Could you point me toward reliable info re: essential oils?

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

I always smile when I hear someone say this. It's apparent that people forget just where medicine comes from: molds, plants, bacteria, etc. You know nature.

 

 

Explains the looks I got when I used to gnaw on trees at the park.  My bad.

[Laura Corin]

I really have no beef in this argument,  However, I do have a friend in the UK who is a licensed essential oil therapist, but she can only do so much before she refers patients to Dr's who then prescribe essential oil or any other prescriptions.  I know she said they use essential oil in the hospitals.  I really only know those few things about it. But, it seems like a way to get more information.

 

 

Essential oils are used to improve the quality of life of cancer patients who are undergoing conventional cancer treatments.  From this NHS document:

 

Aromatherapy is the controlled use of selected essential oils to ease tension and promote 

physical and mental relaxation. 

 

Later in the same document:

 

Benefits of massage, aromatherapy and reflexology 

• Promotes well-being by reducing stress, anxiety and fear whilst providing relaxation and 

improvements in the quality of life. 

• Compliments and supports patients through orthodox medical care and treatments. 

• Evaluates each patient’s needs as an individual. 

• Provides time and space for patients to receive a pleasant, beneficial treatment. 

• Involvement of carers, so that they can share or participate in treatment. 

 

If you want more information, just Google NHS cancer essential oils.  You will find page after page of hospitals offering essential oils for emotional support during treatment and pain relief.  I haven't found any mention of essential oils being used in mainstream hospitals as a treatment for cancer.

 

L

[Mom in High Heels]

I really have no beef in this argument,  However, I do have a friend in the UK who is a licensed essential oil therapist, but she can only do so much before she refers patients to Dr's who then prescribe essential oil or any other prescriptions.  I know she said they use essential oil in the hospitals.  I really only know those few things about it. But, it seems like a way to get more information.

 

They use EO's in German hospitals too, along with a host of other homeopathic things.  I was in the hospital twice while I was pregnant with Han Solo (once for severe nausea, and once for food poisoning), and both times, they used homeopathic meds once they got me "over the hump."  That's where I learned about the peppermint oil.  They did use medication at first to stop the vomiting, but once it was under control, they gave me no more meds other than homeopathic.  They don't even give you Tylenol, but homeopathic pellets that melt under the tongue.  

 

Can oils and homeopathic meds cure major diseases?  I'm not sure, but I certainly won't discount the possibility.  There have been cases I've read about where people have used alternative meds/therapy and been cured, but that's purely anecdotal.  My friend's husband recently passed away at age 45 and they used alternative medicine in addition to conventional medicine, but sadly neither worked.

[WishboneDawn]

It was several weeks of phone calls. I wanted a warning on the bottle but that would have taken a lawsuit and given my lack of medical documentation I would have lost.

 

My mom was in the trial and a bunch of the girls were hanging out together. Nobody knew who had the drug, who had the placebo, or anything liked that, they just knew who was omitted from the paperwork and why because they were informed individually. 

 

It's hard to make a judgement because what she was told informally may have been not the whole story. It might also be that the exclusion of her results was completely valid. I think, if I had a warning for you about this stuff, it would be not to give your experiences too much weight.

 

That sound bizarre. :D

 

The problem is that you don't know the whole story on the clinical trials or on your friends that beat cancer. You have information that's been filtered through a source or two and no means of measuring or observing what was really going on. You don't know what happened with the trial beyond that bit of info that was given to your mom. You don't know what other factors might have led to the recovery of those folks you know with cancer. At this time you've got the coincidence of them taking a certain treatment and then beating cancer. To make any determination about why they beat cancer you'd have to have a lot more information, a lot of specialized training, a study population to compare them to and even then it can be a tricky business. Coincidence is not rare and even clusters of coincidence like you may have experienced are not uncommon at all. So it's a hint for you that there may be something to the treatment they took but it should not be something you put your faith in without further research. It's definitely not something anyone should take as evidence. 

 

I would be cautious with mistrusting all clinical trials as well for the same reason. You're working from two examples where your information is limited. I think a good next step would be looking into the standard and protocols of clinical trials and seeing if your concerns have merit. You've got a hint that there might be something wrong, it would be interesting to explore. 

 

 I'm sorry you've been piled on in this post. You should not have been. Hope some of the above helps.

