File spoon-archives/deleuze-guattari.archive/deleuze-guattari_1998/deleuze-guattari.9812, message 119


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.

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005