Now it is an easy job for any fame-seeking homeopath to come into the limelight as a ‘scientist’ or ‘researcher’, and ‘publish a paper’ for ‘debunking the allegations against homeopathy’, by merely spending Rs 5000! IIT-Bombay and IISc Bangalore are leasing out their research facilities to anybody who want to use their ‘nanotechnology’ research lab.
Do as follows: Go to IISC with some samples of homeopathic ‘ultra dilution’ purchased from the ‘market’. Pay Rs 5000 to the lab. The scientists and technicians in the lab will do the rest for you. They will find out the presence of some ‘traces of nanoparticles’ in the samples of ‘ultra dilutions’ you provided. They will explain you how it was done using modern technologies such as ‘Field Emission Scanning Microscope’ or ‘Energy Dispersive Spectrometry’. Finished!
You can now issue press release about the ‘fundamental research in homeopathy’ you have done. You can now tell your homeopath friends that you have proved ‘homeopathy is scientific’. You can now declare that you have ‘debunked the allegations against homeopathy’.
Your homeopath friends will then take over. They will start posting on every facebook pages about your ‘fundamental research’ that proves homeopathy is not ‘placebo’. They will invite you to present ‘papers’ in their ‘scientific seminars’. You have become a ‘homeopathic scientist’!!
One ‘homeopathic researcher’ claims “medicines prepared by plant sources and organic substances were studied in the lab, and nanoparticles of vegetable charcoal were found in the tested homeopathy medicines.”
According to him, his research has proved the ‘scientific basis of homeopathy”! We have to believe “nanoparticles of vegetable charcoal” are the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of “Medicines prepared by plant sources and organic substances “. Does detection of some “particles” in a drug sample prove it is the active principle of that drug? Can anybody say, a few traces of ‘nanoparticles of vegetable charcoal’ can represent the medicinal properties of ‘vegetable and organic drugs’, which are actually due to the structural and chemical properties of highly complex molecules contained in those drugs? What does it mean? Does they mean, all ‘vegetable and organic drugs’ are equivalent to CARBO VEG?
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’.
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 DITS 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.
Even if you could detect some ‘traces of nanoparticles’ in the samples of ‘homeopathic ultra dilutions’, you have to answer the following questions before declaring that you have ‘proved homeopathy’ and ‘debunked the allegations against homeopathy’:
1. Did you prepare the ‘ultra-dilutions’ under your direct personal supervision, in order to ensure that the samples you used were genuinely ‘ultra’?
2. Are you aware of the fact that the ‘market samples’ of ‘high potencies’ are not reliable for research purposes, as most manufacturers sell very low potencies with the label of ‘ultra high’ potencies due to their profit motives?
3. Did you use plain mixtures of water ethyl alcohol as controls, as it is common knowledge that any sample of water and alcohol may contain ‘nanoparticles’ of elements and other natural contaminants? Are you aware, you can detect some ‘traces’ of nanoparticles in any sample of alcohol or water when examined under ‘Field Emission Scanning Microscope’ or ‘Energy Dispersive Spectrometry’, even without any potentization?
4. Did you filter out and remove the detected nanoparticles from the samples after your experiments, and verify whether the remaining ’empty’ water-alcohol mixtures have no any therapeutic properties when applied as similimum?
5. Did you filter out the detected ‘nanoparticles’ from your samples after experiments, and use those ‘nanoparticles’ as similimum in the patients to ensure that those ‘nanoparticles’ are the real active principles of ‘ultra high dilutions’? It is very important to prove that those ‘nanoparticles’ are the real active principles of potentized drugs.
6. Did you think about the molecular level biological mechanism by which these nanoparticles said to be present actually act up on the human organism and produce a therapeutic effect? Did you explain anything regarding the BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM by which the ‘nanoparticles’ produce the therapeutic effects according to ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’?
7. Are you aware of the fact that ‘nanoparticles’ of ‘metallic elements’ cannot represent the biological and therapeutic properties of complex drug substances used as drugs, as such properties arise from the complex structures and chemical properties of constituent drug molecules?
