3 ms·

The hormesis hypothesis has not been widely proven, but it has not disproved either. It's still a working hypothesis. And yes, patients sometime work with hypot

by kensai 1y ago

The hormesis hypothesis has not been widely proven, but it has not disproved either. It's still a working hypothesis. And yes, patients sometime work with hypothesized therapies, especially if conventional therapies don't work for them or they get many adverse effects from them.

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
If I told you that hitting yourself in the dick with a hammer was good for you, would you have as much support and deference for The Schwanzhammertherapie Hypothesis as you do for hitting yourself all over with ionizing radiation? After all, I can't find any studies disproving it. Here is how Schwanzhammertherapie works: 'cellular repair in the body is stimulated, the number of dick hammerings is reduced'.
- cindyllm 1y ago
  [dead]
- kensai 1y ago
  Don't be silly by making the conversation ad absurdum. What is your working hypothesis for the "Schwanzhammertherapie Hypothesis"? :) There's a big difference here between you, acting like a clown, and the scientists or clinicians of yesteryear that formulated the hormesis hypothesis.
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    > What is your working hypothesis for the "Schwanzhammertherapie Hypothesis"? :) Thanks for asking! I explained this above: "cellular repair in the body is stimulated, the number of dick hammerings is reduced". To elaborate: 1. After being pummeled with [hammer|radiation], the body naturally tries to heal. The body is made of cells. Therefore: "cellular repair in the body is stimulated" in both therapies. 2. The number of [schwanzhammerings|free-radicals] during the therapy is N, and after the therapy is <N. Therefore: "the number of [schwanzhammerings|free-radicals] is reduced" in both therapies. I think we can agree that both schwanzhammerings and free-radicals are bad, therefore reducing them is good. These two very similar therapies achieve that goal.

by kensai 1y ago

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago

If I told you that hitting yourself in the dick with a hammer was good for you, would you have as much support and deference for The Schwanzhammertherapie Hypothesis as you do for hitting yourself all over with ionizing radiation? After all, I can't find any studies disproving it. Here is how Schwanzhammertherapie works: 'cellular repair in the body is stimulated, the number of dick hammerings is reduced'.

cindyllm 1y ago
[dead]
kensai 1y ago
Don't be silly by making the conversation ad absurdum. What is your working hypothesis for the "Schwanzhammertherapie Hypothesis"? :) There's a big difference here between you, acting like a clown, and the scientists or clinicians of yesteryear that formulated the hormesis hypothesis.
- ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
  > What is your working hypothesis for the "Schwanzhammertherapie Hypothesis"? :) Thanks for asking! I explained this above: "cellular repair in the body is stimulated, the number of dick hammerings is reduced". To elaborate: 1. After being pummeled with [hammer|radiation], the body naturally tries to heal. The body is made of cells. Therefore: "cellular repair in the body is stimulated" in both therapies. 2. The number of [schwanzhammerings|free-radicals] during the therapy is N, and after the therapy is <N. Therefore: "the number of [schwanzhammerings|free-radicals] is reduced" in both therapies. I think we can agree that both schwanzhammerings and free-radicals are bad, therefore reducing them is good. These two very similar therapies achieve that goal.