[WishboneDawn]

I understand where you are coming from - a position of based on pseudo-science, personal testimony, and a fear of what you are not able to understand. And yes, all of that bundled together is coming from a place of ignorance.

And this accomplishes what?

[LisaNY]

Wow - haven't been to the WTM forums in years!  This thread caught my eye. :o)

 

I've been working with eo's for several years, and done lots of research on them.  One thing I have learned is that just because they

are "natural", it doesn't make it safe to use them undiluted, etc.  You need to be very careful.

 

One person I highly trust and respect is Robert Tisserand.  He is an expert in the field of essential oils/aromatherapy.

 

He has recently written a book on the subject of essential oils.

 

I would start with his blog: Robert Tisserand Blog

 

Oh, and stay away (no, run away) from anything to do with Young Living. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

And this accomplishes what?

 

Telling it like it is.

[WishboneDawn]

Telling it like it is.

I'm not sure you are. I think you're telling it like you've chosen to view it, which is a different matter.

 

Nevertheless, that doesn't say anything about what saying what you said might accomplish. What good might it do in the conversation? What might it add to the OP's understanding or to Slache's or others who might be reading? Where is it supposed to lead those in the discussion?

 

It simply seems like a comment that's dismissive in nature and would only serve to make Slache feel smaller and possibly leave the discussion. Maybe it seems like that to me because that's

what I intended when I made similar comments in the past (i probably owe a lit of apologies for that) but I think that's an interpretation that Slache and others might make.

 

ETA: I'm sort of going after you here but my frustration is honestly a more general one with the tone that sometimes prevails here and that I myself have adopted. I think there are a lit off people that shut down rather listen and consider because of the tone and a lot of lurkers that never join discussions because of it.

[Slache]

It would seem we have two distinct episodes here.

 

Your mom was on a trial -- what phase was it?  Phase I dose-escalating?  Phase II?  III?  The distinction is important.  With only 100 people, that sounds like a small Phase I, which would be many years before larger studies required for actual marketability.  Even the 1500 you cite sounds too small for a pre-release Phase III, multi-center trial.  Something is a bit off.

I have no idea. It was nationwide, but I don't know how many people were in it.

 

Clinical trials can be nasty.  Clinical trials can also prolong life and increase the quality of that life.  I know first hand.  I also agree that the FDA is maddeningly slow, esp compared to regulatory agencies in other parts of the world.  However, to dismiss the methodology wholesale is a bit like saying you got bad treatment for a broken arm once, so you won't seek medical attention for your broken leg because all medicine just can't be trusted. I totally agree. My only point was to the OP in that I believe in alternative medicine. I didn't mean for it to be blown out of proportion. I wouldn't just fly down to Mexico if I were diagnosed with cancer, but I wouldn't agree to chemo until I researched other methods.

 

As for the Motrin/Tylenol thing.  There are LOTS of side effects from LOTS of drugs that are very unique, and thus only published in the bowels of the clinical data.  I just had two from a drug I had a full year ago.  In trials, 1% of patients had the first reaction, and 0.2% had the second, all within several months of treatment, NOT 12 months out, one after another, as I experienced.  Am I angry at the company?  Uh, no.  I have a rare cancer and treatment I'm getting is waaaaay out on the bleeding edge of new science.  I'm an informed, proactive patient, working with the best clinical professions in the world for my particular bug.  That's all any one can shoot for, and sometimes it's enough. My feelings boil down to the fact that I believe our government is corrupt, as well as many companies. That does not mean I'm not grateful for modern medicine. I am.

 

 

I always smile when I hear someone say this. It's apparent that people forget just where medicine comes from: molds, plants, bacteria, etc. You know nature. I believe that nature, in many cases, holds a better treatment without the assistance of a lab.

 

 

You know it works. How do you know it works? You don't trust clinical trials. So what evidence and proof gives you the information you need for you to know that something works? 

I know people that have had the treatment and lived.

 

To counter the book you posted above, you might try this one

 

 

It's hard to make a judgement because what she was told informally may have been not the whole story. It might also be that the exclusion of her results was completely valid. I think, if I had a warning for you about this stuff, it would be not to give your experiences too much weight. I totally agree. Like I said to ThatHomeschoolDad my feelings boil down to the fact that I believe our government is corrupt, as well as many companies.

