According to the MIT concepts I propose, ‘Molecular Imprinting’ of vehicle molecules with the drug molecules happens by a peculiar sort of ‘supra-molecular’ interaction between drug molecules and vehicle molecules during the process of serial dilution and succussion involved in ‘potentization’.
During this process, drug molecules and vehicle molecules enter into a sort of ‘host-guest’ relationship, where the drug molecules act as ‘guests’ and vehicle molecules as ‘host’. ‘Host-guest’ relationship means, water-ethyl alcohol molecules that constitute the ‘vehicle’ arrange themselves around every individual drug molecules and entrap them to form peculiar supra-molecular structures known as ‘hydration shells’ through a process of ‘hydrogen bonding’, leading to the formation of ‘host-guest complexes’.
When ‘guest’ or drug molecules are later removed from these ‘host-guest complexes’ through further succussion and dilution, free hydration shells devoid of drug molecules will remain in the medium. It is these empty hydration shells formed by vehicle molecules, or the three-dimensional supra-molecular nanocavities carrying the ‘negative’ spacial conformations of ‘guest’ molecules, that we call ‘molecular imprints’.
According to MIT view, these molecular imprints are the active principles of potentized drugs, which can selectively bind to all pathogenic molecules having spacial conformations ‘similar’ to the original drug molecules that were used as ‘guest’, by acting as artificial binding sites for them. This is the essence of MIT explanation of homeopathy.
Now the question arises, if potentization actually involves ‘molecular imprinting’, how can molecular imprinting happen after the dilution crossing the avogadro limit?
We all know, dilution will cross avogadro limit for even the smallest drug molecules once it reaches 12C. For larger molecules, it will probably happen by 6C itself. If so, how can we expect ‘molecular imprints’ to be present in 30C, 200C, 1M and higher dilutions? Since the number of molecules in any quantity of substance is limited by avogadro number, it is obvious that there will not be any molecule of original substance remaining in a dilution above avogadro limit.
Nobody involved in homeopathy can deny the fact that homeopathic drugs exhibit their therapeutic efficacy even in such ‘ultra’ dilutions, which clearly demonstrates that molecular imprinting happens even after the dilution crosses the avogadro limit. How? We need a scientifically viable rational answer to this very important question.
We will get an answer to this intriguing question if we seriously study the widely misinterpreted and grossly misused research works of IIT-B scientists conducted in 2010.
Dr Jayesh Bellare, the man behind the IIT-B study, said: ”“Our paper showed that certain highly diluted homoeopathic remedies made from metals still contain measurable amounts of the starting material, even at extreme dilutions of 1 part in 10 raised to 400 (200C),’’
“The hypothesis is that nanobubbles form on the surface of the highly diluted mixtures and float to the surface, retaining the original potency.”
“The hypothesis is that a nanoparticle-nanobubble rises to the surface of the diluted solution; it is this 1% of the top layer that is collected and further diluted. So, the concentration remains”.
“all dilutions are only apparent and not real in terms of the concentrations of the starting raw materials.”
See what Dr. Bellare says regarding how the study was actually conducted:
“2000 ml of dilutions of each drug was taken separately, and subjected for evaporation until 4ml remained. This ‘concentrated’ 4ml which remained was used for study.”
“Using Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), electron diffraction and chemical analysis by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES), we “detected the presence of physical entities in these extreme dilutions, in the form of nanoparticles of the starting metals and their aggregates”.
“We found that the concentrations reach a plateau at the 6c potency and beyond. 6. We also “have shown that despite large differences in the degree of dilution from 6c to 200c (10^12 to 10^400), there were no major differences in the nature of the particles (shape and size) of the starting material and their absolute concentrations (in pg/ml).”
“We found that these nanoparticles of starting materials were present only in the 1% top layer. The remaining part contained no nanoparticles.”
According to the IIT-B scientists, during potentization, “this nanoparticle/nanobubble complex rises to the surface and can be within a monolayer once the total metal concentrations are well below 1 ppm. It is this 1% of the top layer of the solution which is collected and added to the next vessel, into 99 parts of fresh solvent and the succession process is repeated. This transfer of the top 1% layer in each step will ensure that once we reach below a certain concentration i.e. well within a monolayer, the entire starting material continues to go from one dilution to the next, resulting in an asymptote beyond 6c.”
