Hormesis: A Conversation with a Critic

OBJECTIVE: In this commentary I respond to points raised in the commentary by Mushak [Ad hoc and fast forward: the science and control of hormesis growth and development. Environ Health Perspect 117:1333–1338 (2009)], which principally concerns studies by me and my colleagues concerning the frequenc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Calabrese, Edward J.
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 2009
Materias:
Commentary
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2737007/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19750095
http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0901002
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: In this commentary I respond to points raised in the commentary by Mushak [Ad hoc and fast forward: the science and control of hormesis growth and development. Environ Health Perspect 117:1333–1338 (2009)], which principally concerns studies by me and my colleagues concerning the frequency of hormesis in toxicology. DISCUSSION: In this commentary I demonstrate that Mushak’s analysis contains critical statistical errors and misunderstandings of statistical concepts that invalidate its conclusions concerning the frequency of hormesis in the toxicologic literature. CONCLUSIONS: In his commentary Mushak offers no significant new conceptual insights, and his key technical criticisms of hormesis frequency findings are unfounded.

Ejemplares similares