8. Did you ever think how the ‘traces of nanoparticles floating in upper layers’ of ultra dilutions could be present in each and drops of our drugs, as we know from experiences that not only the ‘upper layers’ but even the last drop is therapeutically effective?
9. Are you aware, by arguing that you have ‘proved’ potentized drugs contain nanoparticles of starting materials, you are actually framing a case against homeopathy, since it raises the serious questions of nanotoxicity? If potentized ars alb contains nanoparticles of arsenic, potentized plumbum met contains nanoparticles of lead, or potentized uranium and radium contains nanoparticles of uranium and radium, it becomes a case against homeopathy. Do you remember, we were so far vouching about the ‘safety’ of potentized drugs, arguing that they do not contain even a single particle of starting material?
Kindly consider these questions with a rational and scientific mindset. Please understand, if you cannot provide a scientifically viable explanation for the BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM of homeopathic cure in a way fitting to the concept of Similia Similibus Curentur, your ‘detection’ of some ‘traces of nanoparticles’ in the ‘market samples’ of homeopathic drugs does not contribute anything in the scientific validation or ‘prooving’ of homeopathy.
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 principles’ of potentized drugs. If anybody ‘detected’ nanoparticles, they have to PROVE those nanoparticles are the active principles. That could be done by filtering out and removing the nanoparticles from homeopathic drugs, and experimentally proving that the remaining liquid ‘devoid’ of nanoparticles are therapeutically ineffective. Further more, they have to prove that these nanoparticles are present not only in “upper layers”, but in each and every minute fraction of our drugs, as we use not only the “upper layers”, but even the last drop as medicines.
You will have to explain why ‘nanoparticles of metallic elements’ are present not only in potentized drugs but in even plain water and alcohol. You have to explain why ALL homeopathic drugs contain ‘nanoparticles of metallic elements’, and you will also have to prove that those nanoparticles actually come from ‘original drug substances’, and not from contamination.
If you believe these nanoparticles are the the active principles of potentized drugs, you have to explain the BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM by which these ‘nanoparticles act upon our body and produce therapeutic effect. Any explanation we provide should be fitting to the existing methods and paradigms of modern scientific knowledge system.
When ‘scientific’ research is conducted and interpreted with gross disregard for the basics of scientific method, people will reach irrational and absurd conclusions. We have many such funny instances in the history of science. That is what actually happened in the case of ‘nanoparticle research in homeopathy’.
They collected some samples of ‘ultra dilutions, and conducted experiments in nanotechnology labs. They could detect ‘traces of some particles’ in those samples. They instantly jumped into the conclusion that the detection of these ‘nanoparticles’ has proved that homeopathy is scientific.
You take some plain water and ethyl alcohol (similar to the vehicles used for preparing potentized drugs) and repeat the same ‘nanotechnology’ experiments. You can detect some ‘nanoparticles’ in those samples also.
Detection of nanoparticles in homeopathic drugs is of any value, only if you prove that mixtures of plain water and ethyl alcohol do not contain ‘nanoparticles’.
Detection of nanoparticles in homeopathic drugs is of any value, only if you could filter out and remove those ‘nanoparticles’ from your samples and prove that the remaining ’empty’ liquid is devoid of therapeutic properties when used as similimum.
Detection of nanoparticles in homeopathic drugs is of any value, only if you could filter out and separate those ‘nanoparticles’, and prove that the filtrate is therapeutically effective when used as similimum.
Detection of nanoparticles in homeopathic drugs is of any value for scientific interpretation, only if you could scientifically first disprove avogadro law regarding the number of molecules contained in one gram mol of any substance, since you claim that the ultra dilutions are ‘filled with’ nanoparticles of starting materials. You will have to explain where from this unending supply of these nanoparticles come even after diluting millions of times! To a rationally thinking person, starting material will exhaust once the dilution crosses avogadro limit, and if ‘nanoparticles’ are still ‘filled’ in higher dilutions, it will be due to contamination of the solvents, or due to the claimed dilutions not being done genuinely.
Above all, detection of nanoparticles in homeopathic drugs is of any value, only if you could explain the biological mechanism by which those ‘nanoparticles’ act as therapeutic agents, and such an explanation should be fitting to the existing modern scientific concepts as well as ‘similia similibus curentur’.
