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
