Scientifically, Drug Proving With Potencies Above Avogadro Limit Is Simply Impossible!
What ever you BELIEVE, what ever MASTERS said, what ever you wrongly consider to be your EXPERIENCE, PROVING with HIGH POTENCY is IMPOSSIBLE from scientific point of view.
In order to prove, a drug should be capable of producing symptoms in healthy individuals. To produce symptoms, it should be capable of producing molecular level pathology in the organism. To produce pathology, the drug should be capable of preventing or modifying normal bio-molecular interactions, by competing with natural ligands in binding to biological molecules. Potentized drugs do not contain any drug molecules, but molecular imprints only, which cannot compete with natural ligands in binding to their targets. It is because, molecular imprints act only by configurational affinity, but normal bio-molecular interactions happen by both configurational as well as charge affinity. Hence, molecular imprints can interact only with pathogenic molecules having configurational affinity.
If you fail to understand the simple science involved in this phenomenon, you will go on talking about HIGH POTENCY PROVINGS and AGGRAVATIONS from high potencies.
Some people believe drug proving with high potency PRODUCE symptoms. Some others say DREAM PROVING (keeping drugs under pillow during sleep) produce symptoms. Yet another group say TRITURATION PROVING (prover simply triturating drugs and producing symptoms without taking drugs) PRODUCE symptoms. There are also people who conduct MEDITATION PROVING (by simply meditating about drugs). All of them make great materia works also that way! Anybody can make any NONSENSE CLAIM about homeopathy, because it is DYNAMIC!
Homeopathic profession should feel themselves ashamed about these people who have hijacked homeopathy.
These people are not simply “writing articles”. They conduct provings of NEW drugs and prepare materia medica. Those drugs are sold through international homeopathic drug houses like HELIOS. These people REPRESENT homeopathy on international platforms. The nonsense they promote are considered to be real homeopathy by scientific community.
C M BOGER (Cyrus Maxwell Boger 5/ 13/ 1861- 9/ 2/ 1935) published the following story of “Involuntary Proving of Calcium Hydrate” in 1915:
This is a magnificent and classical example of DRUG PROVING with CRUDE DRUGS, which provides a most reliable drug symptomatology. I think modern HIGH POTENCY PROVERS of various colors have to learn a lot of lessons from this proving:
“On June 11th, Mr. J. B., with the object of purifying his cistern water, added, fifty pounds of unslaked lime to the contents of the cistern, then estimated at I75 bbls. He and four others continued to use the water for culinary and drinking purposes. The ages of the persons were, two men of 55 and 33 years respectively, woman of 28, girl of 7 and boy of 5 years. The first symptoms appeared in three days in the form of sudden nausea toward the end of each meal, ending in vomiting. Then appeared dryness of the mouth with great thirst for large quantities. All became very weak and perspired on the least exertion, mostly on the chest and abdomen. The boy’s thirst was extreme, but he generally vomited in two minutes after drinking; vomiting was generally preceded by pain in the stomach; on the second day the vomited liquid looked milky; says he feels lazy and his legs won’t carry him. All of them felt nervous and trembled on the least exertion, also complain of shortness of breath. About the same time diarrhoea set in. All seem to have the same symptoms; imperative urging as if to pass a large stool, go in a hurry, can’t wait, but pass only a tablespoonful of frothy, undigested, white stool which relieved; stool burned like fire, or as if pepper were in the rectum. The woman was nursing a month old child; her milk became thin and watery, seeming unfit for the baby.”
Dr Dharmendra Sharma, Principal at Dr D Y Patil Homoeopathic Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, says:
“I have been practicing since 25 years and till date never seen a single case of any aggravation….”
WITH IN 25 YEARS OF PRACTICE, HE HAS NOT SEEN A SINGLE CASE OF AGGRAVATION FROM USING POTENTIZED HOMEOPATHIC DRUGS!.
Give a dose of DISTILLED water to a person. Start to observe and record his ‘symptoms’ that appear in the following days. You will get a huge record of mental, subjective and objective symptoms. You can imagine all these ‘symptoms’ were produced by that ‘dose’ of distilled water, and compile a Materia Medica of DISTILLED WATER!