 

That sound bizarre. :D

 

The problem is that you don't know the whole story on the clinical trials or on your friends that beat cancer. You have information that's been filtered through a source or two and no means of measuring or observing what was really going on. You don't know what happened with the trial beyond that bit of info that was given to your mom. You don't know what other factors might have led to the recovery of those folks you know with cancer. At this time you've got the coincidence of them taking a certain treatment and then beating cancer. To make any determination about why they beat cancer you'd have to have a lot more information, a lot of specialized training, a study population to compare them to and even then it can be a tricky business. Coincidence is not rare and even clusters of coincidence like you may have experienced are not uncommon at all. So it's a hint for you that there may be something to the treatment they took but it should not be something you put your faith in without further research. It's definitely not something anyone should take as evidence. My only point was to the OP in that I believe in alternative medicine. I didn't mean for it to be blown out of proportion. I wouldn't just fly down to Mexico if I were diagnosed with cancer, but I wouldn't agree to chemo until I researched other methods. Sorry for the repeat, I just don't have anything else to say.

 

I would be cautious with mistrusting all clinical trials as well for the same reason. You're working from two examples where your information is limited. I think a good next step would be looking into the standard and protocols of clinical trials and seeing if your concerns have merit. You've got a hint that there might be something wrong, it would be interesting to explore. 

 

 I'm sorry you've been piled on in this post. You should not have been. My life is too filled with more important  and joyful things to have my feeling hurt by people I view as simply close minded. Thanks. Hope some of the above helps. 

[albeto.]

I'm not sure you are. I think you're telling it like you've chosen to view it, which is a different matter.

Most of what she said is a matter of fact:

 

"a position of based on pseudo-science,"

fact

The claim that essential oil can and does treat cancer is not a scientifically founded claim. It is, as a matter of definition, a claim founded in pseudo-science.

 

"personal testimony,"

fact

There exists no objective data to back up her claim. It is supported solely by personal testimony.

 

"and a fear of what you are not able to understand."

opinion, but arguably a well supported opinion

 

"And yes, all of that bundled together is coming from a place of ignorance."

fact

Ignorance means a lack of knowledge or understanding. Slache admitted to this lack of understanding and further commented to ChocR that she's fine with her thinking that's ignorant. At the very least, she recognizes that's a likely possibility and is willing to accept it by virtue of the fact she still defends the claim.

 

Nevertheless, that doesn't say anything about what saying what you said might accomplish. What good might it do in the conversation? What might it add to the OP's understanding or to Slache's or others who might be reading? Where is it supposed to lead those in the discussion?

 

At the very least, it should be readily understood that what has been communicated is the claim made is an erroneous one, regardless of how strongly or genuinely it is held.

 

It simply seems like a comment that's dismissive in nature and would only serve to make Slache feel smaller and possibly leave the discussion. Maybe it seems like that to me because that's

what I intended when I made similar comments in the past (i probably owe a lit of apologies for that) but I think that's an interpretation that Slache and others might make.

 

Should a day come when people stop offering pseudo-scientific and superstitious "cures" for real ailments, we should all celebrate. For the same reason most people here would not tolerate the claim that sacrificing a live chicken after imputing it with the bad juju of the sick individual, we should not hold pseudo-science and superstitions in a position of privilege, protected from critical analysis and accountability. This is a forum that supports educators. We should, at the very least, employ educated comments in these discussions.

 

ETA: I'm sort of going after you here but my frustration is honestly a more general one with the tone that sometimes prevails here and that I myself have adopted. I think there are a lit off people that shut down rather listen and consider because of the tone and a lot of lurkers that never join discussions because of it.

 

 

I can understand your frustration, and I can sympathize with what I can only imagine is your goal - preserve a community that is cohesive, and enjoyable to everyone. What you may not see from your end is the frustrations others may not be sharing - the frustration of watching people they loved having suffered at the hands of all this well-intended advice that not only didn't work, but in some cases increased the suffering, and watching that very thing be offered and defended again. Between the suffering of one's bruised ego (for lack of better word) and the physical and emotional prolonged suffering of a child, sister, or grandmother, I personally will speak up for the child, sister, or grandmother every time. Bruised egos can heal, and a person committed to learning will incorporate new information into their beliefs, but pseudo-science doesn't deserve our loyalty. 

