I AM REPRODUCING HERE A VERY PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSION BETWEEN DR. RAJESH SHAH AND MYSELF THAT HAPPENED ON HIS PAGE REGARDING THE VARIOUS ISSUES RELATED WITH NANO-PARTICLE RESEARCH IN HOMEOPATHY:
April 20 at 9:21pm · Mumbai ·
Quoted from the report:
“”For years, homeopathy is stated to have been using the process of converting snake venom and poison from scorpions, spiders and wild bees into medicinal substances by transforming them into nano-particles that have proved safe and effective for patients.”
Can anybody “transform snake venom and poison from scorpions, spiders and wild bees” into NANO-PARTICLES? Did any ‘researcher’ ever detect ‘nanoparticles of snake poison’ in potentized homeopathic drugs?
If you do not know the answer, ask somebody who knows what really are ‘snake venom”, ‘nano-particle’ and ‘nanotechnology’.
: Scientists like you could take up the study to examine the ‘NANOPARTICLES’ if any, from snake venom, as remarked by the journalist. Let’s form a habit of undertaking actual research in the lab instead of ‘only’ criticising sitting in the office! Time to scrutinise every aspect of our homeopathy belief system. Let’s transform homeopathy from ‘belief system’ to ‘scientific system’ by action; not just by words.
It was not the “remark” of a journalist. It was the words of your colleague, quoted by the journalist. I agree with you, sir. I have great respect for you. But I warn you, beware of the short-sighted, money-minded people around you, who are going to take you into great trouble and bad fame. You will understand the meaning of my words in near future. Actually, it was the main reason why avoided the GHF event
I had personally invited you to GHF!
I am trying to “understand actual research in the lab”. Evaluation, criticism and interpretation are essential part of “understanding lab results”. I have gone very deep into the nanoparticle research. That is why I raise some questions about. it.
Sure sir. You personally invited me. I agreed to come first, as I thought it will be a great opportunity for MIT. But later, when I came to know about other ‘organizers’ whom I personally know very well, I became suspicious of the real intentions. I know from previous experiences they only want to come to lime light by any way, or make some money. That is why I stayed back.
Questioning is not bad; but necessary. Nanoparticle is the proof of the content of homeopathy medicine. Many misunderstand it as proof of efficacy. Proof of efficacy comes from many studies; as presented at WHS. I can’t describe them here.
One should get attracted by the purpose; not by people!
Our ‘homeopathic researchers’ always use ‘elemental’ or ‘mineral’ drugs such as ferrum, zincum, cuprum, carbon etc for their ‘nanoparticle studies’. They never use complex vegetable drugs, animal drugs or nosodes for their ‘nanoparticle’ research..
You know why? The answer will expose the hollowness of ‘nanoparticle theory of homeopathy’.
Our new ‘nanoparticle researchers’ say they detected nanoparticles of ‘vegetable charcoal’ in all samples of ‘vegetable and organic’ drugs they tested in ultra-dilutions.’ ‘Vegetable charcoal’ means CARBON.
And they came to the queer conclusion that these nanoparticles are the active principles of potentized drugs.
If all ‘vegetable and organic’ drugs act by CARBON NANOPARTICLES, why should we use different drugs? Is it not enough to use potentized carbon or CARBO VEG only?
Is it not absurd to say NUX VOMICA and PULSATILLA are similar, since both contain CARBON?
What is going on here, in the name of ‘homeopathic research’? Do you realize, you are making homeopathy a piece of mockery by this act?
Can anybody “transform snake venom and poison from scorpions, spiders and wild bees” into NANO-PARTICLES? Did any ‘researcher’ ever detect ‘nanoparticles of snake venom’ in potentized homeopathic drugs?
If we do not know the answer, let us ask somebody who knows what really are ‘snake venom”, ‘nano-particle’ and ‘nanotechnology’.
The ‘nanoparticle researchers’ of homeopathy say they detected “QUANTUM DOTS” in potentized drugs, and try to theorize that homeopathic drugs act by the power of these ‘quantum dots’. I would suggest they should consult with some real scientists about this ‘quantum dots’ before publishing this type of ‘theories’.
