Do you know CORTISOL 30 is a great remedy for many ailments caused by CHRONIC STRESS?
See what are the symptoms of CHRONIC STRESS:
Signs of stress may be cognitive, emotional, physical, or behavioral.
Inability to concentrate
Pessimistic approach or thoughts
Anxious or racing thoughts
Irritability or short temper
Agitation, inability to relax
Sense of loneliness and isolation
Depression or general unhappiness
Aches and pains
Diarrhea or constipation
Increased frequency of urination
Changes in blood glucose
Chest pain, rapid heartbeat
Loss of sex drive
Eating more or less
Sleeping too much or too little
Isolating oneself from others
Procrastinating or neglecting responsibilities
Using alcohol, cigarettes, or drugs to relax
Nervous habits (e.g. nail biting, pacing)
PEPSINUM 30 IN THE TREATMENT OF GASTRIC ULCERS, GASTRITIS, ESOPHAGITIS, DEEP ULCERS OF BUCCAL CAVITY, ESOPHAGEAL CARCINOMA ETC.:
Pepsin is a protein-degrading or proteolytic enzyme in the digestive system. Pepsin is released by the cells in the stomach. This enzyme degrades food proteins into peptides to facilitate absorption. Pepsin is a digestive protease, a member of the aspartate protease family. During the process of digestion, pepsin severs the links between particular types of amino acids, collaborate to break down dietary proteins into their components, i.e., peptides and amino acids, which can be readily absorbed by the intestinal lining. Pepsin is most efficient in cleaving peptide bonds between hydrophobic and preferably aromatic amino acids such as phenylalanine, tryptophan, and tyrosine.
Pepsin is expressed as a pro-form zymogen, pepsinogen, whose primary structure has an additional 44 amino acids. In the stomach, chief cells release pepsinogen. This zymogen is activated by hydrochloric acid (HCl), which is released from parietal cells in the stomach lining. The hormone gastrin and the vagus nerve trigger the release of both pepsinogen and HCl from the stomach lining when food is ingested. Hydrochloric acid creates an acidic environment, which allows pepsinogen to unfold and cleave itself in an autocatalytic fashion, thereby generating pepsin (the active form). Pepsin cleaves the 44 amino acids from pepsinogen to create more pepsin.
Pepsin is most active in acidic environments between 37°C and 42°C. Accordingly, its primary site of synthesis and activity is in the stomach (pH 1.5 to 2). Pepsin exhibits maximal activity at pH 2.0 and is inactive at pH 6.5 and above, however pepsin is not fully denatured or irreversibly inactivated until pH 8.0. The stability of pepsin at high pH has significant implications on disease attributed to laryngopharyngeal reflux. Pepsin remains in the larynx following a gastric reflux event. At the mean pH of the laryngopharynx pH = 6.8 pepsin would be inactive but could be reactivated upon subsequent acid reflux events resulting in damage to local tissues.
Pepsin is one of the primary causes of mucosal damage during laryngopharyngeal reflux. Pepsin remains in the larynx pH 6.8 following a gastric reflux event. While enzymatically inactive in this environment, pepsin would remain stable and could be reactivated upon subsequent acid reflux events. Exposure of laryngeal mucosa to enzymatically active pepsin, but not irreversibly inactivated pepsin or acid, results in reduced expression of protective proteins and thereby increases laryngeal susceptibility to damage.
Pepsin may also cause mucosal damage during weakly acidic or non-acid gastric reflux. Weak or non-acid reflux is correlated with reflux symptoms and mucosal injury. Under non-acid conditions (neutral pH), pepsin is internalized by cells of the upper airways such as the larynx and hypopharynx by a process known as receptor-mediated endocytosis. Upon cellular uptake, pepsin is stored in intracellular vesicles of low pH at which its enzymatic activity would be restored. Pepsin is retained within the cell for up to 24 hours. Such exposure to pepsin at neutral pH and endoyctosis of pepsin causes changes in gene expression associated with inflammation, which underlies signs and symptoms of reflux, and tumor progression. This and other research implicates pepsin in carcinogenesis attributed to gastric reflux.
Pepsin is found in the saliva of persons suffering from gastro-esophageal reflux, which causes persistent corroding of buccal mucosa, leading to deep ulcers of mouth cavity.
Commercial pepsin is extracted from the glandular layer of hog stomachs. It is a component of rennet used to curdle milk during the manufacture of cheese. Pepsin is used for a variety of applications in food manufacturing: to modify and provide whipping qualities to soy protein and gelatin, to modify vegetable proteins for use in nondairy snack items, to make precooked cereals into instant hot cereals, and to prepare animal and vegetable protein hydrolysates for use in flavoring foods and beverages. It is used in the leather industry to remove hair and residual tissue from hides and in the recovery of silver from discarded photographic films by digesting the gelatin layer that holds the silver. Pepsin was historically an additive of chewing gum. It also gave name to Pepsi-Cola, originally formulated with pepsin and cola nuts.
PEPSINUM is the homeopathic preparation prepared by potentizing PEPSIN. In potentized forms, it contains MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of pepsin molecules. Potentized PEPSINUM above 12C could be used in the treatment of GERD, to heal the mucosal damage caused laryngopharyngeal reflux. It is also useful in the treatment of gastric ulcers, esophagitis, esophageal ulcerations and strictures, esophageal and laryngeal carcinoma etc.
Personally, I have regularly used PEPSINUM 30 successfully in the treatment of GASTRITIS, GASTRIC ULCER and ESOPHAGITIS and deep ulcers of buccal cavity.
If homeopaths really want to become scientific PHYSICIANS, they should first of all learn to UNLEARN what they were taught about the ‘immaterial vital force and dynamic energy’, and start to think about the MATERIAL LEVEL molecular processes involved in phenomena of life, mind, disease, symptoms, drugs and cure.
Is it not silly to talk big theories about the QUANTITY and FREQUENCY of using something considered to be a MEDICINE, without any idea regarding the CONTENTS of what you are giving or HOW it acts in the body? Homeopaths should think over
Which potency hahhenemann, nash, kent, boericke, hering, boeninghaussen or any other “stalwart used” were decided by levels of knowledge available during their time, their experience and their philosophy, which are SCIENTIFICALLY of very little consequence in the modern advanced knowledge environment. We have to resolve this POTENCY issue not by discussing “what stalwarts used” or “what master advised”, but by using scientific knowledge and tools of modern scientific method.
As far as we do not know what are the exact active principles of potentized drugs, or how ‘low potency’ and ‘high potency’ differ regarding their ‘contents’, anybody is free to use any potency, or repeat it any way according to his likes, experience and ‘philosophy’. Anybody can make any claims or make any ‘theories’ about it. Nobody can say this is right or this is wrong! In such a situation, discussions become mere arguments that no way help to resolve any confusion.
Confusions and controversies over the issue of ‘selection of potency’ could be resolved only when you are in a position to answer the questions ‘what exactly happens during potentization’ and ‘what are the active principles of potentized drugs’. If you have no answers to these questions, how can you participate a rational discussion on ‘potency issue’? Do not think this issue could be resolved by arguing over ‘what master said’ or ‘what stalwarts used’. From my part, my statements on this topic are based on the idea that potentization involves a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, and active principles of potentized drugs are ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules which can bind to pathogenic molecules by acting as ‘artificial binding sites’. If you do not understand this idea, you cannot follow what I am talking about ‘potency issue’, or discuss my statements.
Do not worry much about selection of potencies. Always use 12c-30c, until a better and more accurate way of molecular imprinting is evolved. If your prescription does not act properly or stop acting, and if you are sure you have selected correct similimum, use same drug, same potency from another sample obtained from another source. Collect maximum samples of 30c of same drug from different sources and mix them for better therapeutic result. It would be an eye opening experience, that would compel you to look into the whole ‘potency question’ from a different angle.
A lot of confusions, controversies and phobias exist regarding the selection of potencies to be administered, after selecting the similimum. Everything is controversial in this area of applied homeopathy. Each homeopath has his own ways, and believes that only he is right.Young homeopaths get confused due to totally contradicting advices they get from their different teachers.
Once similimum is selected for a case through a process of exhaustive case taking, repertorization and material medica study, the next issue that bothers a young homeopath the most is the selection of potency, dosage and repetitions.
There are many laws, principles, theories and guidelines, given by different masters, most of them contradicting and conflicting with one another, which makes everything complex for a new comer.
Through hard experience, most homeopaths finally settle into a stage where they make their own ‘private’ ‘laws’ regarding potency, dose and repetition, which they will never expose to the homeopathic community, for fear of being ridiculed as deviation from principles. Everybody wants to appear to be belonging to that respectable class of ‘classical homeopaths’, pretending to be strictly following all the ‘immutable’ ‘cardinal principles’ of ‘pure’ homeopathy.
Please remember, all these ‘laws’ are made and practiced without even knowing what are the active principles of medicines we are using. Everything is pure speculation. Nobody knows what exactly happens during potentization. Nobody knows what are exactly the active principles of potentized drugs. Nobody exactly knows the molecular mechanism by which potentized drugs interacts with biological organism and creates a therapeutic effect. Nobody knows how lo potencies are different from high potencies. Everything is based on speculations. Dynamism, vibrational theory, Vitalism- everything explained as phenomena happening ‘beyond science’.
I am trying to resolve the issue of potencies in the light of scientifically viable working hypothesis regarding homeopathic therapeutics and potentization.
The word ‘drug potency’ and ‘drug potentization’ is associated with the concept of ‘dynamic drug energy’. As per this view, every drug substance has its ‘inherent qualities’, which exist as specific ‘energy’ of dynamic in form, and act up on the ‘vital force’ of organism by a dynamic way. This dynamic drug energy can exist free from ‘material drug, substance and transferred into rectified spirit or sugar of milk through a process called ‘potentization’. By this process, the ‘dynamic drug energy’ gettin freed from the drug substance moves to the potentizing medium and ‘energizes’ it. By the process of serial dilution and succussion, this dynamic energy could be ‘raised’ to new energy levels, and as such, it is believed that ‘higher’ dilutions are more ‘potentized’ and more powerful. This ‘dynamic drug energy’ carried by the ‘potentized drugs’ act upon the vital force and induces a ‘healing process’.
According to the MIT concept I propose, I am explaining the process involved in potentization in terms of ‘molecular imprinting’. It is not the ‘dynamic drug energy’ that is transferred into the medium during so-called process of potentization, but the three dimensional configuration of constituent drug molecules getting imprinted into the supra-molecular matrix of potentizing medium in the form of nanocavities, through a process of forming hydration shells. These nanocavities act as artificial binding sites or artificial ‘key holes’ for pathogenic molecules having morphological similarity to imprinted molecules. This concept scientifically explains the molecular dynamics of homeopathic therapeutics involved in ‘similia similibus curentur’ in a way fitting to the concepts of modern biochemistry, molecular pathology and therapeutics.
Obviously, the term ‘potentization’ reflects the vitalistic philosophy behind it. It would be ideal to use the term ‘molecular imprinting’ to explain the exact process in scientific terms.
Once you understand and accept ‘molecular imprinting’ as the real process involved in potentization, and perceive ‘potentized’ drugs in terms of constituent molecular imprints, all confusions regarding selection of potencies will be scientifically resolved.
According to my concept of ‘molecular imprinting’ involved in homeopathic potentization, the active principles of potentized drugs are ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent drug molecules. Since a drug substance constitutes diverse types of independent molecules in it, potentized drugs also would contain different types of ‘molecular imprints’ or hydrosomes representing those different drug molecules. These ‘molecular imprints’ acts in their individual capacity of morphological similarity by binding up on pathogenic molecules, producing a therapeutic effect.
As per this view, molecules of drug substances would be completely removed from the medium when the dilution crosses Avogadro limit. That means, even the smallest sized drug molecules will disappear above 12c potency. Hence, I proposed that 12c will be the ideal potency for therapeutic purpose, and further higher potencies will not be different from 12c in medicinal property. Since drug molecules will be absent above 12c, I presumed that there is no meaning in continuing potentization higher and higher. On that basis, I suggested to use 12C to 30c potency only. Mean time, we have to work up on developing a better scientific way of producing molecular imprints perfectly
According to me, there only two classes of drugs:
1. Molecular Imprints Forms- potentized drugs above avogadro limit, or 12c and above, containing only molecular imprints or hydrosomes.
2. Molecular Forms- low potencies below 12c and crude drugs which contain original drug molecules.
(Here, the specified probability range is calculated for molecules of lowest molecular weight, using Avogadro Number. Obviously, molecules of higher molecular weight may disappear from the medium at much earlier stages of potentization. Probability range of each individual class of molecules can be calculated using their molecular weight, Avogadro Number and proportions of dilutions).
Drug molecules and their derivatives, due to their gross molecular properties, can chemically interact with biological molecules and metabolites. This phenomenon is utilized when drugs are used as allopathic medicines.
