Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 10:08:34 +0000 From: Daniel Haines <daniel-AT-tw2.com> Subject: Re: Deleuze and redemption..flowers of flight f1221, thank you for your response - f1221-AT-cc.nagasaki-u.ac.jp wrote: > > At 8:24 PM 98.12.9, Daniel Haines wrote: > > > and I wasn't suggesting that there was no scientific documentation, only > > that criticisms of homeopathy didn't necessarily follow from such > > research, but rather from what people with particular ideas about "how > > things work" make of such research... > > But that is not the case, at least I cannot say so from my experience. When I > studied medicine (in Germany), homeopathy classes/courses/lectures were > offered and -though not obligatory- attended by about 50% of the students. > Also, (again in Germany, I cannot say how this is in America) many doctors > practise allopathy AND homeopathy and see no contradiction there. Homeopathy > is not criticized by >people with particular ideas< (I shall assume the medical > profession ?), because they are a priori against it, but because of two > reasons : > - many (but not all) studies on homeopathy are methodically flawed and > - there is no serious disease where a homeopathic therapy has ever been proven > to be more effective than waiting and doing nothing. > okay, first- I said "didn't necessarily follow" because I meant to imply a gap between experimentation and theory, by also because I do accept that it may be that well-carried out studies have "disproven" homepathic methods. I do not know about the situation in America either: in Britain homeopathic treatment is actually available by referral from GPs (although this was never recommended to me). second - as I said before, I'm not claiming that homeopathic treatment is some panacea. homeopathy has not treated me for "a serious disease" but it has successfully "cured" what all the doctors I have had have not regarded as something I/they could do anything about - and, I think in hindsight, completely misdiagnosed (i didn't "go to lots of doctors" incidentally, I just lived in a few different places). I was told i had developed (from having suffered from hayfever symptoms orignally) something called "perennial rhinitus" - which is hayfever type symptoms but all year through (hayfever is "seasonal rhinitus") and that this could well last 20 years or so or forever. I was given terfenadine at first (commonly prescribed - now prescripton only as it has killed several people and affects heart rhythm & the liver - i think it was banned completely in America recently) to begin with, and when I started to show symptoms anyway I was prescribed a nasal (steroid-based) inhalant. Together these completely stopped any symptoms - but the also meant I became completely dependent on them, and couldn't stop taking them - and if I ever forgot the escalation of my symptoms was astounding, to the point where it essentially "disabled" me. At the beginning of this year I decided I was not going to be taking this stuff for ever so I looked at what other possibilties were open to me. the first that presented itself was homepathy - 10 months later I honestly doubt that I ever even had "hayfever", never mind "perennial rhinitus". possibly the effect is "psycho-somatic" but I find that hard to believe - whatever M. Rooney may think of the matter. > > [...] also, as on the one hand,there are plenty of substances that have been > > around much longer than 200 years that are rejected out of prejudice for > > medical use - despite having been proved conclusively to be effective - > > For example ? marajuana has been shown to be effective for alleviating severe pain suffered by people with various diseases. - there have been several attempts to legalise its medical use in Britain over the last few years. > > > and, on the other hand, most of the substances used by medical > > science/pharmaceutical companies have been in medical use for rather > > less than 200 years - on what exactly are you basing the idea that 200 > > years is "long enough to have proven what it is worth"? > > Well, during the last 200 years > surgery under anestesia, > vaccination, > antibiotics, > minimally invasive surgery, > transplantation, > beta blockers, > X-ray, > to name a few -the list is hardly exhaustive- yeah, you missed out pre-frontal lobotomies, forced sterilisation, EST, Thalidomide -- sorry to be satirical (sorry, this was meant to be satirical(!)) but: 1. I think the pay-off from modern medicine is ambiguous to say the least we do not live in times of particularly good health, and 2. you obviously know a lot about medicine and I (as I said orignially) don't know anything about homeopathy or what it claims for itself - I just know that whatever my homepathist has done has worked! have been introduced into > medicine from various fields of expertise. But none of them from homeopathy. fair point. I'm really not trying to make any grand claims. I just have noticed a prejudice against homeopathy in general (seen as practically witchcraft or just nonsense by a lot of people) and was annoyed by M. Rooney's idea that because he'd "read" about it he "knew" about it and could prononuce judgment on it. cheers, dan h. -- http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/chupacabras/48/ http://www.tw2.com/staff/daniel/ Ware ware Karate-do o shugyo surumonowa, Tsuneni bushido seishin o wasurezu, Wa to nin o motte nashi, Soshite tsutomereba kanarazu tasu. We who study Karate-do, Should never forget the spirit of the samurai, With peace, perseverance and hard work, We will reach our goal without failure.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005