[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hormesis and homeopathy
Bill,
Since radiation is natural, seems like it fits homepathy pretty good. As for the
person who said they would distance themselves, I think I understand why the field
has been marginalized.
Joe Archer
captainnuke@earthlink.net
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