Complementary Alternative Cardiovascular Medicine

Chapter 14 / Homeopathy and CVD 221
necrosis factor [TNF], and VAP), 10 –16 to 10 –18 (Substance P, VAP, and
beta-endorphin), and 10 –19 to 10 –20 (leukotrienes and interleukin [IL]-1).
From 15–150 molecules of pregnenolone improve memory in mice, and
1 molecule of pheromone increases neural firing (7).
The real controversy in homeopathy comes when substances are
diluted beyond Avogadro’s number—beyond the dilution when you
would expect nothing to exist of the original organic substance. Yet it is
often exactly in this realm that homeopathy claims some of its most
potent effects occur. There is currently no bioscientific explanation for
these phenomena. Homeopaths’ best explanation for this currently is
more in the world of “energy” medicine, where there is some energetic
effect (“vital force”) transported to the water molecules that have been
diluted and succussed. However, every explanation at this level is purely
speculative.
The validation of homeopathy rests more in the clinical outcomes, but
does it work?
Research
There is a rich tradition in conventional medicine of using medicinal
substances that work before the mechanism of action is elucidated. Aspirin
and the beta-blockers are two such examples. Of course, increasingly
there is a burden for pharmaceutical companies to provide proof of
both safety and efficacy and mechanisms of actions for new drugs.
Although for many pharmaceuticals, such as psychotropics—drugs
that alter some of our brain’s most fundamental neurological transmissions,
this is not possible.
As discussed above, remedies used in homeopathy have been selected
on the basis of provings—by clinical examination of a particular ultradiluted
substance’s ability to improve a pathologic state.
In the last 20 yr, studies have been undertaken on homeopathy using
the current gold standard for research—randomized controlled trials.
The following gives a synopsis of much of this literature to date.
PLACEBO STUDIES: META-ANALYSES
There have been six comprehensive systematic reviews of homeopathy
in relationship to placebo (16–21). Four of these show effects greater
than placebo. Two show effects that cannot be distinguished from placebo.
The largest studies (16,17) show significant differences in favor of
homeopathy. Methodological flaws in many of the studies continue to be
problems in the research into homeopathy, as expressed by the authors
in all these analyses.