Elsevier

Homeopathy

Volume 104, Issue 4, October 2015, Pages 227-233
Homeopathy

Update on hormesis and its relation to homeopathy

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.homp.2015.07.001Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Hormesis is a dose response relationship that is generally characterized as a biphasic dose response.

  • Hormesis was first identified by Hugo Schulz at the end of the 19th century.

  • The similarity between homeopathy and hormesis is regarded as the main cause for a long period of marginalization of hormesis.

  • Renewed interest in hormesis had been seen in recent years.

  • As for now a common root for homeopathy and hormesis could not be established.

Introduction

Hormesis is a dose–response relationship characterized by a biphasic dose response to stressors with a low dose stimulation and a high dose inhibition. The first systematic description of hormesis appeared toward the close of the 18th century by the German pharmacology professor Hugo Schulz. The stressor agent can be any agent or factor capable of causing a deleterious effect. The biological systems can be diverse: bacteria, fungi, algae, yeasts, animals, humans, protozoa and plants. The range of endpoints covers longevity, reproduction, cancer, survival, growth, metabolic effects and others. Hormesis is a nonspecific phenomenon, which can occur in any biological system and can be caused by any stressor. It is quantifiable and reproducible. The apparent similarity between the basic principle of hormesis and homeopathy's Similia Principle, together with the homeopathic claim that hormesis validates homeopathy caused its marginalization, and its rejection during the past century by central figures in pharmacology. Recent years have seen a slight renaissance in the conventional scientific attitude towards hormesis.

Method

We compared hormesis and homeopathy.

Result

There is no convincing evidence of similarity between these two systems. Moreover, there are several crucial differences between them, which seem to refute any idea that they stem from the same root. This paper discusses these differences. The rejection of hormesis on grounds of its similarity to homeopathy is unjustified.

Conclusion

The authors suggest exploring the differences between both systems. Such exploration may answer the key question of whether they do indeed share a root or embrace the same principles. Such exploration may also spur research within both systems to answer further open questions.

Introduction

The accepted definition of hormesis is divided into two parts: a substance or another stressor agent which, on one hand, causes noxious activity in a biological system when applied in high concentration and, on the other, may reveal an enhancing activity when applied in low concentrations/quantities/doses. The stressor agent can be chemical (heavy metals, trace elements insecticides, pesticides, etc.), physical (electrical, mechanical, heat, cold, etc.), biological (bacterial, viral, etc.) — basically any agent or factor able to cause a deleterious effect. The biological systems can be manifold: bacteria, fungi, algae, yeasts, animals, humans, protozoa and plants.1 The range of endpoints includes longevity, reproduction, cancer, survival, growth, metabolic effects and others.2, 3 This phenomenon is nonspecific, can occur in any biological system and can be caused by any stressor. It is quantifiable and reproducible. This is the reason that hormesis is recognized as a phenomenon which appears in any area of life.

Section snippets

Historical aspects

As early as the mid-18th century, there were anecdotal reports of the stimulatory effect of low doses of noxious substances.2 The famed physician and founder of modern pathology, anthropologist and biologist Rudolph Virchow, described an increase in the motility of ciliae in the tracheal epithelium when exposed to low concentrations of potassium- and sodium hydroxide — motility which is halted by high concentrations of these same substances.4 The first systematic description of the phenomenon

What is hormesis?

EL Kendig defines hormesis as18:

A dose–response relationship for a single endpoint that is characterized by reversal of response between low and high doses of chemicals, biological molecules, physical stressors or any other initiators of a response.

He emphasizes that, for a response to be hormetic, a system must: (1) include both a positive and negative response in its dose–response curve (relative to the baseline of the y-ordinate of a dose–response curve); (2) the point of response-reversal

Is hormesis a kind of low-dose homeopathy?

To the homeopathically trained, there is something familiar in the hormetic dose–time relationship. In homeopathy's founding manifesto, Samuel Hahnemann describes the primary action of any ‘artificial morbidic agents’ on a healthy body, followed by a secondary action (counteraction or therapeutic action) produced by the body's defense mechanism.39 An example is the reaction to placing your hand in a bowl of ice water. In the water, the hand feels cold (primary action). Once removed, however, it

Discussion

Hormesis as a scientific system appeared almost 150 years ago with the work of Hugo Schulz. A number of earlier publications suggest the ideas may have been around before then, but they presented no general concept and were ignored. The newly emerging science was, however, marginalized because Schulz was identified with homeopathy, because of the similarity between hormesis' basic principle and homeopathy's Law of Similarity, and because homeopaths claimed that hormesis validates homeopathy.

Conclusion

There are currently several crucial differences between hormesis and homeopathy which seem to refute any idea that they stem from the same root. Exploring the differences between both systems, may answer the key question of whether they do indeed share a root or embrace the same principles. Such exploration may also spur research within both systems to answer open questions. Beyond that, physicochemical research of dilutions and solutions may open new research avenues outside the fields of

References (51)

  • E. Calabrese et al.

    Hormesis: a generalizable and unifying hypothesis

    Crit Rev Toxicol

    (2001)
  • D. Henschler

    The origin of hormesis: historical background and driving forces

    Hum Exp Toxicol

    (2006)
  • H. Schulz

    Zur Lehre von der Arzneiwirdung

    Virchows Arch Pathol Anat Physiol Klin Med

    (1887)
  • H. Schulz

    Ueber Hefegifte

    Pflugers Arch Gesamte Physiol Menschen Tiere

    (1888)
  • R. Arndt

    Die Neurasthenie (Nervenschwäche), ihr Wesen, ihre Bedeutung und Behandlung vom anatomisch-physiologischen Standpunkte für Ärzte und Studierende

    (1885)
  • H. Schulz

    Die Medizin der Gegenwart in Selbstdarstellungen

    (1923)
  • http://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/archive/show_people.php?id=8263 (last accessed 14 April...
  • F. Hueppe

    The principles of bacteriology

    (1896)
  • F. Hueppe et al.

    The principles of bacteriology

    (1899)
  • E.J. Calabrese et al.

    The marginalization of hormesis

    Hum Exp Toxicol

    (2000)
  • P. Bellavite

    On the plausibility of homeopathic ‘similitude’

    Bioethics

    (2012)
  • E.J. Calabrese

    Historical blunders: how toxicology got the dose-response relationship half right

    Cell Mol Biol (Noisy-le-grand)

    (2005)
  • A.J. Clark

    Mode of action of drugs on cells

    (1933)
  • A.J. Clark

    Handbook of experimental pharmacology

    (1937)
  • E.L. Kendig et al.

    Defining hormesis: evaluation of a complex concentration response phenomenon

    Int J Toxicol

    (2010)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text