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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Edward J. Calabrese (2009) studied this question.