‘Quantum dots’ are tiny particles or nanocrystals of a semiconducting material with diameters in the range of 2-10 nanometers (10-50 atoms). That means, quantum dots are nothing but ‘very small’ nanoparticles. (size of nanoparticles is 10-100 nanometers, and that of quantum dots is 2-10 nanometers). Quantum dots were discovered by Alexey Ekimov at first in 1981 in a glass matrix.
Although some pure elements and many compounds display semiconductor properties, silicon, germanium, and compounds of gallium are the most widely used in electronic devices. Elements near the so-called “metalloid staircase”, where the metalloids are located on the periodic table, are usually used as semiconductors.
What our ‘researchers’ detected in ultra-dilutions as QUANTUM DOTS are actually the SILICON particles detaching from mortars during trituretion, and from glass vials during dilution and succussion . They will be most probably present in all homeopathic drugs. It is absurd to theorize that these SILICA particles or QUANTUM DOTS are the active principles of potentized drugs.
Homeopaths should understand, by saying homeopathic potencies contain “quantum dots” that can “influence genetic material”, our respected ‘savior of homeopathy’ is doing a great disservice to homeopathy. By saying homeopathic potentized drugs can directly “influence genetic material”, they are opening doors for our enemies to attack homeopathy by labeling it as a dangerous thing. Any drug that can “influence genetic material” will be looked upon by people as unsafe things to be used as medicines.
Study the supra-molecular re-arrangement happening in water and ethyl alcohol mixture during potentization. Key to the scientific understanding of homeopathy lies there. Your search for ‘nanoparticles’ of original drug substances in ultra-dilutions is actually leading you to a wrong direction. You may detect some particles of ‘metallic elements’ remaining either due to contamination or improper potentization, but you can never explain the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure on that basis. Earlier you realize this truth, the better it will be for the future advancement of homeopathy.
READ THIS PARAGRAPH FROM IIT-B PAPER:
“Another question that arises from our observations is how in spite of such huge dilutions the particles of the starting materials are retained even at 200c potency?
The answer to this question could lie in the manufacturing process itself. We perceive that during the succussion process, the pounding of solutions against a rubber stop generates numerous nanobubbles as a result of entrapment of air and cavitation due to generation of ultra-sound waves.
The particles of the starting material instantaneously get adsorbed on the surface of these bubbles and cavitations. This phenomenon could be similar to the mechanism of formation of Pickering emulsions, wherein the emulsified phase viz. air bubbles or liquid droplets are stabilized by a layer of particles.
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 succussion 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.”
BEING SCIENTISTS, THEY CANNOT SHY AWAY FROM THE QUESTION “how in spite of such huge dilutions the particles of the starting materials are retained even at 200c potency”. Being scientists, they cannot say Avogadro number is not applicable to homeopathic dilutions, as our ‘homeopathic scientists’ conveniently do.
If ‘nanoparticles of starting materials’ are detected in a sample of material diluted to 200C which is much above avogadro limit, the first question naturally arising in the mind of a ‘scientist’ or a even a science-conscious person is “how in spite of such huge dilutions the particles of the starting materials are retained”. Being scientists, IIT-B team were bound to answer that question. They did it in the statement quoted above:
According to their view, during succussion, “the pounding of solutions against a rubber stop generates numerous nanobubbles as a result of entrapment of air and cavitation due to generation of ultra-sound waves”, and the “particles of the starting material instantaneously get adsorbed on the surface of these bubbles and cavitations”.
Then what happens? “This nanoparticle-nanobubble complex rises to the surface and can be within a monolayer”. “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 succussion 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,”
DID YOU UNDERSTAND THE EXPLANATION PROVIDED BY THE SCIENTISTS?
They said, nanoparticles of starting materials will be present only in the “1% of the top layer of the solution”.
They said, it is this top layer that is used for preparing the next higher dilution.
They said, “the entire starting material continues to go from one dilution to the next” during each stage of potentization.
Dear homeopaths, as per your knowledge are the IIT-B scientists right in saying only the “top mono-layer of the solution” is used to prepare higher dilution?
Dear homeopaths, Do you think the IIT-B scientists are right in saying “entire starting material continues to go from one dilution to the next”?
If they are right, the 99% solution remaining after transfer of “1% top layer” will not contain any nanoparticles.
Do you think the 99% solution remaining after transfer of “1% top layer” are discarded by the manufacturers?
