I persistently try to expose all those ‘big’ people who are propagating homeopathy as a branch of ‘energy medicine’ or ‘spiritual healing’, not due to any personal vendetta. Actually, I do not know these people personally. I do this campaign as part of my mission of advancing homeopathy as a full-fledged ‘medical science’, which I think, cannot be achieved without freeing it from malignant influence of diverse shades of ‘energy medicine’ theories and their highly influential international propagators.
Using the scientific knowledge already available now, I have been trying to explore the exact molecular mechanism by which ANTIBODIES produce chronic diseases. Since ANTIBODIES are native globulin PROTEINS that have undergone misfolding by interacting with alien proteins, they can themselves behave as aliens in the organism and produce pathological inhibitions by binding to various biological molecules. Such molecular inhibitions caused by ANTIBODIES are the real molecular level villains playing behind various chronic diseases such as AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES, PROTEINOPATHIES, AMYLOID DISEASES AND PRION DISEASES. Hahnemann called these chronic residual effects of ANTIBODIES as MIASMS.
See, how Hahnemann’s concept of CHRONIC DISEASES relating it with INFECTIOUS MIASMS, paves the way for a SCIENTIFIC understanding of a whole class of grave diseases, and developing of a whole new range of therapeutic agents and techniques to combat them.
Hahnemann’s observations of CHRONIC DISEASES, relating it with INFECTIOUS DISEASES, would have been a revolutionary event in medical history, had anybody- be it hahnemann himself, his followers or scientists- taken up the task of explaining it in scientific terms.
Had anybody asked the question how an infectious disease can cause life-long RESIDUAL EFFECTS in the organism even after the infection is over, everything would have been clear. It would have been obvious that infectious agents can produce life-long RESIDUAL EFFECTS in the form of CHRONIC DISEASES only through ANTIBODIES generated in the body against infectious agents.
Such a realization would have helped medical as well as scientific community to view ANTIBODIES from a different perspective- as CAUSATIVE AGENTS of diverse types of CHRONIC DISEASES- over and above their role as DEFENSE molecules
It was hahnemann, who for the first time proposed that diverse types of CHRONIC DISEASES could be produced in the long run by INFECTIOUS agents, which he called MIASMS.
I have been trying to explain in scientific terms, how CHRONIC DISEASES could be produced by infectious agents, even after the infections are over. This led me into the realization that INFECTIOUS AGENTS can produce life-long chronic disease dispositions only through OFF TARGET actions of ANTIBODIES generated in the body against them.
I came to the conclusion that ANTIBODIES generated against ALIEN PROTEINS such as infectious agents and vaccines could be the real carriers of MIASMS hahnemann considered to be the fundamental cause of CHRONIC DISEASES.
Sir, How can I convince you something, if you hesitate to read anything? I regularly post at least one article everyday explaining my concept of ‘molecular imprints’ and their implication in homeopathy. How can you ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ with me without reading and understanding them? How can I prove my scientific concepts of homeopathy to somebody who does not know or is not willing to learn supra-molecular properties of water? How can I prove my concepts to somebody who does not know or is not willing to learn the subject matter of molecular imprinting technology? How can I prove my concepts to somebody who does not know or is not willing to learn the modern biochemistry and molecular biology? How can I prove my concepts to somebody who does not know or is not willing to learn advanced concepts of enzyme kinetics and molecular level pathology?
Kindly update your basic knowledge in the topics I discuss. Then only you can follow the concepts I talk about. Then only I can ‘prove’ molecular imprints concepts to you. Once you acquire the background knowledge and then read my articles, you will see that everything I say is simple science, and only very little remains to be ‘proved’ about homeopathy.
I am not “trying to change fundamental laws of homeopathy” as some friends are worried about. I am trying only to explain the fundamentals of homeopathy in a way fitting to modern scientific knowledge system. If you lend some time to go through my articles on my pages, you would realize that I have already explained ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’ scientifically and rationally.
