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...
| Publicado en: | Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 117; no. 9; pp. 1339 - 1344 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | response tables/charts Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Sep2009
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| 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. |
|---|