[Mom in High Heels]

I have to say I'm surprised by how vehemently so many of you are in saying that EOs absolutely will not work.  I'm not saying that it does, but I'm at least open to the possibility that there might be something there.  Does this mean I think you should forgo medicine, in favor of EOs?  No, of course not, but I don't see a problem in using them along side conventional medicine.  They may compliment each other in some ways that we just don't understand.  No one can know exactly how these things work, but to just toss them aside, simply because you *general you* think they're rubbish seems a bit hasty IMO.

[albeto.]

I have to say I'm surprised by how vehemently so many of you are in saying that EOs absolutely will not work.  I'm not saying that it does, but I'm at least open to the possibility that there might be something there.  Does this mean I think you should forgo medicine, in favor of EOs?  No, of course not, but I don't see a problem in using them along side conventional medicine.  They may compliment each other in some ways that we just don't understand.  No one can know exactly how these things work, but to just toss them aside, simply because you *general you* think they're rubbish seems a bit hasty IMO.

 

The same could listening to particular songs on the record player, but if someone suggested cancer can be cured by listening to Foreigner, would it be unexpected for others to call them out on it? Recognizing there exists no evidence for such a remedy isn't "hasty," it's a logical, rational conclusion to be made with the information we have. Of course we cannot know "exactly" how these things work because there will always be more to learn, but we do know enough about chemistry, molecular biology, physics, etc, to recognize that in the absence of any concrete evidence, and the presence of evidence to the contrary, such personal testimony about the effectiveness of essential oils to treat and cure cancer is irrelevant. 

[alef]

I'm not sure you are. I think you're telling it like you've chosen to view it, which is a different matter.

 

Nevertheless, that doesn't say anything about what saying what you said might accomplish. What good might it do in the conversation? What might it add to the OP's understanding or to Slache's or others who might be reading? Where is it supposed to lead those in the discussion?

 

It simply seems like a comment that's dismissive in nature and would only serve to make Slache feel smaller and possibly leave the discussion. Maybe it seems like that to me because that's

what I intended when I made similar comments in the past (i probably owe a lit of apologies for that) but I think that's an interpretation that Slache and others might make.

 

ETA: I'm sort of going after you here but my frustration is honestly a more general one with the tone that sometimes prevails here and that I myself have adopted. I think there are a lit off people that shut down rather listen and consider because of the tone and a lot of lurkers that never join discussions because of it.

Thank you for saying this. Tone matters. Slache has actually been exceptionally gracious and polite in her continued responses to people who vehemently disagree with some of her stated beliefs. She has clarified and corrected herself several times, and admitted to both the limits of her knowledge and some underlying biases. While I still disagree with her basic position, I very much respect the way she has handled herself in this conversation. I cannot say the same for those who have chosen to post dismissive or even mocking comments. Such comments achieve nothing positive, least of all helping someone see errors in their thinking. When we must disagree with one another, doing so respectfully creates a safer and more pleasant environment for everyone involved. And people hear what you are trying to say so much better when they do not feel attacked.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I have to say I'm surprised by how vehemently so many of you are in saying that EOs absolutely will not work.  I'm not saying that it does, but I'm at least open to the possibility that there might be something there.  Does this mean I think you should forgo medicine, in favor of EOs?  No, of course not, but I don't see a problem in using them along side conventional medicine.  They may compliment each other in some ways that we just don't understand.  No one can know exactly how these things work, but to just toss them aside, simply because you *general you* think they're rubbish seems a bit hasty IMO.

 

Essential oils have their benefits in certain situations.  There is no evidence that they are effective in treating cancers.

[Learning fun]

Albeto, you make a strong case that medicine is a science and you're right, but it is also an art. An art filled with intuition, gut hunches, inspiration and different perspectives. This very real part of medicinal practice could not stand up in a double blind test yet it is vital and valuable. Many people turn to alternative medicine when conventional medicine leaves them wanting. Its nice to have options.

[WishboneDawn]

Most of what she said is a matter of fact:

 

"a position of based on pseudo-science,"

fact

The claim that essential oil can and does treat cancer is not a scientifically founded claim. It is, as a matter of definition, a claim founded in pseudo-science."

 

"personal testimony,"

fact

There exists no objective data to back up her claim. It is supported solely by personal testimony.