We were using ARS ALB 30 in high dilutions even in infants, with the conviction that dilutions above avogadro limit will not contain any remains of original drug substance. That is why homeopathy was accepted as a SAFE medicine. Now, in their eagerness to become famous as ‘scientists’, our ‘homeopathic researchers’ are making theories to prove that potentized ARS ALB will contain ARSENIC NANOPARTICLES! And our ‘science-starved’ homeopath friends are celebrating these ‘researches’ as great achievements for homeopathy, saying that ‘detection of nanoparticles’ has ‘debunked’ the ‘placebo’ allegations against homeopathy! Actually, the ‘nanoparticle theory’ is debunking our claims about the ‘safety’ of homeopathy.
Are they working FOR homeopathy, or AGAINST homeopathy?
If potentized ARS ALB contains nanoparticles in quantities sufficient to produce a curative biological action, how can you say it will not initiate harmful processes also?
SEE HOW EVEN TRACES OF ARSENIC DAMAGES LIVING ORGANISM:
“Arsenic interferes with cellular longevity by allosteric inhibition of an essential metabolic enzyme pyruvate dehydrogenase (PDH) complex, which catalyzes the oxidation of pyruvate to acetyl-CoA by NAD+. With the enzyme inhibited, the energy system of the cell is disrupted resulting in a cellular apoptosis episode. Biochemically, arsenic prevents use of thiamine resulting in a clinical picture resembling thiamine deficiency. Poisoning with arsenic can raise lactate levels and lead to lactic acidosis. Low potassium levels in the cells increases the risk of experiencing a life-threatening heart rhythm problem from arsenic trioxide. Arsenic in cells clearly stimulates the production of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). When the H2O2 reacts with certain metals such as iron or manganese it produces a highly reactive hydroxyl radical. Inorganic arsenic trioxide found in ground water particularly affects voltage-gated potassium channels, disrupting cellular electrolytic function resulting in neurological disturbances, cardiovascular episodes such as prolonged QT interval, neutropenia, high blood pressure, central nervous system dysfunction, anemia, and death.
Arsenic exposure plays a key role in the pathogenesis of vascular endothelial dysfunction as it inactivates endothelial nitric oxide synthase, leading to reduction in the generation and bioavailability of nitric oxide. In addition, the chronic arsenic exposure induces high oxidative stress, which may affect the structure and function of cardiovascular system. Further, the arsenic exposure has been noted to induce atherosclerosis by increasing the platelet aggregation and reducing fibrinolysis. Moreover, arsenic exposure may cause arrhythmia by increasing the QT interval and accelerating the cellular calcium overload. The chronic exposure to arsenic upregulates the expression of tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-1, vascular cell adhesion molecule and vascular endothelial growth factor to induce cardiovascular pathogenesis.
Tissue culture studies have shown that arsenic compounds block both IKr and Iks channels and, at the same time, activates IK-ATP channels. Arsenic compounds also disrupt ATP production through several mechanisms. At the level of the citric acid cycle, arsenic inhibits pyruvate dehydrogenase and by competing with phosphate it uncouples oxidative phosphorylation, thus inhibiting energy-linked reduction of NAD+, mitochondrial respiration, and ATP synthesis. Hydrogen peroxide production is also increased, which might form reactive oxygen species and oxidative stress. These metabolic interferences lead to death from multi-system organ failure, probably from necrotic cell death, not apoptosis.”
I mean to say potencies above 12c will not contain any particles of original substance. I mean to say, active principles of drugs potentized above avogadro limit are ‘molecular imprints’, which act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules. Molecular Imprints cannot interfere in the interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands, and hence they cannot produce any harmful effect in our body. Homeopathic drugs above 12c are hundred percent safe, if potentization is genuinely done.
Dear homeopaths, are you aware, by arguing that you have ‘proved’ that potentized drugs contain nanoparticles of starting materials, you are actually framing a case against homeopathy, since it raises the serious questions of nanotoxicity?
If potentized ars alb contains nanoparticles of arsenic, potentized plumbum met contains nanoparticles of lead, or potentized uranium and radium contains nanoparticles of uranium and radium, it becomes a defenseless case against homeopathy, which will obviously prompt law makers to initiate stringent regulations.
