procedure, since the white paper contains no raindrop data. The effectiveness and safety of raindrop is well addressed in the only study ever done on raindrop, to date, which is “A Statistical Validation of Raindrop Technique.”

In a few cases over the years British or NAHA aromatherapists have persuaded insurance companies covering raindrop practice to drop their coverage and in some cases have attempted to convince legislators to consider drafting bills to outlaw raindrop, based on the “White Paper.” When the insurance companies who had been persuaded by the “White Paper” to cease their coverage for raindrop were presented with a copy of “A Statistical Validation of Raindrop Technique,” in every instance, they immediately cast aside the white paper and re initiated their raindrop coverage. In the case of legislators who had been misled by the White Paper proponents, upon reviewing a copy of A Statistical Validation of Raindrop, they dropped their considerations of a legislative ban on raindrop.

Rather than engaging in a debate over the merits (or demerits) of the so called “White Paper on Raindrop,” the best rebuttals to falsehoods are simple presentations of facts and truth. From that people can make up their own minds as to the merits of one point of view over another.

POST SCRIPT:

In case you were wondering about my credentials, DNM is Doctor of Natural Medicine, BCRS is Board Certified Raindrop Specialist, IASP is Integrated Aromatic Science Practitioner, and LSH is Licensed Spiritual Healer. My PhD is in geophysics which was preceded by a BS double major in math and physics. As for University teaching experience, I taught for seven years at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and headed up the MacCarthy Geophysics Labortatory (1971-1978). I also taught five years at Southeast Missouri State University, Cape Girardeau, and headed up the Center for Earthquake Studies (1988-1993). A more complete bio can be found in my books as well as on the www.RaindropTraining.com website.

Besides the “Statistical Validation of Raindrop,” my other aromatherapy books include “Healing Oils of the Bible” and “The Chemistry of Essential Oils Made Simple.” All of three of these are sold by CARE, ESP, Abundant Health, Sound Concepts, Amazon.com, and many bookstores, etc. Healing Oils of the Bible is now available in Europe in German as Heilende Ole der Bibel. I have also published five books on earthquakes and eight other books on health related issues regarding natural childbirth, midwifery, breastfeeding, nutrition in pregnancy, hospital obstetrics, and newborn care. Most of these books are available from Amazon.com and other sources and are available on the internet at www.carepublications.net.

Official Newsletter of C.A.R.E.
The Center for Aromatherapy Research and Education
Rt. 4, Box 646, Marble Hill, Missouri USA 63764
(573) 238-4846, care@raindroptraining.com

This Newsletter is NOT Copyrighted. Feel Free to Share it With Friends. Appropriate Credit is Appreciated. For copies of back issues, go to the Archives at http://www.RaindropTraining.com
_________________________

Have a pawsitively tail waggin’, fragrantly healthy day, WOOF!

A Dog’s View is brought to you by Aspenbloom Essential Oils and Nutritionals