Many homeopaths talk about ‘seven cardinal principles of hahnemann’, and believe that without following these ‘cardinal’ principles one cannot be a ‘true’ homeopath.
Did hahnemann ever say there are ‘seven’ cardinal principles in homeopathy? Kindly verify for references from hahnemann’s original works. When we say homeopaths should ‘follow’ certain ‘cardinal principles of hahnemann’, we should inquire about the original reference where hahnemann said these are the cardinal principles.
Actually hahnemann did not make a ‘list’ of principles. He made some objective observations regarding the phenomenon of ‘cure’, and inferred that an objective ‘law’ is working under this phenomenon. He called it ‘similia similibus curentur’.
While experimenting with smaller and smaller doses of drug substances to avoid the bad effects of crude drugging prevalent in conventional medicine during that period, he noticed that even highly diluted drugs have medicinal effects, even though there existed least chance for medicinal substance to be present in them
Then he took up the task of explaining these two phenomena ( similia similibus curentur and high dilution effects) using the existing scientific knowledge available to him, thereby trying to build up a simple, safe and effective therapeutic system.
Since the scientific knowledge system was in its primitive stage of evolution during that time, it was difficult to explain these observed phenomena using existing tool-kit of science. In the absence of necessary scientific knowledge available for accomplishing this task, he was compelled to speculate using philosophical concepts such as ‘dynamism’ or ‘vitalism’. Actually, ORGANON represents his highly intellectual attempts to explain his fundamental observations regarding phenomena of cure.
In organon, he discussed many things, from ‘vital force theory’ to ‘mesmerism’. That does not mean everything he discussed are ‘cardinal’ principles of homeopathy. If you want to identify such ‘cardinal’ or ‘basic’ things of homeopathy, they are ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’. They are the ‘fundamental objective observations’ of natural phenomena. Everything else is philosophical speculations, which are bound to change as our scientific knowledge advances.
Actually, the ‘seven cardinal principles’ were the invention of some later interpreters- not of hahnemann. Somebody understood homeopathy that way- that is all. You can ‘filter’ any number of ‘cardinal’ principles from hahnemann’s works, according to your perspectives and understandings. If you want to see ‘vital force’ as cardinal principle of homeopathy, somebody else could say ‘mesmerism’ is also a cardinal principle of homeopathy. You can list ‘seven’ or ‘seventy’.
Somebody involved in the making of homeopathic curriculum for Indian universities happened to be influenced by this ‘seven cardinal principles’ and included it in the syllabus. Indian students were taught that to be a ‘true’ homeopath, they should ‘follow’ these ‘seven’ principles. If it was part of your syllabus, somebody should have asked the teachers for original references from hahnemann and verify whether hahnemann did say these ‘seven’ are ‘cardinal principles’ of homeopathy. That is the way inquisitive minds should work and learn more and more deep.
According to my analysis, the only ‘cardinal’ or ‘basic’ things in homeopathy are ‘two’ fundamental observations hahnemann made regarding the objective phenomena of ‘cure’. They are ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’. Everything else is totally unscientific speculations and theorizations made in an attempt to explain these ‘basic’ observations. There is nothing ‘cardinal’ in those observations. It is our duty to explain hahnemann’s ‘fundamental observations’ in terms of modern scientific knowledge system.
I would like to call ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ and ‘Potentization’ as FUNDAMENTAL OBSERVATIONS OF HOMEOPATHY, rather than using the term ‘fundamental principles’. That would be more close to truth.
Hahnemann made two important observations regarding therapeutics 250 years ago:
1. Diseases with specific symptoms can be cured by drugs that can produce similar symptoms in healthy individuals. He called it ‘similia similibus curentur’.
2. When used according to ‘similia similibus curentur’, dug substances can act as powerful therapeutic agents even in high dilutions through a process of serial ‘dilution and succussion’. He called this process as ‘potentization’.
These TWO are the main OBSERVATIONS made by Hahnemann, which are known as fundamental principles of Homeopathy.