When crude drugs and low potencies are applied as ‘similimum’, the ‘drug’ molecules contained in them, if having configurational similarity to the active groups of pathological molecules, may compete with the pathological molecules in binding to the target bio-molecules, and in that process, relieve the bio-mole\cules from pathological inhibitions. In this case, drug molecules act as ‘competitive molecular factors’ towards pathologic molecules. It should be understood that crude drugs and low potencies act in certain cases as therapeutic agents by this ‘competitive’ mechanism, when selected according to the principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’.
In certain situations, where there is real scarcity of certain molecules necessary for metabolism, crude substances and low potencies or mother tinctures will have to be used by their supplementary or nutritional value. This belongs to Nutritional Therapy, and should not be confused with homeopathy. Various minerals, vitamins, co-factors, micro-nutrients and amino-acid supplements belong to this category.
Drugs potentized above ‘Avogadro limit’ act by an entirely different molecular mechanism. ‘Hydrosomes’ or ‘molecular imprints’ formed during potentization are morphological complementaries of original drug molecules used as ‘guest’ for potentization. These ‘molecular imprints’ act as ‘counteractive complementary factors’ and bind to the active groups of pathologic molecules having morphological similarity to the drug molecules used for potentization. Thus the pathologic molecules are prevented from interacting with the bio-molecules, thereby relieving the molecular blocks and pathological inhibitions. The danger of drug molecules acting upon on off-target sites, with unfavorable consequences should be expected while using crude drugs and low potencies. If we want to practice real homeopathy, we should deliberately abstain from using medicinal preparations containing drug molecules.
We should also be aware of the difference between crude drugs and low potencies or triturations. Even though both preparations contain same drug molecules, their therapeutic properties are found to be different. In crude form, drug molecules are packed tightly, with their chemical bonds remaining saturated by interacting with various other molecules or ions. Hence, they are not at all free to exhibit all their individual interactive potentials. Whereas in triturations and low potencies, the drug molecules are free or ionized, they can exhibit all their properties. Hence, pathogenic and therapeutic capabilities of triturations and low potencies are much higher to crude forms of same drug, whereas drugs of toxic nature are more toxic in crude forms than dilutions, due to their high concentration of molecules. We already know that various drugs which appear comparatively inert in their crude forms become very potent medicinal agents in triturated forms. Differences between crude Siliciea and Silice 3x, crude Lyco and Lyco 3x etc. are examples for this phenomenon.
But many homeopaths, even those who were not reluctant to accept my ‘molecular imprint’ concept, invited my attention to their experience that when a drug in 12C- 30c potency acted for some time, a stage reaches where no further improvement is obtained. In such situations, they could create curative response by going to higher and higher potencies of same drug. My friends said that their experiences does not corroborate my suggestion that a drug in all potencies above 12c will be similar in medicinal properties.
I decided to take up this question seriously, and started working up on it. There were many instance where NUX 30 failed but NUX 200 acted. It was also correct that in some cases NUX 30 acted for some time and then came to a standstill, where repeating same potency did not succeed in evoking any response. Then NUX 30 or NUX 1m acted favorably.
There were another experience reported by some homeopaths, and verified by me. When NUX 1m failed, NUX 30 or NUX 200 acted. In my experiments on that lines, I noticed that when a case comes to standstill after a certain period of improvement after using NUX 1m, administration of NUX 30 or NUX 200 was also beneficial, instead of moving to still higher potencies.
Then I started experimenting on another lines. When NUX 30 failed to provide further improvement after a certain stage, I used NUX 30 from another sample obtained from another manufacturer. The result was wonderful. It acted!. I repeated this experiment with different cases, different drugs, different potencies. Finally I came to the conclusion that it was not a question of going higher or lower, but changing of samples, changing of source of potentized drugs. I can now suggest my friends, if you fail with NUX 30, and your are still convinced that the similimum is NUX, use NUX 30 obtained from another manufacturer. It will work. Always keep maximum samples of same drugs in same potencies obtained from different sources, and try all of them before changing your prescription. I have also seen it beneficial to mix all those different samples together and keep as single drug. For example, you can collect NUX 30 from five different manufacturers and mix them together and keep labeled as NUX. And see the difference!
It is not at all realistic to imagine that the same drug sample of Nux Vomica used for proving is always used for preparing its potencies also. It may have been procured and prepared from another location, climate, environment, time and circumstances. All of these factors may necessarily influence their chemical constitution also. Contaminants and pollutants also differ with time, place and persons who handled it. Yet, we are obliged to call all these different samples as Nux Vomica, and use it as same drug.
In reality, samples of potentized Nux Vomica we get now from pharmacies are prepared from samples very much different from the samples used for proving it two hundred years back. It might not necessarily be the same contaminations and foreign molecules which happen to be mixed with the drug during procurement and potentization. Entirely new type of impurities and foreign molecules, different from proven samples, shall definitely get mixed with drugs while potentizing. Naturally, these contaminants and foreign molecules also get subjected to potentization along with original drug molecules. It is evident that the homeopathic potencies of Nux Vomica we get from pharmacies contain the potentized forms of these new contaminant molecules also. In other words, they are mixed with potentized forms of these unknown substances, entirely different from those were subjected to proving. We cannot ignore the fact that we are not using potencies of same drug, that have been proved earlier and recorded in the materia medica, eventhough we call it with same name. It is composed of an entirely different mixture, much more different in molecular structure from the one subjected to original proving. We use the potentized form of this new combination, on the basis of symptoms produced by another combination earlier, using the therapeutic principle ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’. Is not this realization somewhat emberassing? We have to provide convincing solutions to the ethical, theoretical and practical problems raised by this situation.
Logical explanation for this phenomenon is very simple. It is associated with the process of molecular imprinting happening in potentization, and the quality of crude drug sample used for potentization. Simply put, each sample of same drug in same potency may differ in their constituent molecular imprints. One sample may miss some ‘molecular imprints’ that may be present in another sample. Each sample provides only partial curative effect, according to the availability of ‘molecular imprints’ present in them. To get a ‘complete’ therapeutic action of a particular drug, we have to use different samples from different sources, one after other, or mixing together.
ALWAYS USE 12C-30C. IF IT DOES NOT ACT, OR STOP ACTING, AND IF YOU ARE SURE YOU HAVE SELECTED CORRECT SIMILIMUM, USE SAME POTENCY FROM ANOTHER SAMPLE OBTAINED FROM ANOTHER SOURCE.
COLLECT MAXIMUM SAMPLES OF 30C OF SAME DRUG FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES AND MIX THEM FOR BETTER THERAPEUTIC RESULT. IT WOULD BE A GREAT EXPERIENCE!
Homeopaths are taught that repetition of doses at frequent intervals is harmful. ‘Waiting’ is their keyword advised to follow for administering the second dose.
I would like to differ with CONVENTIONAL Homeopathy on this point. I think many a excellent homeopathic prescriptions are spoiled only due to our ‘theoretical’ hesitation to repeat the doses in adequate intervals, and these failures are wrongly attributed to ‘wrong similimum’ or ‘wrong potency’ selection. We could have avoided such failures by repeating the doses frequently so as to maintain the drug action at optimum levels to effect a complete cure. I know ‘classical homeopaths’ would tear me into pieces for proposing this ‘unhomeopathic’ concept, which according to them would be an unpardonable offense against the ‘purity of homeopathy’ and a gross disrespect to our ‘masters and stalwarts’.
Whatever be the consequences, I want to discus my logic regarding this issue here. I believe I have strong point to share.
I know my friends would jump in with quotes from the master. Excuse me, I am not unaware of those aphorisms you are going to to quote. I simply differ.
My concepts regarding ‘repetitions’ come from the scientific understanding of potentization as ‘molecular imprinting’ and the active principles of potentized medicines as ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent drug molecules used for potentization. You cannot follow me without understanding the concept of ‘molecular imprints’.
According to me, Molecular Imprints are the active principles of potentized drugs. These ‘molecular imprints’ bind to the pathological molecules having ‘complementary’ configuration, there by relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions and effect Cure.
Since molecular imprints cannot interfere in the normal biochemical interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands, potentized drugs cannot do any harm even if given without indications, or repeated frequently
Same time,these ‘molecular imprints’ could be got anti-doted or deactivated by by molecules or ions having complementary configurations. That means, ‘molecular imprints’ we introduced into the body get deactivated by pathological molecules or other molecules having congigurational affinity. Molecules and ions of vegetable alkaloids, enzymes, food additives, environmental toxins, infectious agents, bacterial-viral toxins and a host of other agents may antidote these ‘molecular imprints’.
Hence, it is necessary to replenish the supply of ‘molecular imprints’ at frequent intervals to ensure a complete cure. That is my point.
Need of using placebo arises from physician’s totally unfounded fear or hesitation to repeat medicinal doses once or twice daily until cure. They are taught that repetitions of potentized drugs are harmful. Once homeopaths realize the scientific truth that potentized drugs cannot do any harm even if repeated frequently, and that frequent repetition is favorable for cure, need of placebo will cease to arise.
It is true that we can make satisfactory homeopathic prescriptions in many cases using right combinations of OBJECTIVE SYMPTOMS only, if reliable SUBJECTIVE SYMPTOMS are not available. We prescribe for infants, imbeciles, unconscious or uncommunicative persons and live stocks by this way. OBJECTIVE symptoms are those belonging to General Physique, Behavior, Postures, Lesions, Gestures, Discharges, Objective Hot or Cold, Objective Locations, Objective Causes, Objective Aggravations & Ameliorations Excretions, Color changes, Texture, Movements, Swellings, Clinical values, Skin, Hair etc etc that could be OBSERVED by the patient himself, physician or onlookers.
We can also make homeopathic prescriptions in most cases using the SUBJECTIVE SYMPTOMS alone, if they are in right combination. SUBJECTIVE symptoms are those belonging to Desires, Aversions, Sensations, Pains, Thirst, Appetite, Urges, Phobias, Feelings, Sensory, Emotions, Moods, Intellect, Dispositions, Dreams, Delusions, Subjective Hot or Cold, Subjective Locations, Subjective Causes, Subjective Aggravation & Amelioration- symptoms that could be experienced or perceived subjectively, ONLY by the patient.
But remember, most PERFECT homeopathic prescriptions could be made if we get and consider both OBJECTIVE as well as SUBJECTIVE symptoms that represent the exact pathological molecular level errors existing in the patient. An ideal combination of OBJECTIVE symptoms as well as their SUBJECTIVE counter parts, which I prefer to call SUBJECTIVE-OBJECTIVE AXIS will ensure a perfect prescription.
Role of SUBJECTIVE symptoms become crucial in identifying a similimum since they represent the biochemical processes taking place in the central nervous system in response to the extremely minute molecular level pathological errors happening in the cells and tissues of the body, which are instantly relayed to the brain centers through chemical signalling molecules and nerve signals. That is why SUBJECTIVE symptoms appear much before observable objective changes take place in the body. Actually, this phenomenon led our masters wrongly think that diseases have their origin in subjective or mental plane. We should realize, diseases are MOLECULAR errors happening in OBJECTIVE or MATERIAL body, but those changes are first recognized by CENTRAL NERVOUS system and instantly responded in the form of SUBJECTIVE SYMPTOMS.
If a homeopath is not dispensing medicines from his own clinic, how can he prescribe placebo? What will he do if one patient insists to get his prescriptions in black and white? What if law makes it compulsory, as it belongs to the right of consumers? What will happen if somebody takes up this as an issue of of consumer rights? If allopaths can practice and give ‘satisfaction’ to his patients without using any placebo, why homeopaths only need it?
We cannot change or avoid earlier books written by old masters and stalwarts, which obviously contain some occasional scientifically wrong or historically obsolete statements along with very valuable lessons about homeopathy. We have to study and use them with a historical, rational and scientific approach. Never follow their advice or recommendations blindly. I regularly use boericke repertory and materia medica, but do not follow his recommendations to use low potencies. I use kent repertory and materia medica as my favorite reference books, but do not agree with his spiritualistic philosophical interpretations of homeopathy. I daily read organon as the source and foundation of all my knowledge about homeopathy, but do not accept the unscientific ideas of hahnemann expressed in his works. I have included all the important reference materials in my Similimum Ultra Software irrespective of my ‘theoretical’ disagreements, to make it useful to all homeopaths preferring to follow any method of practice. This is what I mean by DIALECTICAL APPROACH
Homeopathic therapeutics is based on THREE basic observations:
1. SIMILAR chemical molecules can bind to similar biological targets and produce similar molecular errors that are reflected through SIMILAR subjective and objective symptoms.
2. MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of similar chemical molecules can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for all similar molecules and bind to them, thereby relieving the biological molecules from the pathological molecular inhibitions they produced.
3. Work of homeopath is intended to identify the exact SIMILAR DRUGS that in potentized forms contain the exact MOLECULAR IMPRINTS required for removing the molecular inhibitions in the patient, by observing the SYMPTOMS existing in the patient, and comparing them with the known symptoms that have been earlier produced by drugs when applied on healthy individuals.