These extremely valuable observations made by the study were totally ignored by everybody, including the researchers themselves. All of them concentrated their attention to the statement that ‘nanoparticles’ of starting materials were detected in ultra-dilution homeopathic drugs. They jumped into the instant conclusion that the active principles of potentized drugs are these ‘nanoparticles’ and started building diverse types of theories about homeopathy based on this ‘nanoparticle research’.
Due the euphoria this research created, nobody bothered to ask or answer the question, if nanoparticles “floating only in the top 1% layer” are the active principles, how each and every drop and even fraction of drops of potentized drugs are producing curative effects when used according to indications?
The researchers have explicitly stated that “we found that these nanoparticles of starting materials were present only in the 1% top layer- the remaining part contained no nanoparticles.” According to them, “the entire starting material continues to go from one dilution to the next, resulting in an asymptote beyond 6c.”
If the “remaning part” other than “1% top layer” is devoid of any “nanopatticles”, how can you say nanoparticles are active principles of potentized drugs? Can anybody say, homeopaths use only “1% top layer” of solution from their drug bottles for administering to their patients? I have been asking this question persistently, but everybody ignored it!
Another observation of IIT-B study that everybody preferred to play blind about s quoted below:
“We found that the concentrations reach a plateau at the 6c potency and beyond. 6.” “despite large differences in the degree of dilution from 6c to 200c (10^12 to 10^400), there were no major differences in the nature of the particles (shape and size) of the starting material and their absolute concentrations (in pg/ml).”
When the scientists say their studies have proved “there were no major differences in the nature of the particles (shape and size) of the starting material and their absolute concentrations” in “dilutions from 6c to 200c”, its implications upon homeopathy are beyond imagination.
Even though the ‘nanoparticle theoreticians’ preferred to ignore it, I think the observation IIT- B scientists that the “nanoparticle/nanobubble complex” formed during succussion rises to the surface of the solution, and accumulate within a “1% of the top monolayer” layer of the solution is a right one, and very important in answering the question how ‘molecular imprinting’ happens even after the dilution crosses the Avogadro limit.
According to this observation, this “1% top layer” containing the particles of starting materials is “collected and added to the next vessel, into 99 parts of fresh solvent” during potentization, and the succession process is repeated. This transfer of the “top 1% layer” in each step will ensure that there will be enough molecules of starting materials available for ‘molecular imprinting’ to takes at every steps of dilution even after avogadro limit is crossed.
Everybody, including the researchers themselves, seem to have ignored some of the very important observations IIT-B scientists made regarding homeopathic ‘ultra dilutions’.
1. They detected particles of ‘starting materials’ in potencies up to 200C.
2. They detected that these ‘starting materials’ are present only in the ‘1% top monolayer’.
3. They detected that the bulk solution other than the ‘1% top layer’ does not contain any particle of starting materials.
4. They detected that the quantity, structure and properties of ‘starting materials’ they detected in all potencies from 6C to 200C are same. There is no any difference.
5. They observed that ‘the whole ‘1% layer’ containing starting materials from each potency are transferred for making the next potency, and hence, they are carried over to even highest potencies.
Everybody were busy making theories that IIT-B team has ‘proved’ that ‘nanoparticles of starting materials’ are the active principles of potentized drugs.
Everybody ignored the fact that drug particles were detected only in 1% TOP LAYER of potentized drugs.
Everybody ignored the fact that the bulk part of potentized drugs except the 1% TOP LAYER do not contain any drug particles.
Everybody ignored the fact that drug particles contained in all potencies from 6C to 200C are similar.
KINDLY THINK OVER, EVEN THOUGH TIME IS TOO LATE.