Hahnemann tried to explain these OBSERVATIONS in terms of scientific and philosophical knowledge available to him in that POINT OF TIME. Organon consists of these theoretical explanations and speculations. Since scientific knowledge was in its primitive stage at that time, Hahnemann’s explanations were bound to bear that limitations. ORGANON contains a lot of theorizations and speculations that do not agree with, or go against modern scientific understanding.
Equipped with modern scientific knowledge and its tools, we are now in a far better position than Samuel Hahnemann to explain the phenomena he observed 250 years ago. Now we can explain ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’ more scientifically, rationally and logically. With full respect the great genius of our master, we should be truthful and bold enough to discard those evidently unscientific theoretical speculations of ORGANON.
These two FUNDAMENTAL OBSERVATIONS were based on experiences, experiments and logical evaluations of OBJECTIVE PHENOMENA OF NATURE done by a great intellectual person. But the ‘principles’ he used to explain these objective phenomena were unscientific, obviously due to the limitations of scientific knowledge available to him at that time. We should accept his OBSERVATIONS, but judiciously discard or modify his unscientific PRINCIPLES.
Some people consider each and every word uttered by our ‘master’ as ‘fundamental principles’ of homeopathy. Some others would even include the words of other ‘stalwarts’ like Kent, Herring and the like also in the category of ‘fundamental’ principles.
All these ‘theories’ are only philosophical explanations, conjectures, interpretations, opinions and empirical conclusion based on personal experiences of ‘stalwarts’ and ‘masters’. They are not ‘fundamental principles’ of homeopathy.
If you understand the scientific meaning of ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’, and judiciously apply them for curing the patients, you are a ‘true homeopath’, even if you do not ‘follow’ the ‘seven cardinal principles’ invented by unscientific interpreters of hahnemann.
A ‘true’ homeopath is one who understands and applies homeopathy ‘scientifically- not one who learns homeopathy dogmatically and applies it blindly.
The main point I raise in this article is whether the concept of “seven cardinal principles” originally belongs to hahnemann or his later interpreters. Hahnemann said many things in his books, from ‘similia’ to ‘mesmerism’. Who decided only these ‘seven’ are ‘cardinal’ and others are not? What is the logic behind such a selection? Who did it?
My claim of homeopathy as a specialized branch of modern molecular medicine evolves from my understanding of homeopathic potentization as a process of molecular imprinting.
Conventionally, molecular imprinting is a technology of preparing three dimensional artificial binding sites for molecules in polymer matrix, which are widely used in many biological assays, molecular separation protocols and many other laboratory applications.
From studying the ‘polymer-like’ behavior of water in its ‘supra-molecular’ structural level, I am fully convinced that water, especially water-ethyl alcohol mixture can also be used as a medium for molecular imprinting similar to polymers, and the ‘molecular imprints’ thus produced can be safely used as therapeutic agents, since molecular imprints can act as selective artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules.
My contention is, this phenomenon of molecular imprinting is involved in homeopathic potentization, and the active principles of potentized drugs are ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules.
I know, it will be difficult for homeopaths as well as allopaths to accept my statement “homeopathy should be considered as an advanced branch of modern molecular medicine”.
Even my most optimistic homeopath friends would think my statement as an over-exaggerated claim about homeopathy. They would wonder how I dare to relate homeopathy with modern molecular medicine, which according to them are mutually incompatible and inimical.
For scientific people it would be difficult even to imagine how a 250 year old and still unproved therapeutic system such as homeopathy could be claimed to be an advanced branch of modern medical science.
Homeopathy is considered by the scientific community as a nonsense theory and superstitious practice based on unscientific philosophy of vitalism, where as homeopaths still prefer to explain and market it as a ‘spiritualistic’ healing art.
In this peculiar intellectual context, I am aware it will be extremely difficult for both scientific community as well as homeopathic community to accept my claim that homeopathy is an ‘advanced branch of modern molecular medicine’. I will have to struggle much to present the logic behind my statement in a convincing way.
I would request both sections to study the phenomenon of ‘high dilution therapeutics’ in terms of molecular imprinting.
