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'.
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.
> 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.
Here is how Schwanzhammertherapie works: 'cellular repair in the body is stimulated, the number of dick hammerings is reduced'.