A just published scientific study conducted by researchers at the University of Miami School of Nursing in conjunction with The Sirkin Creative Living Center (SCLC) has found that Rescue Remedy®, an all-natural remedy created from flower essences, is an effective over-the-counter stress reliever with a comparable effect to traditional pharmaceutical drugs yet without any of the known adverse side effects, including addiction.
Rescue Remedy contains five flower essences: Rock Rose to alleviate terror and panic, Impatiens to mollify irritation and impatience, Clematis to combat inattentiveness, Star of Bethlehem to ease shock, and Cherry Plum to calm irrational thoughts. Available in a convenient spray bottle or in drop form, it helps to provide better emotional balance and fast, convenient relief from everyday stress.
Rescue® Remedy has been around since 1930 but had not been thoroughly investigated scientifically. This study specifically examined the product for the reduction of acute situational stress. A double-blind clinical trial comparing a standard dosage of Rescue Remedy against a placebo of identical appearance was conducted in a sample of 111 individuals aged 18 to 49. The Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) – a standard means to evaluate anxiety - was administered before and after the use of Rescue Remedy or placebo.
The results suggest that Rescue Remedy may be effective in reducing high levels of situational anxiety and were just published in the latest edition of Complementary Health Practice Review.
“The result of this independent study is not only welcome news for those of us who encounter stressful situations every day, but particularly for the 40 million Americans who suffer from physician-diagnosed anxiety,” said Ronald Stram, MD, who regularly prescribes Rescue Remedy to his anxious and stressed patients. “Stress compromises your ability to fight off disease and infection. It can even rewire the brain, making you more vulnerable to everyday pressures and problems.”
Source: Rescue Remedy
Comments
Shawn Wilson (not verified) | 06/09/09 | 17:43 PM
- Reply to This »
- Link
Becky Jungbauer | 06/09/09 | 18:12 PM
I think we should want more of a culture where companies go to independent labs and ask them to verify their claims. Assuming the scientists are big fat liars if a company is right seems pretty cynical.
Hank Campbell | 06/09/09 | 18:43 PM
Just like the newspapers do all across the country that post press releases verbatim from wire services
"Our science reporting is no worse than newspapers'" is not exactly setting the bar very high.
@Hank Campbell
No one in our audience is educated by press releases
I agree. The issue is whether they realize it. Regular readers are probably familiar with your format. First timers coming from a search engine likely just see "science" and "blog" and assume there's at least a modicum of critical thinking behind your posts. Kudos for posting the source, but it's easily overlooked.
If we doubt the study based on the source of the press release or the funding, we would basically be saying all scientists are for sale to the highest bidder. ... Assuming the scientists are big fat liars if a company is right seems pretty cynical.
I have to assume you're referring to my post with these statements. Straw men arguments. I neither said this nor implied it. It's the interpretation of the study, obviously written by a PR person, that I object to. The title especially (which you've chosen as the title for this page) is not misleading, but wrong. "Maybe" is not "Yes". The interpretation of the results and the misleading wording throughout is almost as bad.
Shawn Wilson (not verified) | 06/10/09 | 20:17 PM
I also agree to the fact that natural remedies are best to cure any ailment. Some natural anxiety remedies to look into are St.John's Wort, SAMe, L-Theanine, and Tryptophan.
There's also cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and programs like Panic Away and The Linden Method, to name a few. Hope this helps!
anxiety remedy (not verified) | 08/04/09 | 01:22 AM
A quick look at the journal abstract will tell you that both placebo and treatment groups demonstrated decreased levels of anxiety (and where is the control group that receives no treatment at all??). In terms of analysis, the abstract also says analyses revealed a significant difference between pretest-and posttest levels of anxiety only in the treatment group. This can mean only one of two things:
1. The authors did no statistical comparison between the treatment and placebo group at post-treatment.
2. The treatment and placebo groups did not significantly differ at post-treatment (otherwise they would have surely mentioned it since it would make a stronger case)
In effect, by not analysing or considering the comparison of the placebo and treatment group directly, the authors have basically rendered this a pretest/posttest study only, which as any first year research methods student will tell you, means there are no conclusions you can draw from the results: not even that rescue remedy "may" be effective.
Shelley (not verified) | 08/31/09 | 12:58 PM