Kent said in Lesser Writings: “You cannot divorce medicine and theology. Man exists all the way down from his innermost spiritual to his outermost natural”.
Remember, this is not the words of a religious preacher. These words were spoken by a great physician while explaining the philosophy of homeopathy to his students. This statement clearly exposes the world outlook of Kent, which he used abundantly while explaining homeopathic philosophy.
By saying “you cannot divorce medicine from theology”,Kent actually ‘divorced homeopathy from scientific thought’ for ever.Kent remains to be the most quoted and most followed ‘homeopathic philosopher’ for that class of ‘spiritual homeopaths’, who want homeopathy to remain ‘divorced’ from modern scientific knowledge and scientific methods.
Kent can be rightfully called the ‘father’ of ‘spiritual’ homeopathy.
James Tylor Kent is considered to be next only to Samulel Hahnemann in the history of homeopathy. The repertory he complied still continues to be the most widely used repertory among homeopathic community. What a neophyte understands as homeopathic philosophy is actually ‘Kentian philosophy’. Kent’s ‘Philosophical Lectures’ is used as the basic text book to teach ‘homeopathic philosophy’ in colleges. No wonder the majority of homeopathic community vehemently resist any scientific thought or approach evolving in homeopathy. To be known as a ‘kentian homeopath’ is considered to be most respectable position among homeopaths.
I am quoting following statements of J T KENT from his two famous works, which amply demonstrate the ‘theological’ and ‘spiritualistic’ approach he consciously implanted into the body of homeopathic philosophy.
1. ‘You cannot divorce medicine and theology. Man exists all the way down from his innermost spiritual to his outermost natural.’ [Lesser Writings, p.641]
2. ‘A man who cannot believe in God cannot become a homeopath.” [p.671]
3. ‘The body became corrupt because man’s interior will became corrupt.’ [ibid, p.681]
4. ‘Man…becomes disposed to sickness by doing evil, through thinking wrong…’ [ibid, p.664]
5. ‘Psora is the evolution of the state of man’s will, the ultimates of sin.’ [ibid, p.654]
6. ‘This outgrowth, which has come upon man from living a life of evil willing, is Psora.’ [ibid, p.654]
7. ‘Thinking, willing and doing are the 3 things in life from which finally proceed the chronic miasms.’ [ibid, p.654]
1. ‘…had Psora never been established as a miasm upon the human race… susceptibility to acute diseases would have been impossible… it is the foundation of all sickness.’ [Lectures, p.126]
2. ‘Psora…is a state of susceptibility to disease from willing evils.’ [ibid, p.135]
3. ‘The human race today walking the face of the earth, is but little better than a moral leper. Such is the state of the human mind at the present day. To put it another way everyone is Psoric.’ [ibid, p.135]
4. ‘Psora…would not exist in a perfectly healthy race.’ [ibid, p.133]
5. ‘As long as man continued to think that which was true and held that which was good to the neighbour, that which was uprightness and justice, so long man remained free from disease, because that was the state in which he was created.’ [ibid, p.134]
6. ‘The internal state of man is prior to that which surrounds him; therefore, the environment is not the cause…’ [ibid, p.136]
7. ‘Diseases correspond to man’s affections, and the diseases upon the human race today are but the outward expression of man’s interiors… man hates his neighbour, he is willing to violate every commandment; such is the state os man today. This state is represented in man’s diseases.’ [ibid, p.136]
8. ‘The Itch is looked upon as a disgraceful affair; so is everything that has a similar correspondence; because the Itch in itself has a correspondence with adultery…’ [ibid, p.137]
9. ‘How long can this thing go on before the human race is swept from the earth with the results of the suppression of Psora?’ [ibid, pp.137-8]
10. ‘Psora is the beginning of all physical sickness… is the underlying cause and is the primitive or primary disorder of the human race.’ [ibid, p.126]
11. ‘…for it goes to the very primitive wrong of the human race, the very first sickness of the human race that is the spiritual sickness…which in turn laid the foundation for other diseases. [ibid, p.126]
It is obvious from these quotes that Kent took a very puritanical and moral approach towards the origins of disease within the human race and he apparently felt that Psora was equivalent to ‘Original Sin’ or the ‘Fall of Man’. That is why he says ‘homeopathy cannot be divorced from theology.
