Incommensurable worldviews? Is public use of complementary and alternative medicines incompatible with support for science and conventional medicine?

Proponents of controversial Complementary and Alternative Medicines, such as homeopathy, argue that these treatments can be used with great effect in addition to, and sometimes instead of, ?conventional? medicine. In doing so, they accept the idea that the scientific approach to the evaluation of treatment does not undermine use of and support for some of the more controversial CAM treatments. For those adhering to the scientific canon, however, such efficacy claims lack the requisite evidential basis from randomised controlled trials. It is not clear, however, whether such opposition characterises the views of the general public. In this paper we use data from the 2009 Wellcome Monitor survey to investigate public use of and beliefs about the efficacy of a prominent and controversial CAM within the United Kingdom, homeopathy. We proceed by using Latent Class Analysis to assess whether it is possible to identify a sub-group of the population who are at ease in combining support for science and conventional medicine with use of CAM treatments, and belief in the efficacy of homeopathy. Our results suggest that over 40% of the British public maintain positive evaluations of both homeopathy and conventional medicine simultaneously. Explanatory analyses reveal that simultaneous support for a controversial CAM treatment and conventional medicine is, in part, explained by a lack of scientific knowledge as well as concerns about the regulation of medical research

Linear low-dose extrapolation for noncancer health effects is the exception, not the rule

The nature of the exposure-response relationship has a profound influence on risk analyses. Several arguments have been proffered as to why all exposure-response relationships for both cancer and noncarcinogenic end-points should be assumed to be linear at low doses. We focused on three arguments that have been put forth for noncarcinogens. First, the general “additivity-to-background” argument proposes that if an agent enhances an already existing disease-causing process, then even small exposures increase disease incidence in a linear manner. This only holds if it is related to a specific mode of action that has nonuniversal properties—properties that would not be expected for most noncancer effects. Second, the “heterogeneity in the population” argument states that variations in sensitivity among members ofthe target population tend to “flatten out and linearize” the exposure-response curve, but this actually only tends to broaden, not linearize, the dose-response relationship. Third, it has been argued that a review of epidemiological evidence shows linear or no-threshold effects at low exposures in humans, despite nonlinear exposure-response in the experimental dose range in animal testing for similar endpoints. It is more likely that this is attributable to exposure measurement error rather than a true non-threshold association. Assuming that every chemical is toxic at high exposures and linear at low exposures does not comport to modern-day scientific knowledge of biology. There is no compelling evidence-based justification for a general low-exposure linearity; rather, case-specific mechanistic arguments are needed