NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/sci/skeptic/21479

Text File | 1992-12-17 | 5.2 KB | 97 lines

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ncr-sd!SanDiego.NCR.COM!.SanDiego.NCR.COM!kraus
From: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Subject: Hormesis/Homeopathy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Owner)
Reply-To: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:31:25 GMT
Lines: 85


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
>=In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>=>In article <[e-mail]>, kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
>=>>It seems to me that the more important idea to focus on is the way in which
>=>>a homeopathic substance theoretically remedies an ailment. If the substance
>=>>irritates the body into defending itself, and thus indirectly attacking
>=>>the ailment, the dilution strength should only be considered when insuring
>=>>that the substance is weak enough not to cause the patient problems. It
>=>>seems that dilution strengths would vary widely depending on the substance.
>=>
>=>Er, Dave?  If the patient is ALREADY ill, don't you think that the illness
>=>itself would have a better chance of "irritat[ing] the body into defending
>=>itself" than perhaps a few molecules known to cause "similar" symptoms if
>=>ingested in massive doses?
>=
>=Er, Carl? (just thought I'd go with the flow)
>=It might be possible that an irritation of a slightly different nature than
>=the disease may produce a different response from the body.
>
>The basis of homeopathy is to find a substance which, in sufficiently large
>doses, would produce EXACTLY the same symptoms as the disease being treated.
>Now you're saying that the symptoms should be slightly different. You're
>stretching the definition of homeopathy far beyond what is reasonable. At this
>rate, you'll soon include all of non-surgical medicine under the definition.
>Why don't you just give up and admit that you're not talking about homeopathy?

My assumption here is that two different irritations may not produce "EXACTLY"
the same "response from the body" although the outward symptoms may appear
to be "EXACTLY" the same. I am just pointing out a possibility, not trying
to convince you that this is true. I do this often and I think that you take
it to mean that I actually believe something is true. I do it when people
like you act so sure of yourself ("Er, Dave"). I don't know what the
definition of homeopathy is and I am trying to get input from a lot of
people before I decide. I am not just going to believe the first person
who tells me that dilution strength is the only issue.

>=This combined
>=response produced by the bodies natural defenses and the homeopathic
>=substance may be more effective.
>
>I thought you said that it was the body's natural defenses that the homeopathic
>remedy activated.  Could you please try for just a little consistency?

That is what I am saying. I am stating the possibility that the bodies
natural defense reaction to the disease is combined with the bodies natural
defense reaction to the homeopathic substance to provide a more effective
total body response to the disease. But...its just a possibility that I
point out. Just because you are so sure about how things work... doesn't
mean that I have to be. I welcome other ideas and explanations. That
doesn't mean that I believe every strange idea I hear, but sometimes I
do bandy it about a bit to get reactions to help formulate my own real
opinions.

>=I do however have trouble with the idea that an extremely diluted substance
>=could have any effect. My interest lies in substances with dilutions of
>=reasonable strengths. I have been trying to determine if the definition
>=of homeopathic includes specific numbers on dilution strengths. Also,
>=I would be interested to know if modern homeopaths are going with higher
>=strength substances these days than what has been used historically.
>
>If they are, it's only because they don't want to overtreat you.  You see,
>another principle of homeopathy is that the more dilutions, the stronger the
>effect.  According to homeopathy, an 8% solution of anything should have
>virtually no effect at all.

IF dilution strength is the key defining element to homeopathy, I have a
hard time believing in homeopathy, although I don't completely count it out.

>=In short, the idea of homeopathic response is an interesting possibility
>=to me. Dilution strengths of "a few molecules" do seem absurd, hence my
>=interest in higher strength remedies.

>Then don't call them "homeopathic."  I believe the term you're groping for is
>"hormesis."

My dictionary doesn't have this word. What does "hormesis" mean? I would
gladly use it if it would more acurately describe homeopathic-like reactions
at higher dilution strengths.

---------------------------------------------------
[e-mail]                       |
[phone]                                    |
---------------------------------------------------