 

"and a fear of what you are not able to understand."

opinion, but arguably a well supported opinion

 

"And yes, all of that bundled together is coming from a place of ignorance."

fact

Ignorance means a lack of knowledge or understanding. Slache admitted to this lack of understanding and further commented to ChocR that she's fine with her thinking that's ignorant. At the very least, she recognizes that's a likely possibility and is willing to accept it by virtue of the fact she still defends the claim.

 

Most of that is a very generalized response to a specific person who, I don't think, really fit every

 

 

At the very least, it should be readily understood that what has been communicated is the claim made is an erroneous one, regardless of how strongly or genuinely it is held.

 

 

Should a day come when people stop offering pseudo-scientific and superstitious "cures" for real ailments, we should all celebrate. For the same reason most people here would not tolerate the claim that sacrificing a live chicken after imputing it with the bad juju of the sick individual, we should not hold pseudo-science and superstitions in a position of privilege, protected from critical analysis and accountability. This is a forum that supports educators. We should, at the very least, employ educated comments in these discussions.

 

 

 

I can understand your frustration, and I can sympathize with what I can only imagine is your goal - preserve a community that is cohesive, and enjoyable to everyone. What you may not see from your end is the frustrations others may not be sharing - the frustration of watching people they loved having suffered at the hands of all this well-intended advice that not only didn't work, but in some cases increased the suffering, and watching that very thing be offered and defended again. Between the suffering of one's bruised ego (for lack of better word) and the physical and emotional prolonged suffering of a child, sister, or grandmother, I personally will speak up for the child, sister, or grandmother every time. Bruised egos can heal, and a person committed to learning will incorporate new information into their beliefs, but pseudo-science doesn't deserve our loyalty.

 

No, I get the frustration Albeto. I really do and it guided the tone of my responses to this and other heated issues for a long time. But my original question was not about whether ChocolateReign (sorry about talking about you like you aren't reading CR! :)) was right or justified but about what the response accomplished.

 

I agree with you completely. Whenever the issue of pseudo-science in medicine pops up I'll oppose it. But what I hope to come out of that communication is that people actually consider what I have to say, engage in the discussion and then go away considering what's been said in a manner that might lead to them changing their minds. You can be as right as rain about what you say all day long and go absolutely nowhere except to strengthen the opposing belief. Tone is the tool left to us to persuade and help others see things in a different light. We've had countless threads on evolution/creationism that went nowhere but a lockdown but the one that set a specific and welcoming tone (With Lewelma's great reponses) is the one I see that continues getting recommended and mentioned here, even by creationists.

 

Bruied egos can heal, sure, but adopting a tone that intentionally sets out to bruise egos tends to lead to people not even bothering with threads or even the Chat Board. And then what do we accomplish of the people we would most like to engage and present all our facts and evidence to aren't even listening?

 

I don't want to go back and forth on this. I'm not saying we don't say what needs to be said, I'm just saying the how is extremely important and if we ignore that then we'll end up simply talking to ourselves. 

[WishboneDawn]

Albeto, you make a strong case that medicine is a science and you're right, but it is also an art. An art filled with intuition, gut hunches, inspiration and different perspectives. This very real part of medicinal practice could not stand up in a double blind test yet it is vital and valuable. Many people turn to alternative medicine when conventional medicine leaves them wanting. Its nice to have options.

 

The art of medicine, in the doctors I've known, doesn't trump science. It might lead to a doctor choosing one evidence-supported treatment over another evidence-supported treatment but it does not in any way counter evidence-supported treatments. 

 

I do agree that options are good but that says nothing about the quality or effectiveness of options. 

[Mergath]

Albeto, you make a strong case that medicine is a science and you're right, but it is also an art. An art filled with intuition, gut hunches, inspiration and different perspectives. This very real part of medicinal practice could not stand up in a double blind test yet it is vital and valuable. Many people turn to alternative medicine when conventional medicine leaves them wanting. Its nice to have options.

 

Maybe your doctor treats you based on intuition and gut hunches, but mine uses his knowledge, training, and experience.  If he ever said, "Well, I don't really know but I have a hunch it's cancer," I'd find a new doctor.

[Slartibartfast]

Albeto, you make a strong case that medicine is a science and you're right, but it is also an art. An art filled with intuition, gut hunches, inspiration and different perspectives. This very real part of medicinal practice could not stand up in a double blind test yet it is vital and valuable. Many people turn to alternative medicine when conventional medicine leaves them wanting. Its nice to have options.