Same with ‘high potency provings’. Any person will have a lot of symptoms, sensations, mood changes, dreams etc as part of normal life. After giving a dose of ‘high potency’ drug, you can imagine all these ‘symptoms’ were produced by that ‘single dose’! UTTER NONSENSE!
We have a lot of materia medica of various drugs claimed to be produced by DREAM PROVING, MEDITATION PROVING, IMAGINATION PROVINGS and such techniques. HIGH POTENCY PROVINGS also belong to this class.
GENUINE drug provings should be done using MOLECULAR FORMS of drug substances- low potencies and crude drugs. Only those provings give reliable symptomatology and materia medica.
In order to disprove the claim of ‘high potency provings’ and ‘bad effects of high potency’, I am ready to consume up to 15 ml of ANY drug above 12c potency, if anybody would arrange a public demonstration at any place and invite me, providing my travel expenses. I am limiting quantity to 15 ml, only to avoid intoxicating effects of alcohol.
Can any HOMEOPATH identify the name of a well known drug by observing the symptoms it produce in a healthy person person when given in high potency, identity of which is kept unrevealed from that HOMEOPATH? If high potencies can PROVE and produce the symptoms of a drug, that should be possible. Before raising claims about ‘high potency provings’, kindly do such an experiment and watch the outcome.
Following is an extract from an article published on Hpathy.com, regarding a proving of HELIX TOSTA, using 30c potency. http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/helix-tosta-proving/
EXTRACTED TEXT FROM THE REPORT:
A proving of Helix tosta was performed in Phoenix Arizona at the American Medical College of Homeopathy, in the spring of 2010. The proving was conducted by the American Medical College of Homeopathy Department of Research. This was a full Hahnemannian proving.
This proving was approved by the American Medical College of Homeopathy Institutional Review Board.
The proving consisted of fifteen subjects who began taking Helix tosta 30C on January 22, 2010. Provers were from 22-65 years of age and in good health. There were three male provers and twelve female provers. Generally those patients who were on allopathic medication or who had significant health problems were excluded from the proving.
This proving was double blinded. All the provers, proving supervisors, and proving coordinator were unaware of the remedy being proven. The homeopathic medicine was selected because of its medicinal properties, symbolic significance and lack of usage within the homeopathic community, despite being listed as a homeopathic medicine.
The proving was placebo controlled. Three of the provers received placebo and were only identified at the end of the exit group proving. The homeopathic medicine was obtained from Helios Pharmacy. As with previous provings, we found that those individuals who took the placebo generally had the same symptoms as those who took the actual homeopathic medicine. This is in keeping with findings of others conducting provings from around the world.
Each prover was assigned a proving supervisor who interviewed them prior to the onset of the proving to obtain a baseline case. Each prover then attended an introductory meeting with their fellow provers prior to the start of the proving, to go over basic policies and procedures and to obtain informed consent. Each prover had regular contact with their proving supervisor throughout the proving. The proving supervisors reported directly to the proving director.
Each prover took a single dosage of 30C of the assigned homeopathic medicine at bedtime. If they exhibited any symptoms in the next 24 hours they received no further omeopathic medicine. If they had no symptoms, then they repeated the homeopathic medicine 24 hours later. Each prover received a maximum of seven doses of the 30C potency. A dosage consisted of 10-12 pellets of the chosen homeopathic medicine.
“The above proving was placebo controlled. Three of the provers received placebo and were only identified at the end of the exit group proving. The homeopathic medicine was obtained from Helios Pharmacy. As with previous provings, we found that those individuals who took the placebo generally had the same symptoms as those who took the actual homeopathic medicine. This is in keeping with findings of others conducting provings from around the world.”
CAN ANYBODY EXPLAIN THE STATEMENT “As with previous provings, we found that those individuals who took the placebo generally had the same symptoms as those who took the actual homeopathic medicine. This is in keeping with findings of others conducting provings from around the world.”?
I WONDER WHAT DOES IT MEAN “those individuals who took the placebo generally had the same symptoms as those who took the actual homeopathic medicine.”?