Hahnemann only said that Psora was the most ancient and insidious miasm, and that it was derived from skin eruptions of various types in the past, such as scabies (Itch), leprosy and psoriasis. These had been contracted by ancestors or in one’s own early childhood. The suppression of these conditions especially through the use of ointments he held to be the primary cause of Psora.
“Psora is that most ancient, most universal, most destructive, and yet most misapprehended chronic miasmatic disease which for many thousands of years has disfigured and tortured mankind… and become the mother of all the thousands of incredibly various chronic diseases… [Chronic Diseases, p9]”
But Kent, in his Lectures, greatly enlarged upon the theory of miasms, proposing that Psora was the foundation of all other illness, without which mankind would be pure and healthy both in mind and body, as in the Garden of Eden. He thus regarded Psora as being equated with the ‘Fall of Man’ and with original sinfulness. He portrayed Psora in this highly moralistic light as also being the foundation of the sexual miasms that came later.
Beyond any doubt,Kent here deviated a lot from original concepts of Hahnemann regarding miasms, there by making homeopathy more of theology than medical science.
The theory of miasms originates in Hahnemann’s book The Chronic Diseases which was published in 1828. Around the same time that hahnemann decided to fix 30c as the standard potency for all homoeopaths. He declared that the theory was the result of 12 years of the most painstaking work on difficult cases of a chronic character combined with his own historical research into the diseases of man. But it was kent, who made homeopathy an art of ‘ultra high’ dilutions.
From the quotes above, it is clear thatKentemphasized the moral aspect of origin of miasms, connecting it with ‘sexual sins’. Hahnemann unlike Kent, attached no moral dimension whatsoever to the sexual nature of the two latter miasms.
See Kent saying: ‘You cannot divorce medicine and theology”. And, ‘A man who cannot believe in God cannot become a homeopath.”
Being spiritual does not necessarily make one a ‘good’ homeopath or ‘bad’ homeopath. If one know how to apply simila similibus curentur correctly, and have enough knowledge of materia medica, anybody can be a ‘good’ homeopath. It was Kent, who unnecessarily introduced the issue of being spiritualist or not as a condition to be a ‘good’ homeopath. His statement that “one who does not believe in god cannot be a homeopath” is totally irrelevant. Hahnemann never placed that condition. It was kent who ‘married’ homeopathy with theology- not hahnemann. I was discussing that aspect of kent’s contribution in my article. In my opinion, without freeing homeopathy from this ‘theological’ and ‘spiritualistic’ philosophy of kent, we cannot study and practice homeopathy as a ‘medical science’. Homeopathy will remain a ‘theological’ or ‘spiritualistic’ healing art as kent wanted it to be.
All those ‘SPOKESPERSONS’, ‘LEADERS’, ‘MASTERS’, ‘EINSTEINS’, ‘LIONS’, ‘GURUS’ and ‘AUTHORITIES’ of homeopathy should realize the simple fact that High Dilution Therapeutics involved in homeopathy could be rationally explained ONLY in terms of Molecular Imprinting. Until you realize and accept this truth, and reconstitute your ideas and ‘methods’, accordingly, all your intellectual exercises about building ‘theories’ will lead homeopathy to no where but into a total pseudo-scientific and superstitious mess.
Homeopathy is Molecular Imprints Therapeutics (MIT)- An advanced branch of modern molecular medicine. Fundamental difference between modern molecular medicine and homeopathy is that where as molecular medicine uses ‘drug molecules’ as therapeutic agents, homeopathy uses ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules.