No. It is not an art.

 

Any hunches are based on knowledge and experience. That is not an art, that is still science.

[Slartibartfast]

This website has a lot of information.

 

http://www.essentialoils.org/

 

In order to access the database you have to sign up for a free account.

[Slache]

1. Just to clarify, I never said that I believed that essential oils can cure cancer, but that I believe it's possible that they could. 

 

2. While medicine obviously should be based in science, it is definitely an art as well. I went into the doctor a few weeks ago with a yeast infection (sorry guys), but the doctor feared that I had an STD as well. Because of this, she persuaded me to be tested for STD's (which I knew I didn't have) along with the treatment for my yeast infection. This was completely based on her hunch, and despite the fact that I did not have an STD, it was the right thing to do. How long could I have gone with an untreated STD, had it not been for a doctor willing to speak up. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

1. Just to clarify, I never said that I believed that essential oils can cure cancer, but that I believe it's possible that they could. 

 

2. While medicine obviously should be based in science, it is definitely an art as well. I went into the doctor a few weeks ago with a yeast infection (sorry guys), but the doctor feared that I had an STD as well. Because of this, she persuaded me to be tested for STD's (which I knew I didn't have) along with the treatment for my yeast infection. This was completely based on her hunch, and despite the fact that I did not have an STD, it was the right thing to do. How long could I have gone with an untreated STD, had it not been for a doctor willing to speak up. 

 

1.) No, but you did say "vitamin therapy" has cured cancer for "millions."

 

2.) I have no idea why you think your doctor was acting on a "hunch."

[Dicentra]

Just wanted to throw something to ponder into the mix.  While I will always take the anti-pseudoscience position (I'm "Team Science" all the way ;)), essential oils do contain compounds which could prove to be biochemically active.  I do not accept (as I've seen touted) that rubbing them on the outside of a child's ear will cure an ear infection nor do I accept that some sort of topical application will cure cancer but they do contain complex biochemical compounds and I can't dismiss the chemistry outright.  The in-vitro study posted above (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22171782) is interesting.  As ThatHomeschoolDad pointed out, it is in-vitro as opposed to in-vivo so, again, I would caution anyone against using that study to bolster belief that applying an essential oil to any part of your skin will have an effect on cancer but I think the study does show that the oils can be biochemically active.

 

Please believe me - I am as against pseudo-science as it is possible to be.  I'm sure I have alienated people in real life and online in my attempts to point out the uselessness (and sometimes danger) of pseudo-scientific beliefs.  Oils distilled from plants, though, are the one area that I think warrant further thought and research.  Again - I DO NOT think that rubbing them on some part of the body will have much effect (unless it's to treat a superficial epidermal ailment) but the chemistry in them should be studied.  Will anything come of it?  I don't know.  I studied chemistry, not medicine. :)  But I do know that plants are storehouses of potent biochemical compounds and are worth a look-see. :)

 

P.S.  In that same vein, I would caution anyone who is using essential oils that they are not necessarily "safe" because they are natural.  There are compounds contained in plants that can make humans very ill and can be fatal.  Some plants are very, very good at defending themselves and the flora part of nature is not always gentle and kind. :)  If you are using essential oils for anything other than aromatherapy, please be aware that they can be very irritating to the skin and should NOT be taken internally - particularly by children - unless you've discussed it with your doctor.

[veritas]

Check out EssentialDayspa's forum (see link below). Just use the forum search feature to get information about the specific oil:

 

http://essentialdayspa.com/forum/

 

 

 

SkinCaretalk's forum might also be beneficial:

 

http://www.skincaretalk.com/f/

 

[Slartibartfast]

1. Just to clarify, I never said that I believed that essential oils can cure cancer, but that I believe it's possible that they could. 

 

2. While medicine obviously should be based in science, it is definitely an art as well. I went into the doctor a few weeks ago with a yeast infection (sorry guys), but the doctor feared that I had an STD as well. Because of this, she persuaded me to be tested for STD's (which I knew I didn't have) along with the treatment for my yeast infection. This was completely based on her hunch, and despite the fact that I did not have an STD, it was the right thing to do. How long could I have gone with an untreated STD, had it not been for a doctor willing to speak up. 

 

What you are describing is still not art.