| > what is so attractive about trying to find medical purposes for scented oils when medical science has yet to prove any effect beyond pure placebo There is a risk here of going down the road of scientism, which is to conflate empiricism and the scientific method itself with a specific, imperfect implementation of it. I've looked into this myself, and the profit motive for doing well-funded research on plants as a potential medicine are probably 1-2 orders of magnitude lower than for pharmaceuticals that are much easier to control and patent. It can take ~billions to develop a new drug and get it through the FDA process, and it's the potential profits that actually fund the research. This level of research funding is obviously never going to happen under the current incentive and regulatory structure for investigating plants that anyone can buy for a few dollars, even if those same plants worked just as well as a pharmaceutical drug. Science is like a high focused searchlight. It obviously isn't going to find things that it doesn't focus much on. That doesn't mean the things that science has left only briefly examined definitely work (and I anyone who tells you otherwise is probably trying to sell you something), but it does mean that the universe of true facts is much wider than the universe of things that have been definitively proven through science. |
Under the current incentive and regulatory structure, it seems like literally anything they can prove works, they can get a patent on. Pharma companies are so money hungry that if tea tree oil really did cure cancer, they’d refine it and patent that shit in a heartbeat.
The fact that they haven’t says so much to me.