A scientist can be a spiritualist also. But a man with ‘scientific world outlook’ cannot be a spiritualist. You can give any number of great scientists who were spiritualists. Being a spiritualist, a scientist cannot utilize full potentials of scientific knowledge. To follow a ‘scientific world out look’ is is entirely different from ‘knowledge in science’. Homeopathy cannot be a ‘scientific medicine’, if you understand and practice it as ‘spiritual medicine’ or ‘theological medicine’. I know the influence of spiritualism and kentian philosophy is very deep rooted among homeopaths, and my statement in this regard will not be easily accepted by the profession. But I am sure, homeopaths having ‘scientific world outlook’ will accept my statement.
Kent said “one who do not believe in god cannot be a homeopath. No man with a scientific world outlook can agree to this statement. Homeopathy as a medical science has nothing to do with ‘believing in god’. You can believe or not believe in god, and be a good homeopath.
I am fully convinced that without freeing homeopathic philosophy and homeopathic community from the spiritualistic or theological influence of ‘kentian philosophy’, we cannot hope homeopathy to become a scientific medical system.
Studying homeopathic philosophy directly from the original works of hahnemann such as organon and chronic diseases, using scientific and logical mindset is essential first step to free oneself from the influence of ‘spiritualistic’ philosophy ofKent. Only then can we realize the importance of scientific understanding of homeopathy.
Classical concepts of ‘miasms’ and methods of ‘miasmatic analysis’ for selecting ‘anti-miasmatic’ drugs will undergo drastic changes when we accept the definition of homeopathy as ‘Molecular Imprints Therapeutics’. According to new approach, hahnemann’s concept of miasms is redefined as chronic disease dispositions due to ‘off-target’ molecular inhibitions caused by antibodies formed against ‘alien’ proteins including infectious agents entering the organism. Most of these antibodies exist life-long inside the organism, causing diverse types of chronic diseases which include so-called auto-immune diseases also. To combat these chronic effects of anti-bodies, specific nosodes and other ‘anti-miasmatic’ remedies containing ‘molecular imprints’ that could de-ctivate these antibodies will have to be used. Anti-miasmatic ‘molecular imprints’ will have to be selected on the basis of infectious diseases, vaccinations and anaphylactic histories. Properly selected specific anti-miasmatic drugs will have to be used along with symptomatically selected drugs, especially in ‘total cure’ prescriptions.
Theoretically, ‘totality of symptoms’ include symptoms of ‘miasms’ also. I think ‘symptoms’ need not be the ‘only’ factor to considered if we have an exact understanding of ‘molecular level pathology’. Symptoms are only ‘one of the tools’ for identifying pathological molecular errors and selecting remedial agents’. When we know the ‘causative’ factors. we can prescribe without considering symptoms. Locating the ‘molecular errors’ is the primary concern, whatever be the tools we utilize for that.Theoretically, ‘totality of symptoms’ include symptoms of ‘miasms’ also. I think ‘symptoms’ need not be the ‘only’ factor to considered if we have an exact understanding of ‘molecular level pathology’. Symptoms are only ‘one of the tools’ for identifying pathological molecular errors and selecting remedial agents’. When we know the ‘causative’ factors. we can prescribe without considering symptoms. Locating the ‘molecular errors’ is the primary concern, whatever be the tools we utilize for that.
Materia medica of nosodes are much imperfect, and repertories do not represent them in due importance. Due to this limitation, we never get nosodes as similimum through symptomatic repertorization.
Not only past ‘illness’, we should also consider history of vaccinations and ‘allergies’, when we define miasms as antibodies against ‘alien proteins’.
So called ‘allergies’ have to be considered from miasmatic point of view. Allergic sensitisation happen due to the interaction of immune system with ‘allergens’ which are in most cases alien proteins. Potentized allergens would contain molecular imprints of these alien proteins, and hence should be considered as nosodes.
Allergy is actually the reaction of organism towards an ‘alien’ protein entering the organism. Antibodies are formed as a mechanism for trapping, marking and destructing these alien proteins, which are harmful to the system as they are proteins that do not match to the ‘genetic blueprint’ of the organism. As such, we can say, allergy is the reaction of organism towards proteins that do not match to its own genetic blueprint. That is why they become ‘aliens’. Even ‘egg albumin’, ‘saliva’ or ‘serum’ of an animal belonging to another species become deadly poisons due to the mismatch of genetic blueprint and protein molecules.