Do you remember, we were so far vouching about the ‘safety’ of potentized drugs, arguing that they do not contain even a single particle of starting material?
I mean to say ‘nanoparticle theory’ is not only wrong, but is harmful for homeopathy. It will give new weapons to the enemies to attack homeopathy.
Some homeopaths say my ‘criticisms’ about ‘nanoparticle research’ arises from my ‘jealousy’ and ‘frustration’. They never address the real points and hard questions I raise, but conveniently ignore them.
I am ‘criticizing’ any ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ that I think are unscientific and irrational. I do it by logically discussing the specific points involved the subjects. I cannot avoid doing it, as I am involved in evolving a scientific understanding of homeopathy. I consider it as my duty. Whether it be ‘nanoparticle’, ‘hair transmission’, ‘dynamic energy’, ‘vital force’, ‘digital biology’, ‘radionics’, ‘reflexology’ or any other pseudoscientific theory, I will consistently expose them by raising rational questions from a scientific angle. If anybody think I am wrong, answer the QUESTIONS I raise and discuss the specific POINTS. If you cannot do it, kindly keep away from me, without researching about my ‘miasms’, ‘frustrations’, ‘jealousy’ and ‘psychology’.
Yes, I am “frustrated”. 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’.
I am inviting your attention to an article published in Times Of India regarding a recent ‘nanotechnology study’ of homeopathic ultra-dilutions.
SEE THE TIMES OF INDIA REPORT:
“BENGALURU: For all those who think homeopathy is just placebo, here is new research that debunks that and upholds the effectiveness of the branch of medicine. The study reveals that homeopathy medicine contains nano particles of the resource medicine even in its highest diluted form. The two-year research was done by homeopathy practitioner Dr ES Rajendran, director of Vinayaka Mission Homoeopathic Medical College at the nanotechnology lab in IISc, Bengaluru. The medicines prepared by plant sources and organic substances were studied in the lab, and nano particles of vegetable charcoal were found in the tested homeopathy medicines. “This is a breakthrough and may open up vistas for advanced research in homeopathy. The study will be presented at the upcoming world homeopathy summit in Mumbai,” said Rajendran at an event organized by the Global Homoeopathy Foundation on Thursday.
How was the study done?
The highly diluted form of homeopathy medicine used as pain relief was put on silicon vapour and left for drying for a day. “I began the study in 2013. It has been a thrilling journey, especially when nano particles of vegetable charcoal were found in the medicines we tested,” Rajendran said. QUOTE It’s nanomedicine
Though homeopathy has cured innumerable patients around the world, the mode of action of the drug and the question about the content in high dilutions sealed its growth and development all along. This was one of the most difficult questions that homeopaths around the world faced. This study will settle controversies about the nature of drug material used in homeopathy drugs. Homeopathy may as well be considered a nanomedicine.
(Dr Sreevals G Menon, managing trustee of Global Homeopathy Foundation.)”
See how the above study was done as explained in the article:
“The medicines prepared by plant sources and organic substances were studied in the lab, and nano particles of vegetable charcoal were found in the tested homeopathy medicines.”
“The highly diluted form of homeopathy medicine used as pain relief was put on silicon vapour and left for drying for a day”.
“nano particles of vegetable charcoal were found in the medicines we tested,”
When ethyl alcohol (as potentized drugs) is put on silicone vapor and left in the open air, ethyl alcohol molecules get adsorbed into the silicone matrix. When this silicone vapor is subjected to spectrometric studies, we can detect the presence of carbon atoms being part of alcohol meolecules entrapped in it. Observation of presence of ‘carbon particles’ or ‘vegetable charcoal’ is a natural outcome of this process. It has nothing to do with any ‘scientific proving’ of homeopathy.
The carbon particles our ‘researchers’ detected by this experiment actually belong to the ethyl alcohol, not the ‘starting materials’ of potentized drugs.
This ‘study’ is a classical example of what happens when people ignorant in basics of scientific processes and methods engage in ‘researches’, which lead to strange interpretations and conclusions.
