[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hormesis and homeopathy
Bill,
I didn't "suppose" homeo's use hormesis research, see, e.g. a 1998
paper at at homeo conference, not only ref Arndt-Schulz, but Stebbing!?:
http://www.entretiens-internationaux.mc/bastide.html
(except they can't spell Schulz :-)
Also, see:
http://www.entretiens-internationaux.mc/giri.html
1/2 way down, 3 paras before INTRO...
To help the reader, the papers will be organized into four chapters;
each chapter will be introduced by a short analysis of the papers
included. The "Introduction" debates the question of scientific
evolution and revolution in the context of modern science. The 1st
chapter "Hormesis" gathers together all the papers related to this
concept: these models are often evoked to demonstrate or to explain
the similia law although hormesis is always based on a relationship of
identity. The 2nd chapter "In Vitro and in Vivo Experimental Models"
includes many experiments which demonstrate low dose or high dilution
activity and is introduced by a summary of classical receptology. The
3rd chapter "Therapeutics and Provings " discusses the question of
analysis of the symptoms in a systemic way of thinking and also
includes pathogenetic studies (provings) as well as homeopathic
therapeutic studies in humans or in animals. The last chapter presents
an "Epistemologic Approach" which become necessary in order to enlarge
the possibility of interpretation of the law of similarity and the
high dilution effectiveness considering that these dilutions are above
the Avogadro number."
See also, "Scientific Evidence for Homeopathic Medicine"
This article provided by Homeopathic Educational Services
Dana Ullman, M.P.H. Copyright 1995
Excerpted from: The Consumer's Guide to Homeopathy, Dana Ullman,
Tarcher/Putnam, 1996
http://www.ihr.com/homeopat/research.html
And much more... I don't pull stuff out of my butt! Nor have a
"belief system" from having been brainwashed in the LNT! Nor have
self-serving interests that demand capitulation to the
ICRP/IAEA/NCRP/BRER Gestapo (now to include UNSCEAR getting Gonzalez
as "Scientific Secretary?) and DOE/EPA/NRC and other national rad protectists
But this issue seems a waste of time. The real issue is that LDR
prevents/reduces cancer, that enhanced cellular/molecular responses
are shown.
Regards, Jim
============
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,
> > 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