You can see, the MIT approach makes the concept of ‘miasms’ much broader than classical approach. Instead of three miasms originating from three major infectious diseases that was widely prevalent during hahnemann’s time, now we can see all ‘chronic disease’ dispositions originating from antibodies formed against diverse types of ‘alien’ proteins. This approach help us to perceive so-called ‘auto-immune’ diseases from a new angle. It is known that many ‘auto-immune’ diseases such as psoriasis, vitiligo and chrohn’s disease actually begins after some infections or allergic sensitizations, which shows the currently accepted ‘auto immunity’ theory will have to be re examined. In my opinion, so-called ‘auto-immune’ diseases are also caused by off-target molecular inhibitions created by antibodies formed against alien proteins. In other words, auto-immune diseases are also ‘mismatic’ in origin, and can be treated with appropriate nosodes.
Obviously, re-evaluation of the concept of ‘auto-immune diseases’ in modern medical science is a very important implication of MIT definition of homeopathy.
Similia Similibus Curentur means, a drug in potentized or ‘molecular imprints’ form can cure diseases having symptoms similar to those produced by that drug in crude or ‘molecular’ forms.
If symptoms of a disease and symptoms produced by a drug appear ‘similar’, that means the natural disease as well as drug disease have ‘similar’ molecular errors behind them, happened in similar biological molecules.
That means, molecules contained in drug as well as molecules contained in pathogenic agents were capable of attacking similar biological targets and producing similar molecular errors.
That means, drug molecules and pathogenic molecules have similar spacial conformations and similar gunctional groups, so that they could attack similar biological molecules and produce similar molecular errors
As such, ‘similia similibus curentur’ means, ‘molecular inhibitions’ caused by pathogenic molecules can be removed by using molecular imprints of drug molecules having spacial conformations and functional groups similar to the pathogenic molecules.
Molecular imprints are three supramolecular formations of water-ethyl alcohol molecules, into which the conformations of drug molecules are imprinted as three dimensional nano cavities. These nanocavities can act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules similar to the molecules used for imprinting.
Homeopaths consider ‘susceptibility’ of the individual as the fundamental ‘cause’ of disease. According to them, ‘susceptibility’ is a property of ‘vital force’, which is a ‘dynamic’,‘non-material’, ‘non-corporeal’, ‘conceptual’ and spiritual entity that enlivens and governs the organism from the ‘interior’. As such, ‘susceptibility’ to diseases is also ‘dynamic’.
As per this concept, ‘classical’ homeopaths would persistently argue that even so-called ‘infectious diseases’ are not caused by bacteria or viruses, but the ‘internal susceptibility’, dynamic in nature. They say: “Small pox virus is not the cause of smallpox, vibrio cholerae is not the cause of cholera”. According to this theory, homeopathy is not involved with ‘treating infections’, but ‘correcting’ the susceptibility.
‘Constitutional susceptibility’ and ‘miasmatic susceptibility’ are terms frequently encountered in homeopathic discussions.
Similar to ‘vital force’ theory regarding diseases, and ‘dynamization’ theory of potentized drugs, this ‘dynamic’ theory of ‘susceptibility’ is another stumbling block that prevents homeopathy from becoming a scientific medical system. With such a totally unscientific theory homeopathy cannot effectively communicate with scientific community.
‘Susceptibility’ in medical terms means the ‘state or character of being susceptible to disease’.
In epidemiology “a susceptible individual is a member of a population who is at risk of becoming infected by a disease, or can not take a certain medicine, antibiotic, etc if he or she is exposed to the infectious agent.”
From the viewpoint of immunology, ‘susceptible’ individuals have been exposed to neither the wild strain of the disease nor a vaccination against it, and thus have not developed immunity. Those individuals who have antibodies against an antigen associated with a particular infectious disease will not be susceptible, even if they did not produce the antibody themselves (for example, infants younger than six months who still have maternal antibodies passed through the placenta and from the colostrum, and adults who have had a recent injection of antibodies). However, these individuals soon return to the susceptible state as the antibodies are broken down.
