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 frequency of hormesis in toxicology.


CONCLUSIONS
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.
Calabrese
Edward J
EJ
Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003 USA. edwardc@schoolph.umass.edu
D004305:Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; D004785:Environmental Pollutants / Q000633:toxicity*; D008962:Models, Theoretical
D004785:Environmental Pollutants