Why ‘Alpha Molecular Imprints’? How It Differs From Present Potentized Drugs?

Commenting on my ‘Alpha Molecular Imprints’, one of my homeopath friends asked:

“We have already large stock of potencies,why to waste time on this? Do other works to make homeopathy scientific”.

I am bound to answer this question, as it is asked by a person who genuinely believe we have to ‘work homeopathy scientific’. There may be many other friends who think that working for ‘alpha molecular imprints’ is unnecessary, and a waste of time.

By saying ‘we should work to make homeopathy’, it is obvious that my friend believes homeopathy as it exist to day is ‘not scientific’.

‘Making homeopathy scientific’ means, to identify the ‘unscientific’ parts of homeopathy, and replace them with ‘scientific’ ideas and practices.

Does my friend consider the ‘large stock of potencies’ already available to day are ‘scientific’, and there is no changes or advancements required in the potentization methods and potentizations scales while we ‘work to make homeopathy scientific’?

I would like to bring to the notice of my friend the fact that all those ‘large stock of potencies’ now available were prepared through processes based on the concepts of ‘dynamic medicinal energy’, which we consider unscientific and want to rectify. The basis of ‘dynamic energy’ concept is that drug substances have some ‘inherent’ ‘medicinal energy’ that act on the ‘vital force’ of organism ‘dynamically’, without the involvement of any material particle and effects a cure. This ‘dynamic drug energy’ could be ‘liberated’ from the material drugs, and ‘transferred’ to sugar of milk or rectified spirit, abandoning the material drug molecules. According to this concept, potentization involves the process of ‘liberating’ the ‘dynamic medicinal energy’ from drug substances and ‘transfering’ it to the potentizing medium. More higher the potentization level, more powerful and dynamic the ‘drug energy’ becomes- that is the belief.

All the existing potentization ‘scales’ and ‘methods’ are based on this ‘dynamization’ concept. Even the term ‘potentization’ indicates this ‘dynamization concept. All the ‘large stock of ptencies’ available to us now are the products of this ‘dynamic’ concept.

When we perceive potentization as a process of molecular imprinting, we will have to rethink our existing ‘potentization scales’ as a whole.

From a scientific perspective, there is no such a thing called ‘drug energy’ that can be liberated from drug substances and ‘transferred’ to another medium abandoning the drug substances. Medicinal properties of substances come from the ‘structure’ of individual constituent molecules contained in drug substances. In the absence of ‘drug molecules’, there cannot be any ‘drug energy’. During potentization, through the process of molecular imprinting, the supramolecular structure of water is changed, and it is this ‘changed water’ or molecular imprints that act as therapeutic agents. It has nothing to do with ‘liberation’ or ‘transfer’ of drug energy. Only molecular imprinting.

When we perceive potentization in terms of molecular imprinting, and molecular imprints as the active principles of potentized drugs, we will have to inquire whether the existing potentization methods are ideal for producing perfect molecular imprints. We will have inquire whether we can modify the existing methods or evolve entirely new methods that would ensure better molecular imprinting.

According to the concept of molecular imprinting, potentization involves two stages. Breaking of intermolecular bonds between constituent molecules and making them free molecules and ions is the first stage, which is effected through the process called ‘trituration’. Trituations will break the intermolecular bonds in the drug substances, and they would be divided maximum up to the level of constituent molecules and ions. Further division to atomic level will not happen, since the mechanical energy of triturations cannot break the very strong chemical bonds between atoms inside molecules. Medicinal properties of a substance id decided by the structure and chemical properties of constituent molecules of drug substance.