If PLACEBO produced SAME symptoms as the HOMEOPATHIC DRUG IN 30C, how can we say our drug is different from placebo in its action?
Here is another link, where you can read a report of another DRUG PROVING of ACONITUM FEROX, conducted using 30C POTENCY. http://hpathy.com/drug-provings/reproving-of-aconitum-ferox-drug-proving-project/
EIGHTEEN PROVERS are said to have participated in the project.
Cheerful and felt like laughing: shown by TWO provers. SIXTEEN others did not show this symptom.
Irritability < noise: shown by ONE prover. SEVENTEEN others did not show this symptom.
Homesickness: shown by ONE prover. SEVENTEEN others did not show this symptom.
Vertigo on standing up that lasted for 1-2 minutes: shown by ONE prover. SEVENTEEN others did not show this symptom.
Pain left temple to occiput, continued for 10 hours -2 days : shown by FOUR provers. FOURTEEN others did not show this symptom.
tearing left forehead that started 2 hours after drug ingestion for 20 minutes: shown by THREE provers. FIFTEEN others did not show this symptom.
Burning & Irritation in Left Eye: shown by THREE provers. FIFTEEN others did not show this symptom.
> pressing eyeball: shown by ONE prover. SEVENTEEN others did not show this symptom.
Hot Sensation in left ear lasting for 2 days: shown by THREE provers. FIFTEEN others did not show this symptom.
burning sensation in ear: shown by ONE prover. SEVENTEEN others did not show this symptom.
itching in the left auditory meatus: shown by THREE provers. FIFTEEN others did not show this symptom.
Initially profuse sneezing but then decreased: shown by ONE prover. SEVENTEEN others did not show this symptom.
followed by thin watery discharge from the left Nostril < evening: shown by ONE prover. SEVENTEEN others did not show this symptom.
Next day, posterior nasal discharge, thick white sputum became thin again in the evening: shown by NINE provers. NINE others did not show this symptom.
Bitter taste in the mouth started 25 minutes after drug intake for 3-4 hours: shown by ONE prover. SEVENTEEN others did not show this symptom.
This was repeated after the 2nd dose: shown by ONE prover. SEVENTEEN others did not show this symptom.
Tooth ache left side < chewing: shown by ONE prover. SEVENTEEN others did not show this symptom.
Throat: discomfort lasting for 3 hours: shown by ONE prover. SEVENTEEN others did not show this symptom.
Craving for Rice for which she was averse to: shown by ONE prover. SEVENTEEN others did not show this symptom.
Stool unsatisfactory: shown by ONE prover. SEVENTEEN others did not show this symptom.
Stool, had to strain: shown by THREE provers. FIFTEEN others did not show this symptom.
Dark brown stool: shown by TWO provers. SIXTEEN others did not show this symptom.
Discomfort after eating food: shown by ONE prover. SEVENTEEN others did not show this symptom.
Pain in left side after passing stool: shown by ONE prover. SEVENTEEN others did not show this symptom.
Pain left chest, an area that could be covered with the tip of the finger: shown by ONE prover. SEVENTEEN others did not show this symptom.
Dry cough started in 2 hours and lasted for 7 days: shown by FOUR provers. FOURTEEN others did not show this symptom.
Hypertension with systolic BP increasing by 10-14 mm Hg and Diastolic BP increasing by 10mm Hg over previous states: shown by NINE provers. NINE others did not show this symptom.
ECG – Partial RBBB : shown by FIVE provers. THIRTEEN others did not show this symptom.
Great sleepiness during the day even in the morning, with late going to sleep at night. Restless, disturbed sleep at night and sleepiness in the morning: shown by SEVEN provers. ELEVEN others did not show this symptom.
Boil at the tip of the nose: shown by ONE prover. SEVENTEEN others did not show this symptom.
Itching in between fingers of the left hand that started after 3 hours and lasted for 4 hours: shown by ONE prover. SEVENTEEN others did not show this symptom.
Great Chilliness: shown by FIVE prover. THIRTEEN others did not show this symptom.