DEAR HOMEOPATHS, TRY TO UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC TRUTH
SYMPTOMS BELONG TO TWO BROAD CLASSES:
SUBJECTIVE: Symptoms belonging to Desires, Aversions, Sensations, Pains, Thirst, Appetite, Urges, Phobias, Feelings, Sensory, Emotions, Moods, Intellect, Dispositions, Dreams, Delusions, Subjective Hot or Cold, Subjective Locations, Subjective Causes, Subjective Aggravations & Ameliorations, that could be experienced or perceived subjectively, only by the patient.
OBJECTIVE: Symptoms belonging to General Physique, Behavior, Postures, Lesions, Gestures, Discharges, Objective Hot or Cold, Objective Locations, Objective Causes, Objective Aggravations & Ameliorations Excretions, Color changes, Texture, Movements, Swellings, Clinical values, Skin, Hair etc etc that could be OBSERVED by the patient himself, physician or onlookers.
Try to find the OBJECTIVE- SUBJECTIVE AXIS working behind a given SYMPTOM COMPLEX, and find a drug that matches to this AXIS. It will be the most appropriate SIMILIMUM for that particular SYMPTOM COMPLEX
Please try this method, and see how it works.
Living organism is a highly organized MATERIAL system involving millions of complex chemical molecules in mutual interaction, formed through an evolutionary process of millions of years from the simple forms of same elementary particles that constitute the non-living world also. Difference between living and nonliving forms of matter is only ‘organizational’. When the peculiar ‘organization’ is any way disrupted, the molecular interactions we call vital processes are disrupted. We call this disruption as disease. If the disruption is beyond certain limit that there is no any chance of correction, it leads to the stoppage of of vital processes, which we call death.
What we call MIND is the sum total of complex biochemical processes happening in brain or central nervous system, which is also an integral part of material BODY. There is no MIND or spirit without the biomolecular system of brain or body.
My point is, LIFE is material, DISEASE is material, CURE is material, MEDICINES are material. Therapeutics is a material art- not immaterial or spiritual.
A particular GROUP OF SYMPTOMS in a given patient indicates a particular remedy when that group of symptoms exists on a specific SUBJECTIVE-OBJECTIVE AXIS which has its equivalent in that particular remedy also. That is all. It never means, to be similimum the WHOLE symptoms of drug and the WHOLE symptoms of PERSON should be equivalent.
During my 43+ years of experience with homeopathy, I have never seen a single person with a PURE ‘calc carb’, ‘sulphur”, ‘pulsatilla’ or any other DRUG CONSTITUTION, with ALL his mental, general and particular symptoms EXACTLY fitting to any SINGLE drug that could be called his PERFECT CONSTITUTIONAL DRUG. Any person we consider of SULPHUR or CALC constitution will have some symptoms that do not fit to sulphur or calcarea. We are bound to rationally explain this experience.
Claiming to be practicing EVIDENCE BASED HOMEOPATHY is the latest fashion among modern ‘elite’ homeopaths. By this claim, they actually hope to practice as ‘free birds’, conveniently evading from all hard questions regarding ‘how homeopathy works’, as well as without any commitment to ‘classical’ philosophy or principles of homeopathy. By this way, they try to mask their lack of scientific knowledge, and their perennial laziness to update themselves. They also think, by using the title of ‘evidence based medicine’ it will make them appear as peers with modern ‘physicians’.
Concept of ‘evidence based medicine’ was actually coined by modern medicine to ensure that current medical practice does not suffer from the inevitable delay in ‘explaining’ each and every clinical experiences through scientific protocols, and to incorporate clinical ‘evidences’ also as factors in therapeutic decision making. For them, ‘evidence based medicine’ is only a practical extension of ‘science based medicine’ they are practicing.
‘Evidence based medicine’ is an important concept in modern medical practice, as it is based on RATIONAL ‘scientific evidence’, and practiced as an extension of ‘science based medicine’. It cannot be used to displace or ignore the relevance of scientific understanding or explaining in medicine. Evidence based medicine never deny the importance of scientific knowledge, but it utilizes ‘evidences’ anticipating their scientific explanation- it is a form of forecasting into the future medicine, based on existing scientific knowledge. That means, ‘evidences’ used in ‘evidence based medicine’ should be strictly based on and fitting to the existing scientific knowledge- not contradicting it. Modern medicine uses the term ‘evidence’ to refer to scientifically proven evidences fitting well to the existing scientific knowledge system.
But our ‘evidence based’ homeopaths actually use the term ‘evidence’ in the meaning ‘experiences’ of individual practitioners and their subjective interpretations, or some ‘studies’ without any scientific foundation, which totally contradict existing scientific knowledge. They practice it without any understanding of the exact scientific basis of what they are practicing. They try to use the concept of ‘evidence based medicine’ to mask their inability even to explain ‘how homeopathy works’, or ‘what are the active principles of potentized drugs’. They try to evade from all fundamental questions of homeopathy by talking about ‘evidence based medicine’. Some convenient phrases hijacked from modern medicine will not be enough to hide the scientific deficiencies of homeopaths, unless they update homeopathy in accordance with advancing scientific knowledge existing around us.
‘Evidence based medicine’ should not mean ‘irrational medicine’ or ‘ignorance based medicine’. It should be based on rational and logical ‘evidence’ that fit to the existing scientific knowledge system. Claims of ‘experiences’ that contradict existing scientific knowledge system and logical reasoning do not come under the purview of authentic ‘evidence’. Without explaining and proving homeopathy in terms of modern science, it will be a futile exercise to hide behind the term ‘evidence based medicine’.
Before talking about ‘evidence based medicine’, homeopathy should be first of all placed on a reasonably sound scientific footing. At least, we have to be able to answer the question ‘what are the active principles of potentized drugs’. It simply means, ‘what are you actually giving to the patient’ as ‘medicine’? In order to answer that question, you will have to explain what is the exact process happening during potentization. Of course, you will be required to propose a scientifically viable biological mechanism for its therapeutic action. Only after that much is attained, we can talk about practicing ‘evidence based medicine’ in homeopathy.
‘Evidence based’ homeopaths conveniently ignore all the fundamental hard questions, because they really know nothing about the science involved in homeopathy. They are also not willing to learn and update themselves. To evade from fundamental questions and to hide the deficiencies, they are pretending to be practicing ‘evidence based medicine’.
One prominent ‘evidence based’ homeopath explained his ‘philosophy’ as follows on my page:
“Let likes be treated with likes. This is the real fact you cannot deny. This fact can be described and explained in thousands of daily examples. Homeopathy works under the law of similar. Thousands of examples could be cited. Suppose this is real fact and reality you also accept. Can you prove the existence of spirit or soul? But you cannot deny it. Similar way, homeopathy is reality, which cannot be denied. It is not important to explain its existence in the acceptable meaning of skeptic . Fact is fact”.
This statement is a classical example demonstrating the approach of ‘evidence based’ homeopaths. For him, scientific explanation is only for “the acceptance of skeptics”. Law of similars is “described and explained in thousands of daily examples”, and hence, scientific explanations are “not important”! Homeopaths should learn only to treat “likes with likes”- no need to understand or explain how ‘likes cure the likes’. Proving homeopathy is like proving the existence of “spirit or soul”. “Homeopathy is a reality that cannot be denied”. Finished!
Talking about ‘evidence based homeopathy’, and practicing ‘freely’, merely on the basis of ‘experiences’ and ‘clinical results’ will not any way help in the future advancement of homeopathy as a MEDICAL SCIENCE. You cannot ignore the fundamental questions by this type of gimmicks for long. Without even any idea about the contents of ‘substances’ you are giving to the patients as medicines, how can you talk about any ‘scientific evidence’?
Please do not hope to mask your intellectual inertia and lack of scientific knowledge by declaring ‘we practice evidence based medicine’. Please do not think that fundamental questions such as ‘what is the biological mechanism by which homeopathy works’, ‘what happens during potentization’, ‘what are the active principles of potentized drugs’ could be wished away as ‘irrelevant’ as far as you are ‘producing results’ in your practice. Anybody practicing occults and woodoo also argue the same way: ‘we produce results as per experience’. They also claim to be ‘evidence based practitioners’ in their own domains.
Homeopaths can practice ‘evidence based medicine’ only after making homeopathy a ‘scientific medicine’ by answering the fundamental questions about homeopathy- only as an extension of scientific homeopathy. Do not be under the false notion that you can fool the science-conscious community by mere play of words such as ‘evidence based medicine’ and ‘experience based medicine’.
YOU DO NOT KNOW SOMETHING IS NOT A SIN. BUT, HESITATING TO LEARN WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW IS NOT ONLY A SIN, BUT A CRIME! WHEN IT IS COMMITTED BY PEOPLE CLAIMING TO BE PHYSICIANS, IT IS AN UNPARDONABLE CRIME.
Hahnemann actually initiated a revolution by declaring that MORBID SYMPTOMS are not DISEASES, but only the “outwardly reflected picture of the internal essence of the disease”.
He made physicians to understand the importance of INTERNAL ESSENCE rather than its REFLECTED PICTURE. Same time, he demonstrated how this REFLECTED PICTURE could be utilized to identify the peculiarities of underlying INTERNAL ESSENCE, and to select appropriate remedial agents to correct its DEVIATIONS.
Medical practice of hahnemann’s time was actually TREATING THE SYMPTOMS, based on mere ‘experiences’ and ‘speculations’ of physicians, without any scientific understanding regarding the actions, effects and dangers of crude drugs and methods they utilized. They considered SYMPTOMS as DISEASES.
It was hahnemann who for the first time taught physicians to look into the ‘internal essence’ of diseases rather than the ‘outward reflections’ or ‘morbid symptoms’, same time utilizing the ‘outward reflections’ as a tool for studying and manipulating the ‘internal essence’.
Remember, hahnemann was making this observation 250 years ago, when modern BIOCHEMISTRY has not even emerged to inquire into the “internal essence of disease” in a scientific way. Nothing was known regarding the BIO-MOLECULAR processes involved in the phenomena of life and disease. In such a knowledge environment, it was impossible for hahnemann to understand or explain what is exactly the “internal essence of disease”.
Only thing he could do was to explain it as “affection of the vital force”.
Similar chemical MOLECULES can produce similar DISEASES by binding to similar biological molecules; MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of similar molecules can bind to similar pathogenic molecules and cure DISEASES produced by them.
Exactly, the concept of ‘similimum’ should be scientifically re-interpreted in terms of ‘conformational similarity of functional groups of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules’- not merely as ‘similarity of symptoms’. Similarity of of symptoms is ONLY ONE OF THE MANY WAYS of identifying this conformational similarity.
Actually, we can make many excellent ‘homeopathic’ cures even bypassing the concept of ‘similarity of symptoms’.
So called ‘tautopathic’ prescriptions, where molecular imprints of modern chemical drugs are used to remove their bad effects, belong to this class. Many ‘specifics’ and ‘experience-based’ prescriptions are successfully used in day-to-day homeopathic practice ignoring the ‘similarity of symptoms’. Many of the potentized hormone remedies, biological products and nosodes are commonly used without any ‘matching’ of symptoms, but on the basis of peripheral knowledge only. Most of the ‘causational’ prescriptions never consider ‘similarity of symptoms’.
All of these various approaches work well in most occasions. Only those ‘well-proved’ drugs with complete materia medica of mental and constitutional symptoms could be used if we strictly follow the principle of ‘totality of symptoms’.
Even though Hahnemann explained “similia similibus curentur’ in terms of ‘similarity of disease-symptoms’ and ‘drug-symptoms’, I think it is inappropriate in modern knowledge context to reduce ‘similia similibus curentur’ to mean only ‘similarity of symptoms’, once we understand molecular level biological mechanism of disease and cure.
It is genuine ‘homeopathy’ if we are curing diseases by using ‘potentized’ or ‘molecular imprints’ forms of drugs, even if prescribed without strictly considering ‘similarity of symptoms’ in its ‘classical’ meaning.
‘Similarity of symptoms’ is only ONE of the many ‘practical’ ways of determining this similarity of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules.
Selecting similimum by comparing disease symptoms and drug symptoms is based on the idea that similar molecules can bind to similar bio-molecular targets and produce similar molecular errors in the organism, which will be expressed through similar symptoms.
There is nothing ‘un-homeopathic’ if you could find similimum by some methods other than comparing symptoms, such as knowledge of biochemistry or molecular pathology, if it is possible.
Put in modern scientific terms ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ means, ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for pathogenic molecules having ‘similar’ conformation, and bind to them so as to remove the molecular inhibitions they produced up on the biological molecules.
The corner-stone of all skeptic arguments against homeopathy is that ‘similia similibus curentur’ is not a real ‘pattern’ existing in nature- but only an unreal imagination of hahnemann which was wrongly raised to the status of a ‘natural law’ and ‘followed’ by the homeopaths without questioning. Skeptics raise this argument to establish that homeopathy is a ‘pseudoscience’ and ‘faith healing’, since it is the method of pseudoscience to read out imaginary patterns of events from nature and make them ‘laws and principles’ of their theoretical ‘systems’.