Second stage involves actual molecular imprinting. When the drug substance is mixed with rectified spirit (water-alcohol mixture), constituent drug molecules undergoes a process of ‘hydration’, thereby forming ‘guest-host’ complexes of drug molecules and water-alcohol molecules. These ‘guest-host’ complexes are broken my the process of succussion, thereby generating free ‘hydration shells’. Through a process of serial dilution and succussion, the drug molecules are progressively removed from the medium, and increasing the number of free hydration shells. Once the dilution crosses avogadro limit, all drug molecules will be removed. Calculations show that this crossing limit is 12c in centesimal scale, and 23x in decimal scale. That means, above 12c or 23x, the will be no drug molecules present for further imprinting, and hence, continuing potentization beyond that stage is meaningless or futile act. Since presently existing potentization methods do not understand the molecular imprinting involved, they go on diluting and succussing infinitely, thinking that it will make the drugs more powerful and dynamic.

According to scientific view of molecular imprinting, we should stop diluting and succussing once the avogadro limit is crossed. Same time, we have to ensure that the process allows maximum molecular imprinting to happen within this limit. By increasing the number of dilution steps within avogadro limit will give maximum exposure to drug molecules in the medium, thereby making imprinting more perfect.

My method of ‘alpha molecular imprinting’ is designed based on this idea. By diluting in 1:1 ratio instead of 1:10 or 1:100 of classical methods, we get 80 dilution steps before crossing avogadro limit. This is much higher than 12 steps of C scale, or 23 steps of X scale. This by itself more effective molecular imprinting, far better than centesimal or decimal scale potentization. More over, the dilutions are given a cooling and resting stage before succussions during each step, which will allow the stabilization of ‘guest-host’ complexes. 5 minutes strong succussion for each stage will help breaking ‘guest-host’ complexes and generating free molecular imprints.

Another point to be considered is that many of the individual drug molecules may get removed from the medium before getting properly imprinted, when we cross the avogadro limit very fast. Due to this reason, chances of some or other molecular imprints being absent in potentized drugs are more in classical potentization scales. The phenomenon of ‘perfectly simililimum does not act’ arises from this cause. Alpha Molecular Imprinting ensures perfect imprinting of all constituent molecules by giving 80 steps of dilution before crossing avogadro limit. Hence ‘alpha’ products will be therapeutically more effective, and the issue of ‘similimum not acting properly’ never happens. This is a great achievement of Alpha Molecular Imprinting.

Another point to be noticed is that ‘alpha molecular imprinting’ resolves all confusions regarding potency selection. There will be only one ‘potency’ for one drug.

Obviously, the concept and technique of ‘alpha’ method is more perfect and more scientific than classical methods of potentization, and hence, is expected to produce perfect molecular imprints.

Regarding the term ‘alpha molecular imprinting’. Many friends ask why this name ‘alpha’. It only indicates that this is only the first step in the evolution of new scientific molecular imprinting techniques. We will have to work for developing novel molecular imprinting media and imprinting techniques in future. ALPHA is only a first step in this direction.

Regarding the first question my friend asked: “why waste time for this-do other works to make homeopathy scientific”. Finding a better way of producing perfect molecular imprints is an essential part of ‘making homeopathy scientific’. We need reliable and genuine products for using in our research works.

Author: Chandran Nambiar K C

I am Chandran Nambiar K C Author, REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY Managing Director, Fedarin Mialbs Private Limited Developer. SIMILIMUM ULTRA Homeopathic Software I am not a scientist, academician, scholar, professional homeopath or anybody with 'big credentials', but an old lay man, a retired government servant, who accidentally happened to fall into the deep waters of the great ocean of homeopathic knowledge during his fiery teenage years, and was destined to live a whole life exploring the mysteries of that wonderful world with unending enthusiasm. My interest in homeopathy happened very accidentally when I was only 20 years old UNDERGRADUATE ZOOLOGY student, through a constant relationship with a local practitioner who happened to be father of my classmate. I was a regular visitor in his clinic, where from I started reading BOERICKE MATERIA MEDICA and other homeopathic books, which helped me to cure myself my troublesome asthma that have been haunting me since my childhood days. I became a voracious reader of homeopathy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: