Toxic chronic doses are always less than the corresponding acute dose.

Dermal studies have produced conflicting results that do not appear to be very relevant to human exposure.

Sexvideo free reallifecam-50

To err on the side on caution may be considered laudable.

However, we can notice that such exaggerated statements has led to a common perception that the therapeutic use of essential oils can be an extremely risky proposition, even amongst those who are purported to be highly qualified practitioners.

As such, I suggest that this particular bias has served as the "philosophical base" on which many of the common statements regarding essential oil toxicity are based.

In contrast, we can say the French "Aromatic Medicine" approach that has developed most strongly amongst French medical practitioners (as well as naturopathic and herbal medicine practitioners) since R. Gattefosse's work in the 1930's, is more of a "physical" approach.

Having always approached the therapeutic use of essential oils from the "radical" French "Aromatic Medicine" perspective, I have long noted the many incongruous and exaggerated statements regarding essential oil toxicity.

Over these past twelve years, through my involvement with various government and industry bodies, I have specifically focused on this topic of "essential oil toxicity" as one area of study, given the potential "poisons scheduling" of various essential oils by the Australian National Drugs and Poisons Scheduling Committee.

The "median dosages" are then generally given in the ratio of grams of test compound per kilogram of bodyweight.

Hence, a LD50 rating of 1.0 represents that 50% of the test animals died on a dosage of 1 gram per kilogram of body weight.

This "French" approach often utilises comparatively high doses of essential oils both topically and internally, to realise dose-dependent pharmacological effects.