Does Rescue Remedy Work For Anxiety? Yes, Says Study
    By News Staff | June 30th 2007 08:00 PM | 16 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    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.”

    Citation: Robert Halberstein, Lydia DeSantis, Alicia Sirkin, Vivian Padron-Fajardo, and Maria Ojeda-Vaz, 'Healing With Bach® Flower Essences: Testing a Complementary Therapy', Complementary Health Practice Review, January 2007; vol. 12, 1: pp. 3-14 doi: 10.1177/1533210107300705


    Perhaps the staff at a site with a name like "" should do a little research before posting companies' press releases verbatim.

    Becky Jungbauer
    The News Staff can act like a feed for news items, and always notes the source. Just like the newspapers do all across the country that post press releases verbatim from wire services.
    Indeed, that kind of stuff is just informational, not investigational.   No one in our audience is educated by press releases, they just exist to be interesting talking pieces.    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.    I certainly hope, for example, 50% of America that is Republican does not think all government-funded science will be flawed because Democrats are now in power.  

    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.
    @Becky Jungbauer

    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.

    Thanks for the information!

    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!
    This study can't be considered "science" at all.

    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.

    I just looked at the "study" cited, which was done, btw, by an anthropologist, a representative from a firm selling the product, and a student from the University of Miami.

    If that doesn't ring warning bells...

    Aside, even from their use of a very strange set of grouping standards to measure "anxiety", it's quite obvious from the actual data that THERE WAS NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT beyond placebo of this treatment. the only thing they saw was a slight trend after post-hoc grouping of specific recipients, and their only (unreasonable imo) conclusion was there "may" be an effect. If there really WERE statistically significant results, they wouldn't couch it with "may".

    It's sad people think this was a good piece of peer-reviewed science.

    BTW, several clinical, double-blind studies of the efficacy of what amounts to little more than WATER (rescue remedy) HAVE been done already, and all showed the same thing:

    "The hypothesis that flower remedies are associated with effects beyond a placebo response is not supported by data from rigorous clinical trials."

    read the review paper for yourselves:

    seriously, those thinking homeopathy works (cause that's really all this is), are sadly deluded.

    What the ... !

    The formula doesn't include apple for scientific inspiration!
    Flowers may be one of the most colorful things that god give. Best gift for all occasion and a best stress remedy too. Botanical helps to all people be stress free still new generation creates some new techniques to be stress free in a small span of time. Hope Self Wellness or Amega Wand technology will help you to be stress free.
    Neil Newell
    Hmmmmm I note that this old article (2007?) has risen to the front page in the medical section. I am guessing that this may be because it has been recently commented upon? (by the unverified user 'self wellness or Amega Wand Technology') It seems to me that there could be promotional advantage to any company involved in the sale or supply of the product which was the subject of original "study" in 2007 to see the article periodically rise to the front of the site. Do I smell a rat? (it's certainly not the sweet fragrance of the supposed constituents of this 'remedy'!)
    I agree with your point that the 'remedy' may be just the placebo effect but articles here can rise on the front page, even if old, because they got popular again.  And, yes, if someone comments that comment will be in the recent comments block so people may also see it there.

    I suppose the company selling this product could get something out of gaming the system here but they would be better off promoting articles on this stuff in the NY Times and other larger venues that covered the studies of it.  We beat on placebos and certainly anything that might reek of homeopathy so if something seems to do something and it isn't just the placebo effect, we try to be fair and let the audience hammer the methodology.    Best way to find out you are wrong is to publish something on the Internet, as they say.   

    P.S.  Other comments are more paranoid and smack of stuffy elitism - I certainly bristle at a previous commenter's implication that corporate scientists are not ethical.   I have seen plenty of unethical academics and can't seem to find a meaningful statistical distinction between the occurrence.  And someone being told their research is shoddy or useless because they don't have a PhD yet is going to get a strong reaction from a lot of grad students who were not previously aware how stupid they are.
    Wow, absolutely no data to show how the results of the study. Yep, this smells of crack-pot science yet again. At least follow the scientific method in some way. Hilarious.

    What's hilarious is that you think publishers should just have their copyright violated because of your sense of entitlement about things being free on the Internet.   If you want to read the study itself, buy it.
    Some of you guys are working for the big firms straight onto this try it and see worked for me?. and others I know.

    Take it and see its not going to mess you up. It works. forget the fear from the pharmaceutics saying it does not.

    It does Im proof.

    Thanks for posting this. I'm not sure how it works. I just know that it does for me. It's incredibly popular with pets as well, which leads me to think it isn't simply a placebo. Remember that while homeopathy hasn't "caught on" in America, it has become very popular in Europe and India.

    I completely understand why people would read this and not trust the product. I wouldn't either, because the language in the article reeks of suspicious language, if the reader is discerning enough. However, I believe this product is a godsend. I regularly get red, hot, splotchy skin, when anxious, but often when I'm just sitting around at work, and don't really feel stressed. But then, I'll get up and go to the little girl's room to find big red splotches from my jawline to my chest. It's considered to be an anxiety disorder, but I consider myself pretty confident, and I don't like to take any unnecessary medications (as this is more of a comfort/vanity issue than anything else). It would be naive of me to believe I couldn't experience the placebo effect, but I've tried many things, some a little helpful, some that made the condition worse. When I do feel like things are getting on top of me, or start to see the beginnings of my skin getting red, a use one of the Rescue Remedy pastilles, and slowly but effectively feel less panicky. This is wonderful, because as soon as I see or feel my skin starting to flush, I get more self conscious about it, which multiplies the effects exponentially. I respect the opinions of the previous posters, and am only speaking to my own experience.