I apologize for not responding sooner. I had no idea anyone had even responded to this debate, and was just in the process of creating a couple of new debates, of which I would argue are of a much higher importance, and duality than this. (controversially speaking of course). But that isn't very relevant right now. I just wanted to explain myself. So with that much needed apology out of the way. Let's begin.
First of all, I would like to point out that my oppositions reasoning is severely flawed in numerous ways. Specifically concerning his reasoning that a substance that has potentially severe side effects, such as Frankincense should not be standardized. This proposition is simply absurd and shows just how little my opposition actually understands of the standardization process, or how products, specifically medical products are standardized. His words were, and I quote-"I fail to see why something should be a medicine if there are potentially significant side effects." First of all it is important to note that every single standardized medical substance on Earth has "potentially significant" side effects. In fact every single substance known to man has the potential to be lethal in some way, shape, or form. Even air has the potential to be dangerous if administrated incorrectly. And that especially goes towards standardized and prescribed medical substances as well (it's also one of the reasons as to why standardization can actually benefit how frankincense is produced and applied/given to people/customers). Standardization of a product can help improve the quality, distribution, and the better usage of safety measures for said product. Another thing I would like to point out is that your source talks about Frankincense oil, and Frankincense oil only, and even so it quite literally clerifys that it's still better than some of it's other, more artificial alternatives/counterparts. What I find hilarious is the fact that the "source/article" that you used even talks about how Frankincense oil still has good uses, and that " Some side effects are possible, but the MSKCC notes that frankincense seems to have fewer negative effects than drugs that treat inflammatory conditions, such as steroids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs." Which means that your own source admits that the "potentially dangerous " side effects that you speak of, are A. No where near as dangerous (for the most part) than their artificial drug counterparts, and that B. Nor are they any where near as prevalent either.
So with all of this having been said, I believe that I have proved that the standardization of Frankincense would in fact be a much, much better idea, than barring it from such a process. Not only this, but I have shown that my opponents arguments are not only inherently flawed, but his own source in fact counteracts his own points, in fact one could argue that he was being extremely misleading with his usage of the terms related to said "Article". Also, I would argue that I have used more reputable sources than my opposition, aside from using his own as an example, I would argue that my sources on the subject/matter at hand are for more reliable, reputable, and trustworthy. Than his was. So, with that having been said, I now leave it to the jury to make sense of this whole conundrum.