The specific question I raised in this post is:
If nanoparticles are present only in the 1% top layer of the solution, and if “the entire starting material continues to go from one dilution to the next”, how can they say these ultra dilutions act by nanoparticles? If they are right, the homeopathic drug samples remaining after “transfer” of “1% top layer” to the next bottle will be therapeutically ineffective!
Enemies of homeopathy know better than anybody else that ‘proving’ the presence of ‘nanoparticles’ of ‘metallic elements’ in potentized homeopathic drugs is the best way to ‘finish’ homeopathy for ever, since it will automatically raise the issue of ‘nanotoxicity’ and prove homeopathy is not safe, on the basis of which stringent regulations could be initiated.
If ‘starting materials’ are proved to be present even in ultra-dilutions, it will unquestionably prove that the fundamental theory of homeopathic ‘potentization’ is a lie.
If this detection of nanoparticles in homeopathic drugs was done directly by modern scientists or nanotechnology labs, homeopaths would have easily recognized the anti-homeopathic big pharma conspiracy involved in it. Since it is made to be done by fame-seeking homeopaths themselves by providing funds, lab facilities and publicity, homeopathic community fail to recognize the conspiracy involved in it.
Time will prove the truth, but homeopathy will have no time to defend or repair the damages.
If this ‘research’ is true, homeopathy has lost all its credibility and right of existence. I am sure, this ‘nanoparticle research’ is utter nonsense. Only thing to know is, who is behind this farce. Time will prove.
Homeopathic drugs will not actually cause any nanotoxicity. But enemies of homeopathy can now enhance their antihomeopathic propaganda raising nanotoxicity issue. They can accuse, homeopathy medicine contains very dangerous particles of lead, ars, mercury etc. They can prove homeopathic potentization is only a fraud. They can ask governments to initiate stringent regulations. They can ask homeopathic drugs should be tested and certified to ensure their ‘nanoparticle’ levels are in safety range.
I SMELL SOMETHING FISHY. TIME WILL PROVE THE TRUTH. BUT HOMEOPATHY WILL HAVE TO UNDERGO GRAVE DAMAGE BY THAT TIME.
Here I am referring to two slides presented at GHF summit regarding ‘nanoparticles study’ of AURUM METALLICUM.
Watch both slides carefully. It is said that potentized aurum met contains ‘nanoparticles’ containing Aurum, Aluminium, Silica, Pottassium, Ferrum, Cuprum, Indium, Hafnium, Sodium, Chlorine, Boron, Cobalt and Carbon, along with ‘Quantum Dots’.
Nanoparticles detected in Aurum Met contains Aurum in following ratios:
6C contains 2.82%, 30C contains 89.06%, 200C contains 12.14%, 1M contains 1.24%, 10M contains 24%, 50M contains 9.73 %, CM contains 6.58% of elemental aurum.
15.63% of ALUMINIUM is present in nanoparticles detected in Aurum Met 1M. But other potencies of Aurum met does not contain any ALUMINIUM.
Where from this aluminium came in aurum met 1m only, which was not present in 6c, 30c, 200c, 10m or cm?
See the fun.Nanoparticles detected in Aur met 1m contains only 1.24% aurum, where it contains 15.63% aluminium.
If ‘nanoparticles are active principles of AURUM MET 1M, does it act by 15.63% aluminium or 1.24% aurum?
If AUR MET 6C contains AUR 2.82% and CUPRUM 75.82%, which will be the active principles? CUPRUM or AURUM?
If AUR 200 contains AURUM 12.14%, POTTASSIUM 29.36%, CUPRUM 25.8%, and SODIUM 20.08%, how can you say AURUM NANOPARTICLES are the active principles of Aur Met 200?
If AUR MET 50M contains AURUM 9.73% , CUPRUM 53.27%, and COBALT 23%, how can you say it is AURUM MET? Rather callit and use it as CUPRUM MET?
If AURUM MET CM contains AURUM 6.58%. CUPRUM 35.36, and HAFNIUM 36.56%, is it appropriate to use it as AURUM?
Hope some ‘nanoparticles specialists’ would explain.
If you look into these two slides carefully, you will get a lot of things to laugh at!!