I fear those homeopaths who are over- enthused over the ‘nanoparticle discovery’ in homeopathic potencies, and sincerely believe that the ‘discovery’ has finally settled all questions of ‘scientific proof’ for homeopathy, have not carefully read the paper published by IIT-B team.
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?
WITHOUT A SCIENTIFICALLY VIABLE WORKING HYPOTHESIS AS A SPRINGBOARD OF FURTHER ACTIONS, YOU CANNOT CONDUCT A GENUINE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. OUR ‘NANO-PARTICLE RESEARCHERS’ OF HOMEOPATHY TRIED TO DO IT WITHOUT SUCH A HYPOTHESIS, WHICH INEVITABLY LED THEM TO POORLY CONCEIVED EXPERIMENTS, INACCURATE OBSERVATIONS, WRONG INTERPRETATIONS, FOOLISH CONCLUSIONS AND TOTALLY ABSURD THEORIES.
SCIENTIFIC METHOD is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. It is ‘a method or procedure consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of a proposed HYPOTHESIS.
The chief characteristic which distinguishes a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself. Hypothesis is raised to the status of THEORY when the predictions based on hypothesis are confirmed. Hypothesis is discarded or modified when its predictions prove false.
Scientific researchers proposes a HYPOTHESIS as explanations for an unexplained but known phenomenon, and design experimental studies to test this hypothesis via PREDICTIONS which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Certain researches may encompass wider domains of inquiry that may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure.
A hypothesis is derived as a tentative answer to a naturally arising question regarding a known phenomenon. It is a conjecture based on the knowledge obtained while formulating the question.
To be considered scientifically viable, a hypothesis must be FALSIFIABLE, meaning that one can identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis through a NULL HYPOTHESIS; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested.
According to scientific method, PREDICTIONS, TESTING and ANALYSIS are the essential steps in the validation of a scientific hypothesis.
MIT proposes the following HYPOTHESIS as an answer to the question HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS. We have to PROVE it or DISPROVE it.
“Homeopathy is a therapeutic method of curing diseases by using ‘molecular imprints’ of drug substances, which in ‘molecular forms’ could produce ‘symptoms’ similar to those presented by the patient. ‘Similarity’ of drug symptoms and disease symptoms indicate that the drug molecules and pathogenic molecules have ‘similar’ functional groups, by which they could bind to ‘similar’ biological molecules, produce ‘similar’ molecular inhibitions that caused ‘similar’ molecular pathology which are expressed through ‘similar’ subjective and objective ‘symptoms’. Molecular imprints of ‘similar’ drug molecules can act as artificial binding sites for ‘similar’ pathogenic molecules due to complementary configurational affinity, thereby deactivating them and relieving the biological molecules from pathological inhibitions, which amounts to ‘cure’. This the scientific meaning of Similia Similibus Curentur.”
Essential part of this HYPOTHESIS that has to be proved or disproved first is that homeopathic potentization is a process of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING, and the active principles of potentized drugs are MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of drug molecules. This has to be proved or disproved according to scientific methods, to make homeopathy a legitimate medical science.
PREDICTIONS formulated for proving MIT HYPOTHESIS are:
1. If ‘molecular imprinting’ concept is right, there will not any single ‘molecule’ of original drug substance remaining in potencies above avogadro limit, if they are genuinely potentized.
2. If ‘molecular imprinting’ concept is right, chemical analysis of high potency drugs and plain water-alcohol mixture will prove they have same chemical constitution.
3. If ‘molecular imprinting’ concept is right, potentized drugs have therapeutic effects if used as per indications, but plain water-alcohol mixture will not exhibit any therapeutic effect.
4. If ‘molecular imprinting’ concept is right, spectrometric studies will show that high potency drugs and plain water-alcohol mixtures are entirely different in their supra-molecular organizations.
5. If ‘molecular imprinting’ concept is right, in vitro and in vivo studies will prove that high potency drugs have biological properties that are reverse to those of their molecular forms (below 12c)
6. If ‘molecular imprinting’ concept is right, high potency drugs should be capable of antidoting or neutralizing the biological effects of molecular forms of same drugs.
THESE PREDICTIONS HAVE TO BE PROVED OR DISPROVED THROUGH SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS.