AW: [ RadSafe ] Letter: Homeopathy and Hormesis

Wed Feb 8 06:19:57 CST 2006

Steven:

Thank you for this balanced criticism which on the other hand unnecessarily upgrades this rather casual text. 

Despite its subtitle - Magazine for Science and Reason - I would not count this publication among my sources for scientific information. At least ISI does not list it among its "scholarly resources" in contrast to, e.g., Scientific American or New Scientist. Someone really interested in the issues addressed might wish to compare the shallow exposition presented here with the scholarly work outlined in (among others),

Calabrese E, Historical blunders: How toxicology got the dose-response relationship half-right. Cellular and Molecular Biology 51(2005)643-654 

where the author expands in particular on the intricate (historical) relationship and disparity between the concepts of homeopathy and hormesis. 

Kind regards, Rainer

Rainer Facius
Dr. Rainer Facius
German Aerospace Center
Institute of Aerospace Medicine
Linder Hoehe
51147 Koeln
GERMANY
Voice: +49 2203 601 3147 or 3150
FAX:   +49 2203 61970

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Steven Dapra
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Februar 2006 04:23
An: radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Letter: Homeopathy and Hormesis 

Feb 7, 2006

Dear Group

Ran across this Letter to the Editor in the latest edition of Skeptical Inquirer.

Skeptical Inquirer - the magazine for science and reason - Vol. 30, No. 1 Jan/Feb 2006 p.68

Homeopathy and Hormesis:

Homeopathy is back, stronger than ever and more global.  (See the review of Copeland's Cure, SI July/August 2005.)  Now termed hormesis, it extends homeopathy to include toxic chemicals and radiation, among other hazardous materials.  Hormesis (defined operationally as low-dose stimulation, high-dose
inhibition) is often used to promote the notion that while high-level exposure to toxic chemicals are detrimental to human health, low-level exposures are beneficial, as in homeopathy.

[edit]

Radiation zealots began this
hormetic concept, but it has been expanded to include other toxic materials.  This was built on the idea proposed by Paracelsus (a seventeenth-century German-Swiss physician) that "the dose makes the poison," which the chemical industry extols in its vested quest to exonerate its prized chemicals from accusations of negative effects on human health.

COMMENT:

         There is some confused and dangerous reasoning at work here.  No one is saying that low-dose exposure to every toxin (insult) has a hormetic effect (that it is healthful).  Furthermore, no one is using hormesis to try and exonerate the chemical industry of anything, and I have never heard anyone claim that low doses of these chemical industry substances are healthful.  At most, people would say in these cases that low-dose exposure is not harmful, but never that it is healthful.

         We who accept the hormetic effect, or think there is some merit to the claim of hormesis, need to be careful to make a clear distinction between a hormetic (healthful) effect at low levels of exposure, and no effect at low levels of exposure.

(end comment)

Stimulatory responses are not always beneficial, and some may be harmful.  Health decisions based on purported beneficial effects of hormesis must address differences between individuals in exposure and susceptibility, including genetic, life-stage, and health-status factors, among others.  Further, health decisions based on so-called beneficial effects must address the fact that other environmental and workplace exposures may alter the low-dose response of a single agent.

For more information, see "Fundamental Flaws of Hormesis for Public Health Decisions," by Kristina A.
Thayer, Ronald Melnick, Kathy Burns, Devra Davis, and James Huff, in Environmental Health Perspectives 113 (2005).

James Huff
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

COMMENT:

         No one is saying that stimulatory responses are always beneficial.  This needs to be approached on a case by case basis.

         Note that Huff refers readers to an article or a paper in Environmental Health Perspectives.  I have raised objections to EHP papers before on RADSAFE.  (Steve Wing's co-authored paper purporting to find a higher death toll at Three Mile Island was published in EHP.)  About ten years ago, one of the co-authors of this paper, Devra Davis, was active in the drive to attribute breast cancer to chlorine.  I heard her speak at an anti-chlorine and anti-radiation seminar in Albuquerque in 1994.  I do not know what Davis' present views are on chlorine and breast cancer.  (Wing also spoke at this seminar.)  Should anyone have questions about this seminar, please contact me by private e-mail.  Please do not ask me on RADSAFE.

Steven Dapra
sjd at swcp.com

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/