Re: Optimal Radiation -business opportunities

[Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@delphi.com>]

Bill,

What's the basis for your conclusion?

The opposite is true: Homeopathy has ever tried to use demonstrable hormesis
(doses that are significant relative to background doses) to justify
homeopathy, since Dr. Rudolph Arndt was a homeopathy physician, (of the
Arndt-Schulz Law, Hugo Schulz was a microbiologist). Arndt became a feted
public speaker by the homeopathy movement. Hueppe (of Heuppe's Rule), an
equivalent dose-response law on a scientific basis objected strongly.

See:
"TALES OF TWO SIMILAR HYPOTHESES: THE RISE AND FALL OF CHEMICAL AND RADIATION
HORMESIS" Edward J. Calabrese1 and Linda A. Baldwin 
http://www.belleonline.com/n4v82.html

With the following summary:
"Despite the above outstanding research and academic pedigree of hormesis
researchers of the early decades of the 20th century, the area of low dose
chemical stimulation was to become the object of intense criticism by the next
generation of dominant figures in the field of pharmacology and toxicology.
This criticism was to have its origin in the fact that this area of research
was too closely allied with the controversial medical practice of homeopathy.1
The area of chemical hormesis had become used as an explanatory factor by
advocates of the medical practice of homeopathy. In fact, Hugo Schulz, the
microbiologist who first reported that low doses of numerous chemicals
stimulated yeast metabolism, joined with Rudolph Arndt (the homeopathic
physician) and together promoted the broad generalizability of the low dose
stimulatory curve into a prime explanatory framework of how homeopathic drugs
worked. This close association of a scientific hypothesis with a politicized
medical practice was criticized as early as 1896 by Hueppe.78 Nonetheless, the
association of hormesis to homeopathy remains even to the present.159 However,
in 1937 the prestigious pharmacologist A.J. Clark of the University of
Edinborough published his classic text, "Handbook of Pharmacology", in which
he devoted 15% to a refutation of the Arndt-Schulz Law.160 Clark, the
discoverer of the first molecular receptor (i.e., the acetylcholine receptor),
was a towering scientific feature by himself, but he also had an unusually
strong collaboration with several of the most powerful and respected
biostatisticians of that era. 

"At this time, the fundamental nature of the dose-response was powerfully
articulated and was greatly affected by the very biostatisticians (e.g.,
Bliss, Trevan) who worked with Clark. Lacking any comparable countervailing
intellectual force at the time, the concept of hormesis, especially chemical
hormesis, became a cultural victim of guilt by association with homeopathy.
This marginalization was encouraged by traditional medical philosophy because
of the long standing antipathy with homeopathy. Since pharmacology and
toxicology developed most extensively within traditional medical schools, it
was only natural to have physician-trained pharmacologists/toxicologists lump
hormesis with homeopathy and the marginalization was complete."

Regards, Jim
============

FIELDRW@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Jim,
> 
> In defense of homeopathic medicine.  I think all these experimental
> "therapies" would fall under the category of alternative medicine.  I am
> pretty sure homeopathy would distance itself from low dose radiation therapy,
> magnetic therapy, and far infra red technology.
> 
> Regards, Bill Field
> College of Public Health
> Department of Epidemiology
> University of Iowa
> bill-field@uiowa.edu
> 
> In a message dated 1/28/00 4:02:46 PM Central Standard Time,
> jmuckerheide@delphi.com writes:
> 
> << Bill,
> 
>  That goes with the 'homeopathy' scope :-)
> 
>  Regards, Jim
>  muckerheide@mediaone.net
>  ========================
> 
>  FIELDRW@aol.com wrote:
>  >
>  > Joe,
>  >
>  > While you are at it, why not include a line of magnetic and far infrared
>  > "therapeutic" products?
>  >
>  > Bill Field
>  > College of Public Health
>  > University of Iowa
>  > bill-field@uiowa.edu
>  >
>  > In a message dated 1/28/00 11:21:30 AM Central Standard Time,
>  > captainnuke@earthlink.net writes:
>  >
>  > << I would favor a radioactive mattress pad. Radon spas deliver high LET
>  > doses to
>  >  the lung and tritiated water may not be clever because a large commercial
>  >  tritium industry raises issues like proliferation. Whole body x-rays would
>  >  require the hassle of going and getting them and would deliver doses at
>  > higher
>  >  rates. A mattress pad would give small daily and relatively accurate doses
>  > since
>  >  99% of the population sleeps 8 +/- 1 hour a day. Let me know if you would
>  > like
>  >  to collaborate on starting a business like this as homeopathic medicine.
>  >
>  >  Best Regards,
>  >  Joe Archer >> >>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html