Hormesis and homeopathy

[FIELDRW@aol.com]

Jim,

You ask, What is the basis for my conclusion that homeopathy would distance 
itself from low dose radiation therapy, magnetic therapy, and far infra red 
technology

I am speaking about modern day homeopathy.  Practices and beliefs of today do 
not necessarily reflect past beliefs. (Remember, there was a time in history 
when most Health Physicist actually embraced the LNTT). 

I asked numerous homeopaths including one of the leading academic homeopaths 
in the United States about it and she said, "Any current practitioner of 
homeopathy I know and respect would distance themselves from low dose 
radiation therapy, magnetic therapy, and far infra red technology.  That 
pretty much sums up the basis for my statement above.

She indicated, there are some researchers in Europe who are looking at 
chemical hormesis and it's effects on the level of the cell and enzyme 
production and they
have written a book trying to use their research as a model for how 
homeopathy works. She did not think most homeopaths are buying into it. She 
was not aware of any current research looking at the effects of ultralow 
quantities of radiation in the homeopathic area.

She pointed out that you support your statement by finding one prominent 
individual (Arndt) who had hoped to help homeopathy become more legitimate by 
wedding it to a concept  (hormesis ) which was popular at the time. A few 
researchers may continue to think this way, but she indicated it hasn't 
become generally accepted amongst homeopaths.

Jim,  if you know of a current homeopath in the United States who supports 
low dose radiation as a homeopathic practice, I would love to talk with them. 
 Modern day homeopaths prescribe radium bromate for some illnesses, but you 
would be hard pressed to find any radioactivity in the "remedy".  Their 
dosage is so low, it is called the essence of radium bromate.

This is an interesting area of dialogue.

Regards, Bill


R. William Field, Ph.D.
College of Public Health
Department of Epidemiology
N222 Oakdale Hall
University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa 52242

319-335-4413 (work)
319-335-4748 (fax)
mailto:bill-field@uiowa.edu



In a message dated 1/29/00 3:52:40 PM Central Standard Time, 
jmuckerheide@delphi.com writes:

<< 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