If ‘similia similibus curentur’ is only an unreal and imaginary ‘pattern’, homeopathy ceases to exist. That is obvious, since whole system of homeopathy is founded on this ‘basic principle’.
There are two components involved in this ‘principle’- ‘drug symptoms’ and ‘disease symptoms’. This principle tries to explain a peculiar relationship existing between these components. Does such a relationship exist in nature, or is it only an ‘imagination’ of hahnemann? If there exist such a relationship, can we explain its molecular level mechanism in scientific terms leaving aside the ‘explanation’ provided by hahnemann within the historical limitations of scientific knowledge available to him during his period?
We have to examine this question from two angles. First, we have to verify whether there exist an ‘objective’ relationship between drug symptoms and disease symptoms which hahnemann observed and interpreted. Second point is, if such a relationship is real, whether the subjective ‘explanation’ or ‘interpretation’ of hahnemann about such an ‘objective’ phenomenon was right or wrong. Hahnemann might be right or wrong, or partially right. Even if he ‘explained’ it wrongly, that does not mean the objective’ pattern of events in nature he observed in nature do not exist. If the phenomenon is real and hahnemann explain it wrongly, we have to explain it rightly using the advanced scientific knowledge now available to us now- it should not inevitably lead us to the conclusion that the observed phenomenon does not exist.
In its elaborate sense, the term ‘symptoms’ incorporates ‘every’ subjective and objective expressions that could be observed or perceived in the individual, including the chemical processes as revealed by laboratory investigations as well as physical changes as revealed by modern diagnostic tools and gadgets.
SImilia Similibus Curentur explains the peculiar relationship between ‘disease symptoms’ and ‘drug symptoms’.
DRUG SYMPTOMS means, symptoms representing the molecular level errors produced by the inhibitory actions of drug molecules upon the biological molecules in a healthy organism when drug substance is introduced into it.
DISEASE SYMPTOMS means, symptoms representing the molecular level errors produced by the inhibitory actions of endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules upon the biological molecules in a healthy organism.
When disease symptoms expressed by a patient appears to be SIMILAR to the known drug symptoms produced by any of the previously proven drug substance upon a healthy individual, that means, the molecular errors present in the disease as well as the molecular level errors produced by the drug substance were SIMILAR. That in turn means, same biological molecules were affected by the drug molecules and the disease-causing pathogenic molecules. Such a similarity of molecular error happens only when the pathogenic molecules and drug molecules have similar functional groups having similar molecular conformations, so that they could bind to same biological target molecules.
When disease-causing molecules and drug molecules are having similar molecular conformations, they will compete each other to bind to the biological targets, when both the pathogenic molecules and drug molecules work in the body simultaneously. Such a competitive relationship between drug molecules and pathogenic molecules may be utilized to remove pathological molecular inhibitions by applying similar drug molecules. Hahnemann was observing this competitive relationship between SIMILAR drug molecules and disease molecules while talking about ‘similia similibus curentur’, even though he could not explain the molecular mechanism behind this phenomenon, due to obvious historical limitations.
Even though SIMILAR drug molecules can remove molecular inhibibitions caused by pathogenic molecules and thereby cure diseases, there is always the chances of producing new inhibitions by drug molecules, which hahnemann observed as side effects and medicinal aggravations. In order to avoid this possibility, hahnemannn started to make drug substances more and more diluted, which led him to the invention of POTENTIZATION. BY potentization, drug molecules are replaced by HYDROSOMES or molecular imprinted supra-molecular nano cavities, which can act as target specific artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules due to the complementary conformational affinity. Since molecular imprints cannot produce molecular inhibitions in biological molecules, they never produce bad effects.
Similia Similibus Curentur is not anybody’s imagination as skeptics try to depict it. It is a REAL PATTERN existing in nature, that explains the competitive relationship in biological environment between drug molecules and pathogenic molecules having functional groups of similar conformations.
A few months back, a famous lady homeopath from US came and posted an article on my page, explaining her dispensing methods. After exhaustive case taking and repertorization she selects a similimum. Then she writes the name of drug on a piece of paper and places on a table. Then she would place a glass of water on that paper and keep it there for 30 minutes to ‘potentize’ the water with ‘medicinalenergy’. Then she would ask the patient to take this ‘energized’ water in teaspoon doses. She was practicing this ‘method’ for last 5 years with ‘miraculous results”!
I asked her in which language I should write on the paper, and whether abbreviation is enough. She got annoyed and started educating me regarding ‘fringe science’, ‘ultra-science’ and ‘energy medicine’. She used all sorts of scientific terms from quantum science to explain her theory, and told a lot about ‘unscientificness’ of modern science. It ended in a bitter encounter of words, and she quit cursing me!
During discussions on a homeopathic group regarding ‘active principles’ of potentized drugs, a homeopath posted: “The ingredient in a remedy is electromagnetic energy. In trituration, we make nano-particles, which means electrons are rubbed off the molecule. Those electrons are negatively charged and also charge the lactose. The lactose dissolves in water, and so the water get charged. Succussion is the amplification of that electromagnetic charge.”
When you say the electrons getting ‘rubbed off’ from the drug molecules, and ‘charge’ the lactose, and while the lactose dissolve in water the ‘water get charged’, and this ‘charge’ of water is the ‘ingredient’ of potentized medicine, acting as ‘electro-magnetic energy’, and ‘succussion’ is ‘amplification’ of that ‘charge’, a lot of questions will have to be answered.
1. How the simple ‘electrons’ ‘rubbed off’ from the ‘drug molecules’ carry the properties of complex drug molecules and transfer these properties to the lactose? According to your theory, only ‘electrons’ ‘rubbed off’ involve in activating the ‘lactose’. If so, ‘drug molecules’ have no role in this ‘charging’ process. Do you think ‘electrons’ ‘rubbed off’ from a complex molecule can represent the whole molecule, which contains different types of atoms?
2. Let us accept your theory of lactose getting charged by the ‘electrons’ ‘rubbed off’ from the drug molecules. ‘getting charged’ means, the energy level of lactose molecules are raised to a higher level. According to quantum understanding, any atom or molecules raised to a higher level would return to its ground energy state in a short time by radiating energy, once the ‘process of charging’ is stooped. If so, the lactose charged by trituration will lose its ‘energy’ it is kept for some time. Do you think triturated drugs will lose its medicinal properties if kept for some time?
3. When you say the ‘lactose’ dissolve in water and water also get charged, have you got any idea about the ‘nano-particles’ of drugs created during trituration? What would be its role, if water is getting charged by the ‘charged lactose’?
4. Now, coming to the ‘amplification’ of charges during succussion. How this amplification happens, and how can this amplification increase the medical properties?
5. What is according to you the mechanism by which this ‘charged water’ interfere in the biological process? If it is through ‘electromagnetic radiation’, is it necessary that the ‘charged water’ should be introduced into the body for therapeutic action? Why not this ‘electromagnetic radiation’ act up on the patient when kept nearby?
6. ‘Charged water’ also would return to ground level energy state by discharging ‘electromagnetic radiation’. That means, when potentized medicine would lose its medicinal properties by dissipating its extra energy when kept for some time. Do you agree?
7. When we keep two potentized medicines nearby in our pharmacy, both will be constantly discharging ‘electromagnetic radiation’. Would there be a chance for interacting of these ‘radiations? What if one drug absorbs the radiation coming from other? Or, do you think this EMR will work only when the medicine is inside the body of the patient?
8. Do you think the ‘electrons’ rubbed of during trituration and ‘charging the lactose and then water, can emit EMRs specific to those drugs? Remember, even a single drug contains diverse types of complex molecules. Do you say these electrons can impart the ‘charged water’ the ‘energy’ to emit NUX EMRs, SULPH EMRs and the like? By what mechanism?”
Many homeopaths believe that drug substances are converted to ‘energy’ during potentization. ‘Matter’ getting ‘converted’ to ‘energy’ during potentization is a concept widely propagated by people trying to establish that homeopathy is ‘energy medicine’. I would request them to seriously think over the point I try make out here.
No doubt, “matter is nothing but a package of ENERGY as you say. But do you think matter can be ‘unpacked’ into energy by the simple process of ‘succussion and dilution’ involved in potentization? Do you know how much energy you need to break even the chemical bonds that holds atoms together in a molecule? ‘Converting matter into energy’ means not only breaking of chemical bonds, but breaking atoms into subatomic particles, and subatomic particles into ‘energy’. How can anybody imagine we can make atomic division happening through our simple process of potentization? Even if you make it to happen, how can this ‘energy’ you expect to preserve the ‘medicinal properties’ of drug substances? Do you know ‘medicinal properties’ of drug substances are related with the structure and properties at molecular level?
When matter is converted to energy, that energy will be same, whether you make it from sulphur, nux vomica or calcarea. Once you break the inter-atomic bonds within molecules, the atoms cannto preserve the properties of molecules from where they came from. An oxygen atom will have the properties of oxygen atom only, whether it come from nux, water or any other molecule. When you divide the atoms further into subatomic particles, protons and electrons will be same, irrespective of atoms they came from. If you further divide atoms to ‘release’ energy, the energy so produced will not differ according to the atoms it originated. With this primary scientific knowledge, how could yo imagine the ‘drug energy’ of complex substance to be preserved in the ‘energy’ produced by ‘unpacking’ of matter? Please remember, the medicinal property is decided by the molecular structure and chemical properties of drug substances, not by the universal ‘atomic energy’.
You know, water contains hydrogen and oxygen atoms. But the properties of water is not exhibited by hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen coming from water or any other source will have same properties. If hydrogen is divided into protons and electrons, they will not show any property of hydrogen. Protons coming from division of any atom will be similar in properties. If we further split these subatomic particles into ‘energy’, how can you expect that energy to show the properties of water?
Medicinal properties of substances are decided by their molecular level structure and chemical properties. That cannot be preserved in the ‘energy’ generated by division of that matter into subatomic level. This is primary scientific knowledge, even any high school student knows. But homeopaths prefer to forget all science they learned, in their eagerness to justify the unscientific theories they learned in the name of homeopathy. This is a very disappointing situation
For example, Atropine is a chemical compound with formula C17H23NO3 . It acts upon biological molecules and produce various molecular errors, expressed through certain groups of symptoms. But, if we divide that atropine into carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen, they will have properties entirely different from atropine. That is why I want to remind you, medicinal properties of drugs are determined by the structure and properties of molecules, not the ‘energy’ packed in them!
PATHOGENIC MOLECULES produce diseases by binding their active FUNCTIONAL GROUPS to the specific biological molecules in the organism due to their molecular affinity, and producing molecular errors.
During drug proving, poisoning and crude molecular actions, DRUG MOLECULES produce bio-molecular errors and symptoms in the healthy organism by binding their FUNCTIONAL GROUPS to the biological molecules.
When disease symptoms and drug symptoms appear SIMILAR, that means functional groups of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules were similar, so that they could bind to similar bio-molecular targets and produce similar molecular errors in the organism.
HYDROSOMES or ‘molecular imprints’ of ‘functional groups’ of drug molecules contained in the potentized drugs can act as ‘artificial binding sites or LIGAND TRAPS towards the SIMILAR pathogenic molecules, due to their COMPLEMENTARY conformation.
It is now obvious that when using SIMILIMUM as therapeutic agents, we are actually using MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of ‘functional groups’ of drug molecules to bind to the ‘functional groups’ of pathogenic molecules and deactivate them.
This observation leads us to some very important conclusions: What we actually need is the MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of biologically active FUNCTIONAL GROUPS. If we can prepare molecular imprints of all biologically active functional groups, and make them available as homeopathic remedies, we will not need all these thousands of different drug substances. We will require only a very limited number of drugs, which could be universally applied as per homeopathic indications.
We will have to prepare MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of only following classes of FUNCTIONAL GROUPS to make our wonderful therapeutic arsenal:
Functional Groups consisting of Hydrocarbons: Alkyl ( Ethane), Alkenyl ( Ethylene) , Alkynyl (Acetylene), Phenyl (Cumene), Benzyl (Benzyl bromide).
Functional Groups containing Halogens: Halo ( Chloroethane), fluoro (Fluoromethane), chloro (Chloromethane), bromo (Bromomethane), iodo (Iodomethane).
Functional Groups containing oxygen: Hydroxyl (Methanol), Carbonyl (Butanone), Aldehyde (Acetaldehyde), Haloformyl (Acetyl chloride), Carbonate ester (Triphosgene), Carboxylate (Sodium acetate), Carboxyl (Acetic acid), Ester (Ethyl butyrate), Methoxy, Hydroperoxy (Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide), Peroxy (Di-tert-butyl peroxide), Ether (Diethyl ether), Hemiacetal, Hemiketal, Acetal, Ketal , Orthoester, Orthocarbonate ester.
Functional Groups containing nitrogen: Carboxamide (Acetamide), Primary amine (Methylamine), Secondary amine (Dimethylamine), Tertiary amine (Trimethylamine), 4° ammonium ion (Choline), Primary ketimine, Secondary ketimine, Primary aldimine, Secondary aldimine, Imide (Succinimide), Azide (Phenyl azide), Azo (Methyl orange), Cyanate (Methyl cyanate), Isocyanate (Methyl isocyanate), Nitrate (Amyl nitrate), Nitrile (Benzonitrile), Isonitrile (Methyl isocyanide), Nitrosooxy (Isoamyl nitrite), Nitro (Nitromethane), Nitroso (Nitrosobenzene), Pyridyl (Nicotine).
Functional Groups containing sulphur: Sulfhydryl (Ethanethiol), Sulfide (Dimethyl sulfide), Disulfide (Dimethyl disulfide), Sulfinyl (Dimethyl sulfoxide), Sulfonyl (Dimethyl sulfone ), Sulfino (2-Aminoethanesulfinic acid), Sulfo (Benzenesulfonic acid), Thiocyanate (Phenyl thiocyanate), Isothiocyanate (Allyl isothiocyanate), Carbonothioyl (Diphenylmethanethione), Carbonothioyl.
Groups containing phosphorus: Phosphino (Methylpropylphosphane), Phosphono (Benzylphosphonic acid), Phosphate (Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate), Phosphodiester (O‑[(2‑Guanidinoethoxy)hydroxyphosphoryl]‑l‑serine).
Groups containing boron: Borono, Boronate, Borino, Borinate.
THIS IS ONLY A PRELIMINARY THOUGHT IN THIS DIRECTION.
A ‘single drug’ means a drug substance that contains ‘single type of biologically active molecules’. If a drug substance contains different types of biologically active molecules, it is not a ‘single’ drug- it is a compound drug. Nux vomica is a COMPOUND drug, SEPIA is a compound drug- all vegetable and animal drugs as well as most of the mineral drugs we wrongly consider SINGLE drugs are actuallyCOMPOUND drugs.
Whether we call NUX a ‘single’ drug or ‘multiple’ drug would not have been a matter of any consequence, if homeopaths abstained from making so much controversy over ‘single-multiple’ drug issue. We are compelled to point out that even NUX is not a SINGLE drug in scientific sense, when they declare that ‘SINGLE DRUG’ is a ‘fundamental principle’ of homeopathy, and that anybody using more than one drug is not a TRUE homeopath!
Hahnemann could not provide any scientific explanation for the phenomena involved in homeopathy, due to the historical limitations of knowledge environment available to him. That is understandable and acceptable.
But, what were those ‘faithful disciples’ of hahnemann doing for
explaining homeopathy scientifically all these 200 hundred years after hahnemann? Only making it appear more and more absurd by talking all sorts of ‘anti-scientific’ and ‘ultra-scientific’ nonsense ‘energy medicine’ theories that contradict all existing scientific knowledge system. By talking about ‘miracles’ ‘magics’, and doing occult practices in the name of homeopathy that no rational minded human beings can agree with.
Nobody so far bothered to evolve even a scientifically viable working hypothesis about homeopathy that could be presented as a candidate for verification according to scientific methods.
All those ‘newtons’, ‘ensteins’ and ‘gurus’ of homeopathy were only busy with amassing money by conducting seminars, propagating and marketing their branded ‘methods and principles’.
Our ‘research institutions’ were only interested in preparing fake projects, reports, bills and vouchers for ‘utilizing’ and sharing the huge funds they were allotted from public exchequers.
How can we blame scientific community for saying homeopathy is unscientific?
All vegetable and animal drugs, as well as most of the mineral drug substances we consider SINGLE, actually contain many different types of chemical molecules. When introduced into a living body, these chemical molecules act upon different biological targets as individual units in capacity of their chemical properties, thereby producing multitudes of molecular inhibitions and deviations in various biochemical pathways, and produce associated subjective and objective symptoms.
During potentization, these drug molecules undergo MOLECULAR IMPRINTING as individual units, and hence, even a potentized drug we consider SINGLE will be actually a MIXTURE of diverse types of MOLECULAR IMPRINTS representing diverse types of individual molecules.
When applied as a therapeutic agent, this individual molecular imprints contained in the potentized drug will act as individual units, and bind to different pathogenic molecules having configurational offinity.
Why can’t you realize the meaninglessness of this ‘single drug/multiple drug’ controversy?
According to scientific view, it is the number of biologically active chemical molecules contained in a drug substance that determines whether it is a SINGLE drug or COMPOUND drug. If it contains SINGLE type of biologically active chemical molecules, it is a SINGLE drug. If it contains differet types of biologically active chemical molecules, it is a COMPOUND drug. What somebody blindly believes, or what somebody wrote two centuries ago, cannot change this well-proven and universally accepted scientific truth. Dear homeopath, try to understand and accept undeniable scientific truths, and discard your foolish beliefs.
If you have no any idea about WHAT ‘active principles’ you are actually giving to your patient when administering a ‘high potency drug’, and HOW they exactly work, how can you make ‘theories’ about its dose, repetition, number of drugs etc? Only on the basis of what ‘master did say’ or ‘did not say’ 250 years ago? Do you expect homeopathy can exist here for long, facing the scientific challenges of future successfully with this dogmatic approach, by feigning deaf, dumb and blind towards the questions raised by advancing scientific knowledge?
Read foot note of aphorism 276:
“The praise bestowed of late years by some homoeopathists on the larger doses is owing to this, either that they chose low dynamizations of the medicine to be administered (as I myself used to do twenty years ago, from not knowing any better), or that the medicines selected were not perfectly homoeopathic.”
This statement of hahnemann should be read by those who justify the use of mother tinctures by saying “master also used mother tinctures”. Hahnemann confesses, he used ‘large’ doses and ‘low dynamizations’ TWENTY YEARS AGO, ( means twenty years before he wrote 6th edition of organon), from “not knowing any better”. Please note, “FROM NOT KNOWING ANY BETTER!”
Still not convinced of what was master’s views regarding mother tinctures?
‘How potentized drugs work’ is a question not yet answered, since they do not contain any drug molecules, and nobody so far knows what exactly are the active principles of potentized drugs. MIT hypothesis proposed by me is a serious attempt to resolve this riddle by scientific methods.
But there is nothing to prove in ‘how mother tinctures work’. They contain drug molecules with specific chemical properties, which can work exactly by the same biological mechanism as any MOLECULAR DRUG such as allopathic or ayurvrdic drug works.
I think ‘totality of symptoms’ does not mean ‘all symptoms’ of the patient. It actually means, ‘each symptom considered in its totality’. A symptom becomes a ‘total symptom’ when it is considered with its all available qualifying accessories such as locations, causations, sensation, presentations, modalities and concomitants. From this point of view, even a single symptom if considered with all its qualifying accessories may constitute ‘totality of symptoms’, which will be enough to decide a similimum for the patient.
Whether you use mother tinctures alone, mixed, or as ‘additional’ ‘supportive’ to the selected ‘similimum’ used in high potencies, what ever theories, aphorisms and principles you talk about, actually you are doing ‘very bad’ homeopathy. In fact, you are not doing homeopathy at all.
Do you ever use MOTHER TINCTURES strictly following the similia principle, by working out as SIMILIMUM by repertorizing using the totality of mental and physical symptoms? If not, how can you say it is a genuine homeopathic prescription? How can you expect our mother tinctures to act by a biological mechanism different from that of allopathic and ayurvedic tinctures, only because we put a label ‘homeopathic’ on our bottles.?
We use SYMPTOMS as indicators of pathological molecular errors existing in the individual, so as to identify the exact pathogenic molecules that produced those molecular errors, and then find the drug molecules that could produce SIMILAR molecular errors in healthy individuals, by a process of comparing and matching of drug symptoms and disease symptoms.
Once the drug substance containing the molecules similar to the pathogenic molecules are identified by a comparative study of their symptoms, we use the potentized form of that drug as therapeutic agent, in order to supply the appropriate MOLECULAR IMPRINTS that could bind to the pathogenic molecules and remove the molecular inhibitions they produced in the organism.
This is the most rational and scientific explanation of homeopathy. Kindly think over.
While a homeopath searches for a SIMILIMUM for his patient by matching DISEASE symptoms and DRUG symptoms, he is actually searching for appropriate MOLECULAR IMPRINTS that could act is LIGAND LOCKS or ‘artificial binding sites’ to bind to the pathogenic molecules that produced the ‘molecular inhibitions’ in the organism and caused the disease condition.
This search is based on the knowledge involved in homeopathy that if the symptoms produced by drugs when applied on healthy individuals and the symptoms produced an a particular disease condition are SIMILAR, that means the particular drug substance contained some drug molecules that could bind to same biological target molecules which were attacked by the pathogenic molecules to produce disease condition, so that the molecular errors and their symptoms appear SIMILAR.
It further means, the drug substance as well as causative agents of disease contained some molecules having SIMILAR functional groups or moieties, so that they could bind to same molecular targets and produce similar molecular errors.
MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of similar molecules can act as ‘artificial binding site’ for any molecule having similar configuration, since the molecular imprints will have a configurational complementary affinity towards those molecules.
This peculiar ‘DRUG-DISEASE’ relationship is expressed by the dictum SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR, which explains the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure.
‘Molecular Imprinting’ is the key word in the scientific understanding of homeopathic ‘potentization’ and ‘simila similibus curentur’.
First of all, I want to make it clear that ‘molecular imprinting’ concept I talk about has nothing to do with the ‘spiritualistic’ ‘water memory’ or such psudoscientific theories our ‘dynamic’ ‘energy medicine’ homeopaths promote.
Once you get the concept of ‘molecular imprinting’ in its right scientific perspective, everything about homeopathy will be rational, clear and simple. Then you will instantly see that homeopathy fits well into the scientific paradigms of modern biochemistry and molecular medicine.
Please google to learn the modern technology of ‘Molecular Imprinted Polymers’ and ‘guest-host’ molecular formations. Then learn supra-molecular properties of water, such as di-electric properties, hydrogen bonding, hydration shells, supra-molecular networks, polymer-like behaviors, clathrates, liquid crystals etc. You can understand what I mean by ‘molecular imprinting’ in water.
At that stage, take a little time to study supra-molecular properties of ethyl alcohol, and water-alcohol complexes. Understanding the molecular structure of oligosaccharides such as lactose and sucrose also will be useful.
Then update your biochemistry from latest textbooks or internet, especially regarding proteins and protein inhibitions, and understand the ‘key-lock’ mechanism involved in ligand-target, substrate-enzyme, antigen-antibody and signal-receptor relationships. Now will be clear on the molecular mechanisms of pathologic molecular inhibitions and therapeutics. Try to understand homeopathic ‘drug proving’ from this angle.
Once you are clear on these subjects, it will be easy for you perceive ‘potentization’ in terms of ‘molecular imprinting’, and potentized drugs in terms of ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent drug molecules. You will understand the real science involved in ‘similia similibus curentur’.
ONCE YOU GET THE BASICS, THINK OVER MY EXPLANATIONS OF HOMEOPATHY:
‘Similimum’ is the drug which in crude form produced ‘molecular errors’ similar to those of the particular ‘disease’ we consider. Similar molecular errors produce similar symptoms, and as such, homeopathy finds ‘similimum’ using ‘similarity of symptoms’. Potentized forms of ‘similimum’ contain ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules, which can bind to pathogenic molecules and act as therapeutic agent.
Perceive ‘drugs’ in terms of diverse types of independent ‘constituent drug molecules’, and potentized medicines as a mixture of independent ‘molecular imprints’ of these drug molecules. Perceive diseases as ‘molecular errors’ in vital processes, and ‘symptoms’ in terms of ‘symptom complexes’ representing ‘molecular errors’. You get a scientific understanding of “Similia Similibus Curentur”.
“Similia Similibus Curentur” means: “Diseases with specific symptoms can be cured by potentized forms of drugs that can create similar symptoms in healthy organism if applied in crude form”.
Same can be stated in a more scientific way: “Pathological molecular errors can be rectified using ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules that can create similar molecular errors if applied in molecular form”.
Diseases can be cured by potentized forms of drug substances that in crude form can create similar diseases in healthy individuals”.
Since ‘diseases’ are molecular errors’ in vital processes, and potentized drugs are ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules, we can change this statement as follows: “ Pathological molecular errors can be rectified by ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules that in crude form can create similar molecular errors in the healthy organism’.
Since similar ‘molecular errors’ created by pathogenic molecules and drug molecules exhibit similar ‘symptoms’, appropriate ‘molecular imprints’ for curing a disease can be determined by a process of observing and matching the ‘disease symptoms’ and ‘drug symptoms(material medica)’.
Whether you select the drug on the basis of ‘totality of symptoms’, ‘multiple symptom complexes’, as ‘constitutional’ remedy, by singular ‘key note symptoms’, as ‘specifics’, as ‘tautopathic’ remedies, as ‘isopathic’ remedies, on the basis of biochemistry of ‘molecular pathology’, on the basis of ‘toxicological’ knowledge, ‘plant kingdoms’, or by any other principles or indications, if the selected drug contains appropriate ‘molecular imprints’ required to remove the pathological molecular inhibitions existing in the particular patient, that drug is ‘his’ SIMILIMUM- may be perfect or partial. IT WILL WORK.
