The Raindrop Technique- A Statistical Validation

During the past ten years, Raindrop Technique has become a widely used therapeutic protocol throughout the United States. Numerous anecdotal accounts relate the significant and substantive benefits generated by this procedure. Raindrop Technique has been use to ameloriate cases of viral infection, kyphosis, scoliosis, chronic fatigue syndrome, and many other conditions.
As its popularity and usage have increased, a small group of aromatherapists has questioned the use of the procedure and its reliance on undiluted therapeutic-grade essential oils. So, in an effort to statistically validate the benefit (or lack thereof) of the Raindrop Technique, I circulated a questionnaire in late 2001 among several thousand aromatherapists, health practitioners, and users of essential oils to poll those who receive Raindrop and those who perform it. This study summarizes the experiences of more than 14,000 sessions of Raindrop.
Of the 422 adults who responded to the survey, 370 were female and 52 were male. They represented 39 states of the United States, 5 provinces of Canada, and 5 other countries. 265 were facilitators, 259 were both facilitators and receivers, 157 were receivers only. Among the 416 receivers, a total of 3,584 Raindrop procedures were experienced (mean value = 8.6 treatments each). Among the 265 facilitators, a total of 11,256 procedures were reported (mean value = 42.5 each). Receivers reported their Raindrop experiences to be Positive (97%), Pleasant (98%), Resulted in healing (16%), Felt better afterwards (98%), Improved health (89%), and Improved emotional state (86%). 99.9% of receivers said they would receive Raindrop again.
The differences in the response rates among those who reported improved health vs. actual healing can be due to the subjects’ likely interpretation of the question. “Healing” implies a total resolution of a preexisting disease or health condition, whereas “improved health” merely indicates an improvement (whether slight or great) in health or preexisting condition.
46.2% identified themselves as licensed professionals. 27% were massage therapists (LMT, CMT, RMT). 11% were registered nurses while 1.5% were chiropractors. There was one M.D. and one D.O. who responded.
As for negative responses: 1 in 168 (67 incidences out 11,256 reported Raindrops) considered Raindrop to be unpleasant. 1 in 489 considered it a negative experience. Only 1 in 1,023 said they would not receive Raindrop again. Unpleasant experiences reported (in order of frequency) were: Burning sensation on skin, Skin rashes, Nausea, Headaches, Tiredness. Most identified these as symptoms of a detoxification process. All of these were reported as temporary, often followed by positive results including relief of various symptoms.
Perceived benefits reported (in order of frequency) were: Removed back pain, Stopped cold or flu, Euphoria, Felt energized, Relieved stress or anxiety, General reduction of pain.
The study includes 74 brief commentaries by Raindrop facilitators and receivers that provide insights into the technique, its practice and outcomes, that cannot be discerned from numerical data alone.


A Statistical Validation of Raindrop Technique by David Stewart, PH.D., R.A
C.A.R.E.