It is obvious that the ‘particles’ of original staring materials floating only in the ‘1% top layer’ of homeopathic dilutions, and which are presumed to be ‘wholely transferred’ to higher potencies cannot be the active principles of potentized drugs. It is common knowledge that it is not the ‘1% top layer’ only, but the whole bulk remaining even after of removal of ‘top layer’ that is used as medicines. That means, potentized drugs have therapeutic effects even if they do not contain any ‘particles’ of starting materials. If so, we have to continue our search for the exact active principles of potentized drugs, which can exhibit therapeutic effects even without any ‘drug particles’.
Such a search will inevitably lead us to MOLECULAR IMPRINTS.
We all know, hahnemann used to prepare his potencies by himself. After each stage of dilution and succussion, he “emptied” the bottle and refilled it with fresh sample of ‘vehicle’. He believed that the small portion of previous dilution ‘sticking’ to the walls of the bottle was enough to carry potentization to the next level. When viewing in the light of observation made by IIT-B scientists, it will be the ‘1% top layer conatining the starting material” that is mostly sticking to the walls of bottle while ‘emptying’ it. Obviously, major part of the ‘top layer’ will be thus remaining in the bottle for next stage of potentization. By this process, there will be some molecules of starting materials available in each higher stages of dilution, which will be utilized for the effective molecular imprinting of the medium.
Even though I have been very critical about the works of IIT-B team due its irrational interpretations and conclusions, I think there is a positive aspect also in their work. This positive aspect is the greatest contribution the IIT-B team and other ‘nanoparticle researchers’ did for homeopathy, even though they failed to interpret their observations from that angle. Instead of making unsubstantiated and irrational ‘nanoparticle theories about homeopathy’, they should have inquired what is the role of these original drug molecules seen floating only in the “1% top layer” they experimented. They failed to see this aspect of their observations, since they have no any idea of ‘molecular imprinting’ happening during potentization. Had they understood it, they could have realized that it is not the ‘nanoparticles’ or “1% top layer” that is therapeutically effective, but the “the remaining part that contained no nanoparticles”, but only ‘molecular imprints’.
IIT-B team would have been right if they have realized that it is the ‘1%top layer’ containing the particles of starting materials, and serially transferred to the higher stages of dilutions that actually help in retaining the medicinal properties of ultra-high dilutions. They should also have realized that it is not these ‘particles’ floating in top layers, but some factors currently unknown to them, that are the real active principles of ‘bulk’ solutions that lay beneath the “1% top layer” potentized drugs.
Most importantly, I still believe they should have taken appropriate precautions to ensure that the ‘particles’ they detected in ultra dilutions they tested did not actually come from contamination or improper potentization, but belong to original drug substances themselves.
I strongly believe, interpreting the IIT-B study from this right perspective, and arriving at right conclusions accordingly, without allowing unscientific ‘nanoparticle theoreticians’ to hijack this very important study into their pseudoscientific explanations, is a very important task essential in the scientific understanding of homeopathy. The scientific works they did using “drugs of metallic elements” should be replicated using complex vegetable and animal drugs also, in order to verify whether the ‘top layers’ of those preparations also contains particles of original drug substances- not metal elements only. The difference between ‘top mono-layer’ and underlying ’empty’ bulk solution in terms of their molecular constitution, chemical properties and spectroscopic behaviors also have to be ascertained.
According to IIT-B scientists, “1% TOP MONOLAYER” of each new potency contains “particles of starting materials” collected as nanobubbles, which are then as a whole “transferred” to new bottles for preparing higher potencies. The remaining bulk quantity probably does not contain any drug particles. It is this ’empty’ bulk quantity, devoid of any remnants of drug particles, that are used as therapeutic agents in homeopathy.
If so, what will be exact ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of our potentized drugs? Only answer that is rationally possible is MOLECULAR IMPRINTS.
Presumably, the original drug particles contained in “1% top layer” is carried over and utilized for molecular imprinting of water-ethyl alcohol vehicle during every successive stages of potentization. That is how original drug molecules are made available for molecular imprinting of even our ‘ultra’ dilutions that are very much above Avogadro limit.
For such a serious research to happen, IIT-B scientists themselves have to take the new initiative in integrating their scientific works with the ‘molecular imprinting’ concepts proposed by MIT. If they do so, I am sure it will open up new unseen horizons for homeopathy.
REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY 