[“特殊治疗方向”的历史:顺势疗法的例子]。

W H Hopff
{"title":"[“特殊治疗方向”的历史:顺势疗法的例子]。","authors":"W H Hopff","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As for generally accepted therapeutic methods, the \"special methods\" may appear to be effective due to spontaneous recovery provided by nature. A great number of sceptical physicians are aware of this fact. The pharmacologist works continuously to differentiate effects directly caused by medical treatments - mainly drugs - from effects resulting from spontaneous recovery. This is one of the most difficult problems in medical treatment. As a representative example of all \"special methods\", we concentrate here on the history of homeopathy. As is generally known, there is no conformity in homeopathy, for example monotherapy versus therapy with complex homeopathic products; refusing the simile-rule; treatment with high potencies versus treatment with low potencies; classic versus scholastic homeopathy. The number of homeopathies really equals the number of homeopathic physicians. For this reason, instruction in homeopathy on the academic level is impossible. In addition, we have to forget all natural laws only to prove that \"potentiation\" may be true. Therapeutic success due purely to chance may be explained rationally and is occasionally seen in all other \"special methods\". The theories of homeopaths for the action with homeopathic products are neither in accordance with our natural laws nor comply with a rational philosophy.</p>","PeriodicalId":23879,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift fur arztliche Fortbildung","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[History of \\\"special therapeutic directions\\\": the example of homeopathy].\",\"authors\":\"W H Hopff\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>As for generally accepted therapeutic methods, the \\\"special methods\\\" may appear to be effective due to spontaneous recovery provided by nature. A great number of sceptical physicians are aware of this fact. The pharmacologist works continuously to differentiate effects directly caused by medical treatments - mainly drugs - from effects resulting from spontaneous recovery. This is one of the most difficult problems in medical treatment. As a representative example of all \\\"special methods\\\", we concentrate here on the history of homeopathy. As is generally known, there is no conformity in homeopathy, for example monotherapy versus therapy with complex homeopathic products; refusing the simile-rule; treatment with high potencies versus treatment with low potencies; classic versus scholastic homeopathy. The number of homeopathies really equals the number of homeopathic physicians. For this reason, instruction in homeopathy on the academic level is impossible. In addition, we have to forget all natural laws only to prove that \\\"potentiation\\\" may be true. Therapeutic success due purely to chance may be explained rationally and is occasionally seen in all other \\\"special methods\\\". The theories of homeopaths for the action with homeopathic products are neither in accordance with our natural laws nor comply with a rational philosophy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23879,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zeitschrift fur arztliche Fortbildung\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1996-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zeitschrift fur arztliche Fortbildung\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift fur arztliche Fortbildung","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对于普遍接受的治疗方法,由于自然提供的自发恢复,“特殊方法”可能显得有效。许多持怀疑态度的医生都意识到这一事实。药理学家不断努力区分由医学治疗(主要是药物)直接引起的效果与自发恢复产生的效果。这是医疗中最困难的问题之一。作为所有“特殊方法”的代表性例子,我们在这里集中讨论顺势疗法的历史。众所周知,顺势疗法没有一致性,例如单一疗法与复杂顺势疗法产品的治疗;拒绝明喻规则的;强效治疗与低效治疗;经典顺势疗法vs经院顺势疗法。顺势疗法医师的数量实际上等于顺势疗法医师的数量。因此,顺势疗法在学术层面上的教学是不可能的。此外,我们必须忘记所有的自然规律,只是为了证明“增强”可能是正确的。纯粹偶然的治疗成功可以合理地解释,并且在所有其他“特殊方法”中偶尔可以看到。顺势疗法的理论与顺势疗法产品的作用既不符合我们的自然规律,也不符合理性哲学。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
[History of "special therapeutic directions": the example of homeopathy].

As for generally accepted therapeutic methods, the "special methods" may appear to be effective due to spontaneous recovery provided by nature. A great number of sceptical physicians are aware of this fact. The pharmacologist works continuously to differentiate effects directly caused by medical treatments - mainly drugs - from effects resulting from spontaneous recovery. This is one of the most difficult problems in medical treatment. As a representative example of all "special methods", we concentrate here on the history of homeopathy. As is generally known, there is no conformity in homeopathy, for example monotherapy versus therapy with complex homeopathic products; refusing the simile-rule; treatment with high potencies versus treatment with low potencies; classic versus scholastic homeopathy. The number of homeopathies really equals the number of homeopathic physicians. For this reason, instruction in homeopathy on the academic level is impossible. In addition, we have to forget all natural laws only to prove that "potentiation" may be true. Therapeutic success due purely to chance may be explained rationally and is occasionally seen in all other "special methods". The theories of homeopaths for the action with homeopathic products are neither in accordance with our natural laws nor comply with a rational philosophy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信