ENERGY MEDICINE nonsense is based on the concepts of IMMATERIAL vibrations, immaterial FORCES, immaterial FREQUENCIES, immaterial RESONANCE and such things, which contradict all the well-proved fundamental principles of our existing scientific knowledge system. That is why they talk about a DRUG ENERGY that can exist without any DRUG MOLECULES or particles, which can ‘act’ from DISTANCE by some mysterious ‘dynamic’ mechanism. I know it is a futile exercise to talk science to those who do not know even the basic lessons of science.
In the absence of essential basic scientific knowledge and rational perspective, you will go on talking about ‘energy medicine’, vital force, dynamic drug energy, spiritual healing, vibrations, resonance, distance healing and such diverse unscientific and pseudo-scientific things, and continue to make homeopathy and homeopaths a subject of unending mockery and ridicule before the scientific community.
And of course, you will go on declaring homeopathy is the ultimate science far advanced than modern science, hahnemann is the greatest scientist ever lived, and aphorisms of organon are ‘immutable’ truths!
Scientific understanding of homeopathy, similar to any rational science of medicine, should be primarily based on the realization of ‘life’ as a ‘material’ phenomenon.
Living world represents a higher level of organization of same elemental factors existing in the non-living world, an advanced stage of its evolution that happened through millions of years.
‘Living organism’ is a highly complex and self-regulated material system that exists through ‘vital processes’ or metabolic processes, consisting of systematic chains of inter-dependent biochemical pathways of complex molecular interactions, enabling an unhindered flow and conversion of matter and energy between organism and its environment that ensures the existence of life.
Phenomena of ‘mind’ and ‘mental faculties’ are the ‘functional’ products of complex biochemical molecular processes happening in the central nervous system, which is an integral part of ‘body’, and as such, mind has no existence free from the material body.
If you cannot understand this basic scientific perspective of ‘life’, ‘vital processes’ and ‘mind’, you cannot follow the scientific explanations of homeopathy.
Without getting yourselves introduced to the latest information regarding supra-molecular properties of water and ethyl alcohol, hydrogen bonding, hydration shells, supra-molecular nano-structures, guest-host complexes, molecular imprinting in polymers and related subjects, you cannot follow the scientific explanations of potentization in terms of ‘molecular imprinting’ as proposed by MIT.
Without a scientific perspective regarding the molecular composition of drug substances and the molecular mechanism by which the drug substances interact with biological organism to produce pathological inhibitions and symptoms, you cannot follow the scientific explanations of drug proving proposed by MIT.
Without a baseline knowledge of essentials of biochemistry- especially regarding the mechanism of ‘ligand-target’ interactions involved in biological processes, molecular basics of protein kinetics and molecular inhibitions, as well as dynamics of ‘cure’ as removal of molecular inhibitions, you cannot effectively follow the scientific explanation of similia similibus curentur proposed by MIT.
Some homeopaths have a wonderfully perverted sense of ‘Cause-Effect’ relationship. They consider every ‘Before-After’ chronological relationship as ’cause and effect’, and jump into queer conclusions. Once they give a ‘single’ dose of drug to the patient, every events and symptoms that ‘follows’ that act will be attributed as the ‘miraculous effect’ of their ‘single dose’. Many claims of ‘cures’, ‘aggravations’, ‘side effects’ and ‘provings’ are actually the product of this perverted understanding of ’cause and effect’.
Dear friends, ‘Cause-Effect’ relationship is different from ‘Before-After’ relationship. Kindly use some logical thinking and rational experiments before drawing foolish conclusions and ‘theories’ from ‘experiences’.
On the one side, homeopathy is considered by the scientific community as a nonsense theory and practice amounting to quackery based on unscientific philosophy of vitalism, where as on the other side, all the foremost proponents of homeopathy still prefer to explain and market it as a ‘spiritualistic’ healing art.
In this peculiar intellectual context where both sides see me as an ‘agent of otherside’, I am aware that it will be an extremely difficult exercise for me to break the baricades on both sides and convince 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 science and logic behind my claim in a convincing way.
Concept Of ‘Dynamic Drug Energy’ Evolved From Master’s Inability To Explain Phenomena ‘In Any Other Manner’
In his Footnote to to Aphorism 11 of Organon Sixth Edition, Hahnemann has put on record: “Is it then so utterly impossible for our age celebrated for its wealth in clear thinkers to think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner?”.
This statement amounts to a humble confession by the MASTER regarding his “inability” to explain the phenomena “in any other manner”, which compelled him to explain homeopathy in terms of VITAL FORCE and DYNAMIC ENERGY. This “inability” of master clearly demonstrates the infantile state of scientific knowledge available to him, obviously due to the limitations of historical context he lived in.
While commenting on my facebook post, one senior homeopath from India told me: “Since potentized drugs contain DYNAMIC drug energy, SIMILIMUM will act curative, even if the patient simply holds the DRUG BOTTLE in his hands for a few minutes, without opening it.”
Even though his statement may at first glance seem to be only a BELIEF of an individual homeopath, actually it represents a strong current of ‘philosophical’ thought existing among the homeopathic community. More over, this ‘philosophy’ has its roots in the original theory of homeopathy based on VITAL FORCE and DYNAMIC ENERGY. Dogmatic ‘followers’ of hahnemann believe that potentized drugs contain DYNAMIC DRUG ENERGY, which act ‘dynamically’ up on the ‘vital force’ of organism. According to hahnemann, DYNAMIC ENERGY is ‘immaterial’, ‘conceptual’, and ‘spirit-like’, which act from a distance, without any carrier particles.
DYNAMIC ENERGY is different from the forms of PHYSICAL ENERGY we study in science. PHYSICAL ENERGY always act through exchange of CARRIER particles, which are forms of matter. LIGHT, ELECTRICITY, MAGNETISM, GRAVITATION, NUCLEAR FORCES- all these physical energies act through exchange of CARRIER PARTICLES.
If we believe in a NON-MATERIAL, SPIRIT-LIKE DYNAMIC DRUG ENERGY, that can act from a DISTANCE without any carrier particles, there is nothing wrong in believing that potentized drugs can act from a distance, or by holding bottle in hands. REAL PROBLEM LIES IN THE THEORY OF DYNAMIC DRUG ENERGY.
If you believe in DYNAMIC DRUG ENERGY and VITAL FORCE, you will have to agree with all these NONSENSE theories these people talk. You cannot disown the statement of that ‘senior homeopath’ that potentized drug will act by ‘holding’ the bottle, without actually disowning the concept of DYNAMIC DRUG ENERGY. Both ‘ACTING FROM A DISTANCE’ and ‘ACTING DYNAMICALLY’ are same in meaning. Both concepts evolves from UNSCIENTIFIC philosophy of DYNAMISM.
If you believe potentized drugs carry DYNAMIC ENERGY, how can you imagine it to remain confined inside the bottle only? How can a glass bottle prevent the IMMATERIAL, CONCEPTUAL, SPIRIT-LIKE FORCE from ‘radiating’ out? Why can you say, the ‘energetic’ VIBRATIONS of drugs will remain inside the bottle? Is it not ridiculous to say that a MATERIAL object can block the escape of an IMMATERIAL FORCE?
There a lot of DRUGS marketed by HELIOS, which are PROVED by TRITURATION PROVING, DREAM PROVING and MEDITATION PROVING. In TRITURATION PROVING, the PROVER simply TRITURATES the drug up to 3c, by which time he is said to produce SYMPTOMS by dynamic effect of drugs he triturated. Those symptoms are collected and compiled as materia medica. In DREAM PROVING, the drug is kept under the pillow of the prover. Due to the dynamic effects of that drug, prover is said to experience characteristic DREAMS in his sleep, which are immediately recorded. In MEDITATION PROVING, the prover simply MEDITATES about the drug kept in his hand. In meditation, he experience the symptoms. If all these things could actually happen, drugs will act by simply holding the bottles in hands. WHY NOT?
SEE HAHNEMANN EXPLAINING HIS CONCEPTS OF ‘DYNAMIC ENERGY’ AND ‘DYNAMIC ACTIONS’ IN ORGANON:
Organon : Aphorism 11 : Sixth Edition: Foot Note:
“What is dynamic influence, – dynamic power? Our earth, by virtue of a hidden invisible energy, carries the moon around her in twenty-eight days and several hours, and the moon alternately, in definite fixed hours (deducting certain differences which occur with the full and new moon) raises our northern seas to flood tide and again correspondingly lowers them to ebb. Apparently this takes place not through material agencies, not through mechanical contrivances, as are used for products of human labor; and so we see numerous other events about us as results of the action of one substance on another substance without being able to recognize a sensible connection between cause and effect. Only the cultured, practised in comparison and deduction, can form for himself a kind of supra-sensual idea sufficient to keep all that is material or mechanical in his thoughts from such concepts. He calls such effects dynamic, virtual, that is, such as result from absolute, specific, pure energy and action of the one substance upon the other substance.”
“For instance, the dynamic effect of the sick-making influences upon healthy man, as well as the dynamic energy of the medicines upon the principle of life in the restoration of health is nothing else than infection and so not in any way material, not in any way mechanical. Just as the energy of a magnet attracting a piece of iron or steel is not material, not mechanical. One sees that the piece of iron is attracted by one pole of the magnet, but how it is done is not seen. This invisible energy of the magnet does not require mechanical (material) auxiliary means, hook or lever, to attract the iron. The magnet draws to itself and this acts upon the piece of iron or upon a steel needle by means of a purely immaterial invisible, conceptual, inherent energy, that is, dynamically, and communicates to the steel needle the magnetic energy equally invisibly (dynamically). The steel needle becomes itself magnetic, even at a distance when the magnet does not touch it, and magnetises other steel needles with the same magnetic property (dynamically) with which it had been endowered previously by the magnetic rod, just as a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected. A purely specific conceptual influence communicated to the near child small-pox or measles in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic property.”
“In a similar way, the effect of medicines upon living man is to be judged. Substances, which are used as medicines, are medicines only in so far as they possess each its own specific energy to alter the well-being of man through dynamic, conceptual influence, by means of the living sensory fibre, upon the conceptual controlling principle of life. The medicinal property of those material substances which we call medicines proper, relates only to their energy to call out alterations in the well-being of animal life. Only upon this conceptual principle of life, depends their medicinal health-altering, conceptual (dynamic) influence. Just as the nearness of a magnetic pole can communicate only magnetic energy to the steel (namely, by a kind of infection) but cannot commu nicate other properties (for instance, more hardness or ductility, etc.). And thus every special medicinal substance alters through a kind of infection, that well-being of man in a peculiar manner exclusively its own and not in a manner peculiar to another medicine, as certainly as the nearness of the child ill with small-pox will communicate to a healthy child only small-pox and not measles. These medicines act upon our well-being wholly without communication of material parts of the medicinal substances, thus dynamically, as if through infection. Far more healing energy is expressed in a case in point by the smallest dose of the best dynamized medicines, in which there can be, according to calculation, only so little of material substance that its minuteness cannot be thought and conceived by the best arithmetical mind, than by large doses of the same medicine in substance. That smallest dose can therefore contain almost entirely only the pure, freely-developed, conceptual medicinal energy, and bring about only dynamically such great effects as can never be reached by the crude medicinal substances itself taken in large doses.”
“It is not in the corporal atoms of these highly dynamized medicines, nor their physical or mathematical surfaces (with which the higher energies of the dynamized medicines are being interpreted but vainly as still sufficiently material) that the medicinal energy is found. More likely, there lies invisible in the moistened globule or in its solution, an unveiled, liberated, specific, medicinal force contained in the medicinal substance which acts dynamically by contact with the living animal fibre upon the whole organism (without communicating to it anything material however highly attenuated) and acts more strongly the more free and more immaterial the energy has become through the dynamization.”
“Is it then so utterly impossible for our age celebrated for its wealth in clear thinkers to think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner? If one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this anti-peristaltic movement? Was it not solely the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination? And if one raises his arm, does it occur through a material visible instrument? a lever? Is it not solely the conceptual dynamic energy of his will which raises it?”
Explanations hahnemann provide for his concept of DYNAMIC DRUG ENERGY quoted above clearly demonstrate the infantile state of scientific knowledge available to him, obviously due to the limitations of historical context he lived in.
Note the following points carefully:
” If one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this anti-peristaltic movement? Was it not solely the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination?”
” if one raises his arm, does it occur through a material visible instrument? a lever? Is it not solely the conceptual dynamic energy of his will which raises it?”
