Re: Hormesis and homeopathy

[Marty Jamieson <mlj007@yahoo.com>]

Certain recent research by Vanderbilt University in
Nashville, Tennessee indicates that certain types of
controlled magnetic therapy given in precise methods
for certain conditions may, in fact, have health
benefits.  In fact, some of the results are strikingly
positive.  On the other hand, intense magnetic fields
can be destructive.

As for the validity of hormesis, if it does exist in
humans, it apparently has only minor nearly
undetectable benefits.  One theory is that some
function of the human immune system is somehow
stimulated by low-level radiation.  Assuming that this
is true, there are many things that will stimulate
certain functions of the immune system.  I personally
feel better about using one of the alternatives (such
as exercise or eating certain healthly foods or even
certain food supplements) than low levels of
radiation.

Homeopathy assumes that certain substances at
extremely low and harmless levels will cause the body
to react in beneficial ways with regard to getting
over a specific illness.  Many people and some
licensed medical doctors believe that for some people
there is more than a psychosomatic response.  It
should be remembered that people sometimes react very
differently to any given therapy and sometimes a given
therapy may only have beneficial effects on a very
small percentage of the population.  Unless broadly
controlled studies are done in this area with a large
number of people with many different kinds of these
therapies, its validity may be difficult to prove one
way or another.  

If my understanding is correct concerning what is
meant by far infra red therapy by comments in this
radsafe channel, it is basically very similar to heat
therapy, except that it may penetrate the flesh very
slightly more deeply.  Heat therapy has been commonly
utilized for athletic injuries and other conditions. 
As to whether or not heat therapy benefited those
conditions, many of those athletes certainly believe
in it.


Marty Jamieson

--- FIELDRW@aol.com wrote:
> 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,
> 
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html