Some individuals may have a genetically determined natural resistance to a particular infectious disease. However, except in some special cases, these individuals make up such a small proportion of the total population
In Virology, ‘susceptibility’ is an important factor that decides the possibility of viral infections. Viruses are only able to cause disease or pathologies if they meet several criteria: 1. The virus is able to enter the cell (called a susceptible state). 2. There is a sufficient number of viruses within the cell. 3. The virus is able to replicate within the cell (called a permissive state). Hence ‘susceptibility’ only refers to the fact that the virus is able to get into the cell, via having the proper receptor(s), and as a result, despite the fact that a host may be susceptible, the virus may still not be able to cause any pathologies within the host. Reasons for this are varied and may include suppression by the host immune system, or abortive measures taken by intrinsic cell defenses.” All these factors belong purely to biochemistry- nothing ‘dynamic’
There is no doubt, ‘susceptibility’ plays a major role in disease processes. When we sow same seeds on different fields, their rate of germination and growth will be different. The environmental conditions of soil, atmosphere and climate play a decisive role in this process. Availability of nutrients, water, sunlight, and various other micro-level factors influence the germination of seeds and growth of seedlings. If we sow same seeds on a barren rock, it will not germinate. This shows the role of environmental factors.
In a similar way, the internal biochemical environment of the organism, which is also more or less influenced by external environment, plays a role in deciding the ‘susceptibility’ of the individual to diseases including infections. ‘Causative’ agents of diseases are expressed in a biochemical background of ‘susceptibility’.
Internal biochemical environment that decide ‘susceptibility’ consist of diverse factors belonging to following categories:
In order to promote a scientific perspective in homeopathy, we should understand and explain ‘susceptibility’ as the ‘state of internal biochemical environment of the organism that facilitates diseases’.
‘Susceptibility’ can be changed for the better using potentized homeopathic drugs selected as similimum considering the totality of physical generals, mentals and miasmatic molecular errors of the individual.
Since homeopathy is practiced on the basis of therapeutic principle of ‘Similia Similibus Curentu’, many homeopaths think that clinical diagnosis has no place in homeopathic practice.They consider these factors only of lesser value, helpful only for ‘patient satisfaction’ or ‘prognosis’.
I think we should perceive the information provided by modern technological advancements and laboratory investigations as part of collecting ‘objective’ symptoms, and learn to utilize them in the search for similimum.
All diagnostic tools provided by ‘modern technology’ are only extensions of physician’s sense organs, which help in making ‘enhanced’ observation of his patient’s symptoms. Similar to the ordinary spectacle that enhances the vision or stethoscope enhances the sounds, laboratory tests and sophisticated equipments ‘enhances’ our observation. As such, information provided by these tests and tools should be considered as ‘Objective Symptoms’ similar to any other objective symptoms, and can be utilized in finding similimum. Only problem is, since our drug provings were not conducted insuch a technologically advanced environment, they do not provide these types of ‘enhanced symptoms’. Due to ill-equipped drug- provings so far conducted, we have no a systematic knowledge of such symptoms now available in our materia medica. But, we can collect such clinical observations from daily practice, and enrich our materia medica.
I hope future drug proving protocols will incorporate modern technology, and collect these ‘enhanced observations’ also and add them to future materia medica compilations. Then, homeopathy will be in a position to utilize these information also in finding appropriate similimum.
I am saying lab investigations should be made part of drug proving protocol, and such information included in materia medica as ‘symptoms’, so that they could be used for finding similimum. That is why I said lab investigations should be part of ‘homeopathic case taking’, not part of ‘homeopathic practice’. I wanted to highlight that difference.
Information obtained from such investigations could be utilized as ‘Objective Symptoms’, I mean. That means, we can make ‘homeopathic prescriptions’ based on lab investigations also, along with other symptoms