Feverishness just after the first dose: shown by TWO provers. SIXTEEN others did not show this symptom.
Running nose with sneezing: shown by ONE prover. SEVENTEEN others did not show this symptom.
Crackling sensation in the upper limbs: shown by ONE prover. SEVENTEEN others did not show this symptom.
See the above reported symptomatology they collected from this HIGH POTENCY PROVING. EVEN IF THEY HAD PROVED DISTILLED WATER, THEY COULD HAVE COLLECTED MORE SYMPTOMS THAN THIS! This proving clearly demonstrates the poor outcome and futility of so-called HIGH POTENCY PROVING.
Permit me point out one thing. “A prover without any symptom” is an utopian concept. Such a living being cannot exist. Everybody, even when considered healthy, will have multitudes of molecular inhibitions and associated symptoms in him, caused by diverse types of exogenous or endogenous foreign molecules of ecological, nutritional, infectious or metabolic origin. That is part of NORMAL life. ANY potentized drug may contain some or other molecular imprints that can remove SOME of the molecular inhibitions and SOME of the symptoms. As such, when we give even a seemingly UN INDICATED drug, it will remove some symptoms, and bring some masked symptoms to forefront, thereby changing the WHOLE symptom picture. We interpret this CHANGE as PROVING of the drug we used. That is all. Hope I am clear on my point.
Most HOMEOPATHS fail to distinguish between CAUSE-EFFECT relationships and BEFORE-AFTER relationships of events. Anything happening in a person after giving a dose of drug is considered as EFFECT of that drug. And they reach queer conclusions!
We can see a lot of homeopaths who claim that they have ‘learned from experience’ that centesimal potency is better than any other potency. But, some homeopaths say they have also ‘learned from experience’ that LM potency is better than anything else. There are also homeopaths who ‘learned from experience’ that mother tinctures and low potencies are better. Some homeopaths ‘learned from experience’ that frequent repetition is better, but others say they ‘learned from experience’ that repetition is dangerous. There are homeopaths who ‘learned from experience’ that patented combinations is enough.
AND, ‘EXPERIENCE IS THE GOLDEN STANDARD’ OF TRUTH IN HOMEOPATHY! YOU CAN CLAIM ANYTHING AS YOUR EXPERIENCE, AND MAKE LAWS ON IT!
‘EXPERIENCE’ will lead you to TRUTH, only if it is combined with REASONING.
According to me, drugs potentized above 12c, which do not contain any drug molecules but molecular imprints, cannot produce any changes in the organism if used without any symptomatic indications. If there were any symptoms of drug existing in the person, they would be removed- that is all.
Potentized drugs contain only Molecular Imprints, which cannot interfere in the normal interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands, and such cannot produce any molecular inhibitions. That means, they cannot produce any pathology or symptoms.
Interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands are facilitated by both configurational and charge affinities, where as molecular imprints act by configurational affinity only. As such, molecular imprints can interfere only in the interactions between pathogenic molecules and biological molecules. Obviously, potentized drug can act only as therapeutic agents if indicated, and cannot act as pathogenic agents.
The idea of potentized drugs producing GRAVE damages when used without indications is only a MYTH, without any scientific backing.
If you have no any symptoms of SULPHUR, even repeated doses of SULPHUR 1M will not produce any changes in you. Kindly do some experiments on this by giving SULPHUR 1m to a few people or pet animals.
Nobody so far knows WHAT are the active principles of potentized drugs, or HOW they act up on the organism and produce curative effects. But everybody talks about LAWS regarding selection of potency, repetition of doses etc etc. How can anybody make LAWS about HOW to use some thing so far as they do not know WHAT it actually contains or HOW it exactly works?
Since indicated drugs have to be selected for each case by comparing the drug symtoms and disease symptoms as per the therapeutic principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’, it is essential for homeopathy to maintain an elaborate database of ‘symptoms’ that could be produced by each drug in healthy individuals. Homeopaths call this database as ‘materia medica’.
‘Drug proving’ is the systematic process employed in homeopathy for studying the pathogenic properties of drug substances by observing their capacity to produce various pathological symptoms in healthy organisms, and compile the ‘materia medica’.
