Ear Wax Candles

I sold the mother load of these candles at work yesterday. They are about a foot long cone, normally made of some fabric wound and then coated in wax. The patient lies down as someone places the tip of the cone in the canal of the ear. (Hopefully someone you trust). Plates are frequently placed around the cone in order to prevent the wax from burning the patient. The candle is meant to wick all the wax out of the ear, as well as other toxins.

I did a little mini investigation at work yesterday, asking people why they were buying the candles that day. A great many said their allergies were bothering them (allergies are particularly bad in Knoxville), and another said it was due to the full moon. Many people believe that toxins in their body are more prevalent and susceptible to irritation or expulsion around the full moon. I wanted to get the full scoop.

Wellnessinteractive.com claims that these candles are an ancient practice used to remove the afore mentioned ear wax and also fungus from the ear canal. (http://www.wellnessinteractive.com/videowellness.html) The previous link also has a video of the procedure.

I did not know a lot about ear fungus, so I did a bit of research. Ear fungus is frequently the cause of what we know as "Swimmer's Ear" or an External Ear Infection. The common way to treat Swimmer's Ear is a pain reliever (like acetaminophen, which is Tylenol) and medicated drops in severe cases. Patients are also advised to keep water from entering the canal(http://www.pediatricdoc.com/newsletter.cfm?nid=698). The treatment can be very uncomfortable because it, like many others, simply requires the patient to wait it out. Could these candles perhaps provide a quicker alternative? What about those suffering from ear aches due to allergies?

The FDA does not think so. In fact, I found several doctors as well as the FDA that are up in arms against ear candling, particularly its usage on children. (Lisa Roazen M.D., Louise Chang MD, FDA). The biggest concerns are wax from the candle entering the canal, as well as fire hazards. Ear candling is very strongly discouraged by the medical community.

Many people claim the candles work due to the amount of residue found inside the cone after the procedure. Several of the links about have accounts of control tests are provided in the link above, in which persons placed the candles in empty, nonhuman sources, such as bottles. The candles placed in ear canals and the candles placed in bottles produced the same residue.

Ear aches due to allergies come from paranasal sinus inflammation. Decongestants are frequently used for less severe cases, as well as rest and fluids. One important note from the Mayo Clinic which I think is important for those looking to treat allergies with ear candling is that patients are recommended to keep their heads elevated to relieve the congestion. Placing your head horizontal for candling could actually make your discomfort worse.

**THE FINAL VERDICT**

BALONEY

The evidence against ear candling is extensive and well documented, consisting of a large number of controls. The fact that FDA has warnings out against it is reason enough for the informed to stay away; however, the spectacle of candling will persuade many to believe they are being treated. This, in many ways, is a powerful treatment for the grogginess associated with sinus inflammation, provided they do not burn the house down.

I won't tell them if you won't. :)

PS: I'll leave the whole "full moon toxins" to someone less skeptical than me.

Carl Sagan

I think I may have found my calling.

This all began with a random web search. I think I was trying to figure out the truth about BPAs, or something along those lines. I work at a natural/organic grocery store, so I am literally bombarded every day with theories about radiation, bodily toxins, vitamins and pesticides. A great many of these do have scientific evidence to back them up, while an equal number are complete and total baloney. How are we supposed to tell the difference?

This led me to Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Quite a few books have touched my life and personal ethos, but few with the profound effect of this book. Talk about the right book at the right time. Moving back to the South has caused me to confront a lot of questions I have always had about religion, but sequestered for various reasons while living in the West. The guilt, humiliation and isolation of being an atheist has flooded back, and I found myself having to re-establish the core of my beliefs. I am not the same person I was 2 years into getting my English degree. I have a year and half of engineering school under my belt, and I have a basis in physics and calculus to accompany my BA in English. I find awe not only in the beauty of Enobarbus' final speech in Antony and Cleopatra, but also in the concepts of zero, infinity and the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy. I find it an absolute shame that the two do not typically exist in harmony.

I say "typically" because of Carl Sagan. The afore mentioned book is not only filled with science and arguments against the abandonment of the scientific method, but also quotes from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Ranier Maria Rilke, and William Blake. (Though to be fair, he doesn't typically agree with Blake's "poetic license".) Sagan is careful writer. He is aware of his own personal biases, and allows them to slip only for those he feels are of particular importance. I am thinking specifically of his no-holds barred chapter on Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb, titled "When Scientists Know Sin". He does, begrudgingly and only after fully attacking what the physicist has accomplish, admit the possibility of Teller's good intentions for this nation. Sagan never says that people who believe that have been abducted by aliens or had dances with the devil are crazy, but human. Humans have hallucinations which may seem as real to them has everyday life, and these people are frequently well adjusted members of society. The problem is not these people, but those persons who take such stories as fact and use them as a basis to cause harm to others. He uses the example of Paul Ingram, a man sentenced to prison because of accusations his daughter "remembered" while under hypnosis. Sagan's decorum and evidence inspire me not only to inquire more about the world around me, but also to find a way to share such things with others.

The problem with science is that you must study for years to truly understand it. Most Americans, as Sagan frequently points out, have not done so, which is frequently not their faults. His chapter "No Such Thing as a Dumb Question" has some astonishing numbers about how American stack up against the rest of world in science. He goes on to question why we do not study science in "The Wind Makes Dust", which he says is mostly political and hierarchal. Those are deep rooted issues that are incredibly difficult to challenge in one or several lifetimes. Shows like Bill Nye the Science Guy, MythBusters and channels like Discovery, PBS, History and National Geographic are making a valiant effort in providing the general public with science, but what can we do when people would rather watch Jersey Shore?

I believe the real problem for the intelligent non-physcists of the world is a lack of inaccessibility. Most scientific databases with real hard evidence are unavailable to the general public. Only those in universities and positions in scientific fields may access them. We must believe what we are told simply because we do not have the real evidence for BOTH sides. We must be trained not to believe everything we hear from the media, friends or family. We are; however, lacking a key element of our toolkit: the afore mentioned evidence. We feel lost, myself included. We hear of the Big Bang, but no one takes the time to explain exactly what it is, and what evidence supports it. Most of what we do read is written with antiseptic and apathetic hand. Science is source of hope, inspiration, and a better understanding of what is means to be human. It should be treated as such.

What I am proposing is to collect hard evidence for and against the claims currently in circulation, and allow my readers to chose for themselves who is right or wrong. I will reserve any of my own judgments for an afterword section in each blog, which can be read if so desired. I will summarize the claims in plain english which will be followed by links (as best as copyrights will allow me) to the original. Any help or links would be greatly appreciated.

Good luck to us all.