” Our earth, by virtue of a hidden invisible energy, carries the moon around her in twenty-eight days and several hours, and the moon alternately, in definite fixed hours (deducting certain differences which occur with the full and new moon) raises our northern seas to flood tide and again correspondingly lowers them to ebb. Apparently this takes place not through material agencies, not through mechanical contrivances”
“we see numerous other events about us as results of the action of one substance on another substance without being able to recognize a sensible connection between cause and effect”
“dynamic effect of the sick-making influences upon healthy man, as well as the dynamic energy of the medicines upon the principle of life in the restoration of health is nothing else than infection and so not in any way material, not in any way mechanical”
“Just as the energy of a magnet attracting 6a piece of iron or steel is not material, not mechanical”
“One sees that the piece of iron is attracted by one pole of the magnet, but how it is done is not seen.”
” This invisible energy of the magnet does not require mechanical (material) auxiliary means, hook or lever, to attract the iron. The magnet draws to itself and this acts upon the piece of iron or upon a steel needle by means of a purely immaterial invisible, conceptual, inherent energy, that is, dynamically, and communicates to the steel needle the magnetic energy equally invisibly (dynamically).”
” The steel needle becomes itself magnetic, even at a distance when the magnet does not touch it, and magnetises other steel needles with the same magnetic property (dynamically) with which it had been endowered previously by the magnetic rod”
” a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected”
” A purely specific conceptual influence communicated to the near child small-pox or measles in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic property.”
” Substances, which are used as medicines, are medicines only in so far as they possess each its own specific energy to alter the well-being of man through dynamic, conceptual influence, by means of the living sensory fibre, upon the conceptual controlling principle of life.”
” The medicinal property of those material substances which we call medicines proper, relates only to their energy to call out alterations in the well-being of animal life. Only upon this conceptual principle of life, depends their medicinal health-altering, conceptual (dynamic) influence.”
” every special medicinal substance alters through a kind of infection, that well-being of man in a peculiar manner exclusively its own and not in a manner peculiar to another medicine, as certainly as the nearness of the child ill with small-pox will communicate to a healthy child only small-pox and not measles”.
“These medicines act upon our well-being wholly without communication of material parts of the medicinal substances, thus dynamically, as if through infection.”
” Far more healing energy is expressed in a case in point by the smallest dose of the best dynamized medicines, in which there can be, according to calculation, only so little of material substance that its minuteness cannot be thought and conceived by the best arithmetical mind, than by large doses of the same medicine in substance”.
“That smallest dose can therefore contain almost entirely only the pure, freely-developed, conceptual medicinal energy, and bring about only dynamically such great effects as can never be reached by the crude medicinal substances itself taken in large doses.”
“It is not in the corporal atoms of these highly dynamized medicines, nor their physical or mathematical surfaces (with which the higher energies of the dynamized medicines are being interpreted but vainly as still sufficiently material) that the medicinal energy is found”.
“there lies invisible in the moistened globule or in its solution, an unveiled, liberated, specific, medicinal force contained in the medicinal substance which acts dynamically by contact with the living animal fibre upon the whole organism (without communicating to it anything material however highly attenuated) and acts more strongly the more free and more immaterial the energy has become through the dynamization.”
“Is it then so utterly impossible for our age celebrated for its wealth in clear thinkers to think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner?”
Please note the hahnemann’s last sentence quoted above carefully: “think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner”. IT AMOUNTS TO A HUMBLE CONFESSION BY THE MASTER:
Hahnemann could not scientifically explain how limbs are raised at will- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.
Hahnemann could not scientifically explain why people get nauseated by seeing others vomit- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.
Hahnemann could not scientifically explain how measles and chicken pox are transmitted- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.
Hahnemann could not scientifically explain why earth revolves around sun- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.
Hahnemann could not scientifically explain the phenomena of high and low ebbsl- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.
Hahnemann could not scientifically explain how a magnet attracts an iron needle- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.
Hahnemann could not scientifically explain how a steel needle gets magnetized in the vicinity of a magnet – and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.
Hahnemann could not scientifically explain the phenomenon of LIFE – and hence, he explained it using VITAL FORCE and DYNAMIC ENERGY.
Hahnemann could not scientifically explain DISEASE and CURE- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.
Hahnemann could not scientifically explain SYMPTOMS and DRUG PROVING- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.
Hahnemann could not scientifically explain how substances get medicinal property- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.
Hahnemann could not scientifically explain how potentization really worksl- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.
Hahnemann could not scientifically explain how potentized drugs act- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.
THE TRUTH IS OBVIOUS: HAHNEMANN WAS COMPELLED TO ‘THINK’ ABOUT A ‘NON-CORPOREAL’ ‘DYNAMIC ENERGY’, ONLY BECAUSE HE SAW MANY DAILY PHENOMENA WHICH HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN IN “ANY OTHER MANNER”‘
If a ‘homeopath’ declares “homeopathy is far advanced than modern science”, “everything is said in organon”, “science cannot explain how homeopathy works- but I can”, “homeopathic medicines are immaterial energy”, “ask me any questions about homeopathy, I can answer” etc etc, the picture is clear. Only thing I can do is, say good bye to that wonderful genius!
A day will come when scientific community and their ‘modern’ medical fraternity will feel sorry for the wonderful opportunities they missed by ignoring homeopathy for more than two centuries, and failing to understand homeopathic potentization as a technology of preparing DESIGNER DRUGS by molecular imprinting in water. They will feel sorry for their failure in realizing the great truth that Similia Similibus Curentur involves a technique of TARGET SPECIFIC DRUG PILOTING and MOLECULAR IMPRINTS THERAPEUTICS, that should have been incorporated into the arsenal of MODERN MOLECULAR MEDICINE.
While handling life-threatening cases, homeopaths should always remember: “LIFE OF PATIENT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN PRIDE OF HOMEOPATHY OR EGO OF HOMEOPATH”
According to Hahnemann, “knowledge of diseases” and “knowledge of medicinal powers” are the essential qualities of a ‘good physician’. In modern knowledge context, definition of “knowledge of diseases” hahnemann proposed as a basic qualification of “good physician” inevitably should mean the understanding of biochemical processes involved in the ‘molecular level pathology’ of diseases. “Knowledge of medicinal powers” should include the knowledge regarding the exact ‘active principles’ of potentized drugs, and the biological mechanism by which they produce cure. “Proper dose and repetition” could be scientifically decided only if you know ‘what is the exact active principles’ of potenteized drugs we are using, and ‘how they actually work’.
Our practice will become “judicious and rational” as hahnemann defined, only if modern homeopaths attain at least that much of scientific awareness Each homeopaths has to equip himself with these essential scientific knowledge to be qualified as ‘good physicians’.
We cannot evade from answering TWO fundamental questions in order to equip with ‘knowledge of disease’ and ‘knowledge of medicinal powers’:
Question 1: What are the ‘active principles of potentized drugs?
Answer: ‘Active principles’ of potentized drugs are ‘hydrosomes’ or ‘molecular imprinted supra-molecular nano cavities of water-ethyl alcohol molecules’ prepared by a process of molecular imprinting known as potentization.
Question 2: What is the molecular mechanism by which potentized act as therapeutic agents?
Answer: Due to the complementary conformational affinity, ‘hydrosomes’ or ‘molecular imprinted supra-molecular nano cavities’ contained in potentized drugs can remove the pathogenic molecular inhibitions in the organism by acting as ‘ligand traps’ or ‘artificial binding sites’, for pathogenic molecules having conformations similar to the drug molecules used for potentization.
It is totally wrong to say potentized homeopathic drugs contain NANO PARTICLES. They contain NANO CAVITIES. It makes a big difference in its implications, which the most-celebrated ‘nanoparticle theory’ of IIT scientists failed to recognize.
Active principles of POTENTIZED DRUGS are ‘molecular imprints’ consisting of supra-molecular ‘NANO CAVITIES’ or EMPTY SPACES previously occupied by drug molecules used for potentization. These supra-molecular NANO CAVITIES can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for pathogenic molecules similar to the drug molecules, due to their complimentary conformations, thereby relieving the biological molecules from INHIBITIONS caused by pathogenic molecules. This is the molecular mechanism involved in MOLECULAR IMPRINTS THERAPEUTICS known as HOMEOPATHY.
Molecular imprinted nano cavities contained in potentized drugs act as conformation-specific LIGAND TRAPS that can ‘entrap’ pathogenic ligands having shapes exactly similar to the drug molecules used for imprinting. Hope I sad it clearly.
I hope scientists will shortly realize the implications of homeopathic potentization as a process of preparing ‘molecular imprinted nano cavities’ in water-alcohol supra-molecular matrix, which could be used as ‘ligand traps’ that can act as conformation-specific artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules. Such a realization would enable them to develop a whole new range of safe and target-specific medicinal agents that could be incorporated into the therapeutic arsenal of modern molecular medicine. Once it happens, modern medical science and pharmaceutical industry will undergo revolutionary changes.
Study, preparation and application of NANO CAVITIES is special area of NANO TECHNOLOGY. Polymer-based nano cavities are prepared by MOLECULAR IMPRINTING IN POLYMERS. Molecular imprinted polymers could not be applied as therapeutic agents in living organisms. Homeopathic potentization is a process of preparing MOLECULAR IMPRINTS or supra-molecular NANO CAVITIES in water-ethyl alcohol matrix, that could be safely used as therapeutic agents.
I would suggest to use the term HYDROSOMES for ‘molecular imprinted supra-molecular nano cavities of water’. It would be a most appropriate, original, meaningful and convenient term for regular use. ‘HYDRO’ indicates ‘water’, and ‘SOMES’ indicates ‘cavities’. Now we can say, active principles of potentized homeopathic drugs are HYDROSOMES.
Bio-molecular mechanism of a curative process could be considered ‘homeopathic’, only if the ‘active principles’ of therapeutic agent interact with pathogenic molecules by a ‘homeopathic’ relationship. In such a relationship, the molecular conformation of ‘active principles’ of ‘remedies’ will be exactly complementary to the conformation of pathogenic molecules, so that they can bind each other by a ‘key-lock’ mechanism wherein the pathogenic molecules act as ‘keys’ and the active factors of therapeutic agents as ‘key-holes’ of the ‘locks’. Such a ‘homeopathic’ relationship happens only when the ‘active principles’ of therapeutic agents are ‘hydrosomes’ or ‘molecular imprinted nanocavities’ that can act as ‘ligand traps’ or ‘artificial binding sites’ for the pathogenic molecules. That means, the therapeutic agents should be made by ‘molecular imprinting’ or ‘potentization’ of pathogenic molecules themselves, or any drug molecules having conformations ‘similar’ to the pathogenic molecules. This is the molecular basis of ‘similia similibus curentur’ explained in scientific terms.
DISEASE SYMPTOMS and DRUG SYMPTOMS appear to be SIMILAR when the PATHOGENIC MOLECULES and DRUG MOLECULES have similar conformations, so that they can bind to SIMILAR biological molecules and produce SIMILAR molecular inhibitions which are expressed through SIMILAR symptoms.
MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of drug molecules will be ‘nano cavities’ having molecular conformations exactly COMPLEMENTARY to the drug molecules used for imprinting, as well as to the pathogenic molecules having conformations similar to the drug molecules. These NANO CAVITIES can bind to the pathogenic molecules by COMPLEMENTARY relationship by acting as LIGAND TRAPS or ARTIFICIAL BINDING SITES, and deactivate them. This process leads to the removal of MOLECULAR INHIBITIONS in the biological molecules caused by the pathogenic molecules. This is the molecular mechanism of homeopathic cure.
If you are not using drugs in ‘molecular imprints’ forms (means potentized above avogadro limit or 12c), it is not homeopathy whatever ‘theories’ and ‘laws’ you talk about. Only molecular imprints can act by a bio-molecular mechanism that is truly ‘homeopathic’. When you use ‘molecular forms’ of drugs (mother tinctures and potencies below avogadro limit or 12c), they act by a bio-molecular mechanism exactly same as allopathy or ayurveda. It is the ‘active principles’ of therapeutic agents you use and the way they act in the body that determines whether you are doing homeopathy or allopathy- not your theories, laws, labels or degrees.
Only those symptoms which are produced by ‘proving’ drugs in MOLECULAR FORMS, or obtained from accidental poisonings or toxicological studies are homeopathically reliable.
Since MOLECULAR IMPRINTS contained in potentized drugs cannot produce any effects up on normal interactions of biological molecules, symptoms claimed to be collected from so-called ‘high potency’ provings are unreliable as homeopathic indicators of remedies.
Most of such ‘high potency’ symptoms are pure imaginations or placebo effects exacly similar to ‘meditation provings’, ‘dream provings’, ‘trituration provings’ and other absurd ‘proving’ techniques propagated by ‘energy medicine’ homeopaths.
In certain cases, ‘high potency’ symptoms may represent molecular level changes happening in the organism as a result of he removal of some already existing molecular errors by the molecular imprints contained the potentized drugs. Obviously, they are not symptoms caused by drugs, but symptoms representing the curative actions of potentized drugs. They cannot be considered ‘drug symptoms’ in its real sense, and cannot be used as indicators for selecting similimum.