Homeopathy is based on the principle that a substance becomes a medicinal agent only because it has some disease-producing properties. In other words, if we could know what pathological inhibitions and symptoms a drug can create in healthy organism, we can decide in what disease states that drug could be used as a therapeutic agent in potentized form.
Drug proving is a process unique to homeopathy. Whereas modern medicine studies the disease-curing properties of drugs, homeopathy studies the disease-producing properties of drugs. That makes a great difference.
Drug proving is done by administering small quantities of a particular drug to controlled volunteer groups of apparently healthy individuals. The subjective and objective symptoms, representing the diverse molecular deviations caused in the organism by the drug substance are carefully observed and recorded. These symptoms are systematically arranged compiled as materia medica of the substance used.
Let us examine what actually happens at molecular level during drug proving:
First point we have to note is that most drug substances, especially of vegetable or animal origin, are not ‘simple’ substance. Even if we use them as a ‘single’ substance, actually they consist of diverse types of individual molecules. A substance can interact with biological molecules only as individual molecules. If we really want to understand homeopathy and drug proving scientifically, we should first of all learn to perceive drug substance in terms of its diverse constituent molecules.
Once we introduce a sample of drug substance into the living organism for ‘proving’, its constituent molecules are instantly subjected to various processes such as disintegration, ionization, hydration and certain chemical transformations.
Individual constituent molecules are carried and conveyed through blood and other internal transport systems into the cells and body fluids in different parts of the body. They can interact with various enzymes, receptors, and other biological molecules inside the organism. Individual drug molecules, in capacities of their molecular affinities, get themselves bound to various bio-molecules which participate in the essential biochemical activities in the organism. These interactions are decided and directed by the specific properties such as configurations and charges of active groups of individual drug molecules, and their specific affinity towards biological target molecules.
The three dimensional structure of the individual drug molecules, and that of the concerned bio-molecules are the decisive factors in this process of formation of molecular binding between them. This peculiarity is called molecular affinity. It is very important to note that drug substances interact with different biological molecules, not as a singular entity, but as individual constituent molecules and ions. These individual drug molecules and ions are capable of competing with natural ligands and substrates in binding to their biological targets, thereby inhibiting the essential bio-chemical processes which can take place only with their presence and mediation. Such molecular inhibitions in various bio-chemical pathways result in a condition of pathology, expressed in the form of a train of subjective and objective symptoms, due to the involvement of various neuro-mediator, neuro-transmitter and cellular signalling systems.
From this point of view, drug proving has to be done using ‘molecular forms’ of drugs, since only they can produce real pathological molecular inhibitions in the organism.
Let us examine what actually happens when potentized drugs are administered into ‘apparently’ healthy individual individuals for drug proving.
First point we need to remember herenis that ‘apparently’ healthy people will not be totally free from pathological molecular inhibitions. There will be diverse types of hidden molecular errors existing in them, arising from diverse types of factors such as nutritional, environmental, miasmatic, genetic, emotional, metabolic, infectious and others.
When potentized drugs are introduced into the body, some or other molecular imprints contained in them may act upon these existing molecular inhibitions, which may be reflected as some transient symptoms. Actually, those symptoms are not indicating the ‘disease producing’ properties, but ‘diseases curing’ properties of concerned drugs. As such, symptoms obtained from drug proving using high potencies may confuse our materia medica.
Potentized drugs may also act on ‘healthy’ organism by a different mechanism. Molecular imprints may bind to the natural ligands in the body, if they have any configurational affinity. But, such bindings will not lead to a state of pathology since molecular imprints cannot interfere in the interaction between natural ligands and targets which will have stronger affinity to each other. As such, symptoms appearing from such interactions will be very much temporary, and cannot be considered ‘pathological symptoms’.
Drugs potentized above 12c cannot cause pathological molecular inhibitions or produce symptoms. As such, ‘drug proving’ with ‘high potencies’ is only a myth. It is only a false belief that is deep-rooted in the minds of homeopaths, that has no any scientific validity.
- Posted in: Uncategorized