Before declaring that homeopathic ‘ultra-dilutions’ are ‘filled with’ NANO-PARTICLES of starting materials, first you have to scientifically disprove Avogadro law regarding the number of molecules contained in one gram mol of any substance.
You will have to explain where from this unending supply of these nanoparticles come even after diluting millions of times! Can potentization duplicate particles, or generate new ones?
To a rationally thinking person, it is obvious that the starting material will exhaust once the dilution crosses avogadro limit, and if ‘nanoparticles’ are still ‘filled’ in higher dilutions, either the dilutions were not genuine, or it has nothing to do with ‘starting materials’.
If you cannot explain the molecular level biological mechanism by which the ‘nanoparticles’ act as the therapeutic factors of homeopathic medicines, your claims regarding detection of nanoparticles does not contribute anything positive in the scientific understanding of homeopathy
Your concerns are relevant; but I think, nano-toxicity is not likely to be a challenge.
I said it, sir. Our drugs cannot cause any nanotoxicity.
Purchase some samples of ‘ultra dilutions’from the market, pay Rs 5000 to a ‘nanotechmology lab’, get the samples tested for presence of ‘nanoparticles’! Go to the press and declare that you have proved ‘homeopathy is scientific’! Then go to a ‘global seminar’ and present a paper on your ‘research’.
Nothing done to ensure the samples you purchased were genuine ultra dilutions.
Nothing done to rule out contaminations.
No control samples tested.
Nothing done to prove these nanoparticles are the real active principles of potentized drugs.
Nothing done to prove that the samples from which nanoparticles are removed are therapeutically ineffective.
No questions asked about the various possibilities of ‘nanoparticles’ getting detected in the samples.
Nothing discussed how these nanoparticles can represent the medicinal properties of complex drug molecules.
Nothing discussed about the biological mechanism by which these nanoparticles act as therapeutic agents.
Nothing explained how this nanoparticles fit into the theory of similia similibus curentur.
HOW CAN YOU CLAIM THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, NOT A CHILD’S PLAY?
I am frustrated to see the homeopathic community getting fooled by fame-seeking and business-motivated ‘researchers’ who claim to have detected ‘nanoparticles’ of silica, carbon and metallic elements in samples of potentized homeopathic drugs.
I am frustrated because, this ‘detection of nanoparticles’ is going to be utilized for framing an undefendable ‘nanotoxicity case’ against homeopathy in very near future, and enemies of homeopathy are going to celebrate it.
I am frustrated with the dangerous inertia, shortsightedness and lack of scientific outlook of a major section of homeopathic community, especially its ‘leaders’ and ‘spokespersons’.
Please refer to my reply given earlier on this page..
Sir, I am posting here all my points regarding nanoparticle theory, hoping you could read it when you get time. We can discuss later on each and every point.
ONLY YOU CAN ENGAGE IN A SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE WITH ME.
Some friends believe “homeopathy has become scientific” by the “detection of traces of nanoparticles of metallic elements” in the upper layers of ultra dilutions”.
In order to prove homeopathy is scientific, we have to prove what are the ‘active pr…See More
There were papers in proposed mechanism of action. You should have attended WHS.
First they have to say where from this unending supply of nano-particles come in ultra dilutions. For that, they have to prove why our dilutions disobey avogadro limit. Then they should explain why they use only simple minerals and elemental drugs for their ‘nano research’.. They have to explain how nanoparticles can retain medicinal properties of very complex drug molecules. They have to rule out the presence of nanoparticles in plain water-alcohol mixture.
ISSUE OF ‘MECHANISM OF ACTION’ COMES ONLY LATER
They say they detected QUANTUM DOTS in potentized drugs, and make theories about their action on genetic substance. Why they fail to realize that these QUANTUM DOTS are simple SILICA particles leaching into our medicine from glass and ceramic utensils?
Sir, I am sure you know science and scientific methods better than me. Kindly be cautious not to be part of this ‘nanoparticle game’ that is making homeopathy a piece of mockery before the scientific community
At least, try to get an answer to the question “where from this unending supply of nanoparticles come in ultra dilutions”.
If it is by “carry over the whole into next step” as IIT-B team say, what about the remaining part from which the “1% top layer” is carried to next level of dilution? Is it discarded?
We have to get an answer from some body!
THIS DISCUSSION IS EXPECTED TO CONTINUE………………………..