Once you start talking about potentized drugs and homeopathy in terms of ‘molecular imprinted nano cavities’ they contain, you can rationally and convincingly explain the ‘biological mechanism’ of therapeutics involved in ‘Similia Similibus Curentur using modern scientific paradigms even to a member of modern medical profession who so far considered homeopathy a ‘fake’ or ‘placebo’. Only thing is, you should have some working knowledge about the bio-molecular interactions underlying the vital processes underlying life, disease and cure as revealed by modern biochemistry and molecular biology.
Once you could perceive potentized drugs in terms of MOLECULAR IMPRINTS or supra-molecular NANO CAVITIES that can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for pathogenic molecules having complimentary conformation, you will see that you can answer any hard questions about homeopathy rationally and scientifically. You will see how much rationally you can explain the biological mechanism of ‘similia similibus curentur’ in a way exactly fitting to the paradigms of modern science. You will see no questions remain unanswered, or no riddles unresolved in homeopathy. You will see, homeopathy becomes a full-fledged MEDICAL SCIENCE.
THEORY as well as PRACTICE of homeopathy is actually very simple, if taught scientifically and perceived rationally. People with vested interests make it appear complex and difficult, so that beginners and students get confused and throng into their ‘seminar’ halls to ‘learn’ and pay for the wonderful ‘methods’ they market!
HOMEOPATHIC Case Taking should start with the question WHAT made the patient to seek a medical help NOW? Most probably, there should be an issue or complaint related with his health that disturbs him. Identify it first. Consider all most prominent and ABNORMAL factors from them. It may be a pain, a sensation, a lesion, a condition- any DISORDER of his mind or body that is EXPERIENCED to be a hindrance to his normal happy living. Complaints need not be always singular- may be multiple. Identify the important ABNORMAL BASIC SYMPTOMS to be considered.
Once the important ABNORMAL BASIC SYMPTOMS are identified, take each one and collect their ACCESSORY SYMPTOMS. Note down whether the complaints are GENERALIZED physically, or pertaining to MIND, or referred to a parficular LOCATION. Try to identify whether there are any any specific physical or mental CAUSATION for the complaints, immediate, from personal or family history. Take note of every abnormality related with PRESENTATION, such as lesions, skin eruptions, discharges and excretions, tone of voice, coughing, hair, body frame, facial expressions, gestures, posture etc. Trace out all ABNORMAL and peculiar SENSATIONS, which includes pains, perceptions, delusions, emotions, dreams, desires, aversions and and everything ‘sensed’ by his nervous system. Any peculiar condition or time of particular AGGRAVATION or AMELIORATION? Are there any notable complaints or symptoms appearing in association such as EXTENDING to other parts, ALTERNATING with or CONCOMITANT with the main complaint?
Once this work is over, combine each ABNORMAL BASIC SYMPTOM with its ACCESSORIES such as location, causation, presentation, sensation, modalities and concomitants, so that it is made a COMPLETE HOMEOPATHIC SYMPTOM that by its own capacity can decide a SIMILIMUM.
If a substance is proved to be useful in capacity of its biological properties to treat a disease , it is a MEDICINE. There is no such a thing called ‘alternative’ medicine. Medicine is ‘medicine’- it cannot be ‘alternative’ or ‘mainstream’.
Any drug, belonging to any therapeutic system, if it is used in MOLECULAR FORMS, always poses the possibilities of producing NEW unexpected and unknown molecular inhibitions and and conditions of pathology. Only homeopathy, which uses drug substances in MOLECULAR IMPRINTS forms are free from such a possibility of unwanted pathogenic inhibitions. In this aspect, homeopathy differs from all other therapeutic systems, which is the comparative superiority of homeopathy.
ANTIBODIES or MOLECULAR IMPRINTED GLOBULINS, which I consider as the material carriers of the phenomenon hahnemann called as MIASMS, are also known as IMMUNOGLOBULINS in biochemistry.
ANTIBODIES belong to a a larger family of GLOBULIN proteins known as IMMUNOGLOBULIN SUPER FAMILY, consisting of cell surface antigen receptors, co-receptors and co-stimulatory molecules of the immune system, molecules involved in antigen presentation to lymphocytes, cell adhesion molecules, certain cytokine receptors and intracellular muscle proteins. They are commonly associated with roles in the immune system.
Exactly, what we call ANTIBODIES are ‘antigen receptors’. They are found on the surface of T and B lymphocytes. In humans, there are five distinct types of immunoglobulin molecule all containing a heavy chain with four Ig domains and a light chain with two Ig domains. The antigen receptor of T cells is the T cell receptor (TCR), which is composed of two chains, either the TCR-alpha and -beta chains, or the TCR-delta and gamma chains. All TCR chains contain two Ig domains in the extra-cellular portion; one IgV domain at the N-terminus and one IgC1 domain adjacent to the cell membrane.
All ANTIBODIES are not similar in their structures, biological roles and life span. They differ widely in their amino-acid sequences and 3-D configurations. ALL antibodies will not necessarily exist in the body for long periods or whole life of the individual, and produce CHRONIC MIASMS.
You need not have to get a complete profile or DNA sample to identify a person in a crowd on a street. You can easily identify one, if you have his info such as ‘fat, bald man with his right hand amputated and limp in right leg while walking’. Same way, you need not have to get ALL symptoms, diagnosis and biochemical studies to select a SIMILIMUM- a few DISTINGUISHING symptoms are enough- such as ‘headache in forehead, accompanied with violent yawning, relieved by sleep or vomiting’.
Always look for some characteristic CONCOMITANT symptoms that qualify an ABNORMAL basic symptom. Concomitants include EXTENSIONS and ALTERNATING SYMPTOMS also. Then add with SENSATIONS and MODALITIES. If you get it, your work is half done in finding a SIMILIMUM.
If you succeed in identifying at least ONE ‘abnormal’ symptom in your patient, and collect at least THREE of its associated accessory symptoms such as sensations, modalities and concomitants, you can confidently make a successful working homeopathic prescription.
Abnormal Basic Symptom+ Characteristic Accessory Symptoms = Complete Homeopathic Symptom >>>>Similimum:
Success in homeopathic practice depends up on physician’s skills to collect ‘complete symptoms’ that would indicate most appropriate similimum.
First of all, we should be capable of differentiating between ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ symptoms.
‘Normal’ symptoms are those which represent ‘normal’ physiological processes in organism, which have no role in determining a similimum. Normal thirst, normal perspiration, normal bowel movements, normal appetite, normal sleep, normal emotions, normal body temperature, normal thermal responses etc etc.
Normal thirst represents normal physiology. But, if a person is thirstless in conditions where he should be thirsty, for example, when exposed in hot atmosphere for long time, it shows an abormality. To be extremely thirsty in very cold climate is also abnormal. Feeling extremely hot in chilly climates abnormal, and feeling chilly in very hot climate is also abnormal. Perspiring in hot climate is normal, but in cold climate is abnormal. Soft stool passed with difficulty is abnormal, but hard stool passed with difficulty is normal.
‘Abnormal’ symptoms are those symptoms that represent an ‘abnormal’ state of affairs in the organism- or, a molecular level pathology. It is these ‘abnormal’ symptoms that decide our selection of similimum. Abnormal thermal reactions, abnormal emotions, abnormal body temperature, abnormal appetite, abnormal thirst, abnormal sleep, abnormal perspiration, abnormal behaviors etc etc.
Identifying ‘abnormal’ symptoms is a tough task, if we are not aware of ‘normal physiology’ that are represented by ‘normal symptoms’.
Next stage is, identifying ‘basic symptoms’ and ‘accessory symptoms’.
A ‘basic symptom’, such as headache, joint pain, abdominal pain or any such ‘complaints’ for which a person seeks medical aid, becomes a valuable homeopathic symptom, only when it is made ‘complete’ by adding with their ‘characteristic’ ‘accessory’ symptoms.
‘Accessory symptoms’ are factors that make a ‘basic’ symptom a ‘complete’ one.
The word ‘accessory’ means something that ‘adds completeness’ to something else. In that sense an ‘accessory symptom’ might be a symptom that gives ‘completeness’ for another symptom. If a ‘headache’ is ‘amel by cold applications’, ‘amel by cold applications’ is the ‘accessory’ of the symptom ‘headache’, thereby making it a ‘complete symptom’.
Locations, presentations, sensations, modalities, concomittants, extensions etc constitute the broad class of ‘accessory symptoms’. Such factors make the symptoms ‘complete’. Accessory factors are also known as ‘symptom qualifications’. ‘ACCESSORY’ seems to be more meaningful and appropriate.
Accessory symptoms may be either ‘essential/common’ or characteristic/uncommon’. We are concerned with only ‘characteristic/uncommon’ accessories. A joint pain increasing by movement is common, but relieving by movement is uncommon. Sensation of heat relieving by cold application is common, but relieving by heat is uncommon. A joint pain increasing by movement is common, but relieving by movement is uncommon. Sensation of heat relieving by cold application is common, but relieving by heat is uncommon. Toothache relieved by chewing is uncommon, but increased by chewing is common.
Once the patient describes a ‘basic symptom’, homeopath should be always on the look out for as many related characteristic accessories that would make it a ‘complete symptom’. Converting trivial ‘basic symptoms’ into valuable ‘complete’ symptoms need much observation and reasoning skills on the part of homeopath, which decides his success as homeopath.
We should ignore Normal Basic Symptoms, and collect only Abnormal Basic Symptoms. We should ignore Essential/Common Accessory Symptoms, and collect only Characteristic/Uncommon Accessory Symptoms. This is the secret of successful case taking.
Here is the success formula for finding perfect similimum:
Abnormal Basic symptom+ Characteristic Accessory symptoms = Complete Homeopathic symptom >>> Perfect Similimum.
CAUSATION- LOCATION- PRESENTATIONS- SENSATION- MODALITIES- CONCOMITANTS(EXTENSIONS, ALTERNATIONS). THESE ARE THE SIX CATEGORIES OF ACCESSORY SYMPTOMS THAT QUALIFY EACH ‘ABNORMAL BASIC SYMPTOM’ TO MAKE IT A ‘COMPLETE HOMEOPATHIC SYMPTOM’. COLLECTING AS MUCH ‘COMPLETE HOMEOPATHIC SYMPTOMS’ IN A CASE IS THE KEY TO SUCCESSFUL PRESCRIPTION.
First step in case taking is distinguishing between ‘ABNORMAL’ and ‘NORMAL’ from among the BASIC SYMPTOMS expressed by the patient. We need to consider only ABNORMAL ones, since they are the representatives of pathological molecular errors existing in the organism
Next step is, collecting the available ACCESSORY symptoms (CLOSMC) relating to each ABNORMAL BASIC SYMPTOM.
Next step is, making COMPLETE HOMEOPATHIC SYMPTOMS by combining each ABNORMAL BASIC SYMPTOM with their ACCESSORY SYMPTOMS.
Each COMPLETE HOMEOPATHIC SYMPTOM forms a separate SYMPTOM COMPLEX, that represent a particular MOLECULAR ERROR in the organism.
After collecting and preparing maximum number of SYMPTOM COMPLEXES, we can repertorize each SYMPTOM COMPLEX separately and find a SIMILIMUM for each.
If all SYMPTOM COMPLEXES of a patient indicates SAME drug, it is happy and welcome. If different SYMPTOM COMPLEXES indicates DIFFERENT DRUGS, we will have to consider a MULTIPLE DRUG prescription.
If you succeed in identifying at least ONE ‘abnormal’ symptom in your patient, and collect at least THREE of its associated accessory symptoms such as sensations, modalities and concomittants, you can confidently make a successful working homeopathic prescription.
My work on ‘miasms’ started from two basic convictions:
Firstly, I am convinced that infectious diseases have life-long residual effects on our organism, producing chronic constitutional disease dispositions.
Secondly, I am convinced that any disposition, disease, sensation, mental condition, emotion or constitutional tendency will have a material, ‘molecular level’ biochemical basis underlying it, and a biological mechanism through which it is executed.
Begining with hahnemann’s observation that ‘miasms’ are chronic disease dispositions produced by infectious diseases, I wanted to know the molecular level material basis of miasms, and the biological mechanism by which they produce chronic diseases.
My inquiry was, how can an infectious disease produce ‘residual effects’ in the body even after the infection is over. What remains in the body that can produce such a residual effect?
One thing common to all infectious agents are that all of them introduce some chemical molecules of protein nature into the host, which act as antigens and lead to the production of ‘antibodies’ or immune substances that help the body to fight the invading infectious agents.
Antibodies are native globulin proteins imprinted with antigens, and can bind to the specific antigens by conformational affinity. These antibodies remain in the organism even after the infection is over.
It is these antibodies generated in the organism against specific infectious agents, that produce ‘residual effects’ which hahnemann called miasms. Antibodies circulate in the body, and can bind to various ‘off target’ bilogical molecules such as receptors and enzymes, producing molecular inhibitions in various biochemical pathways. They produce many chronic pathological conditions we call as ‘auto immune’ diseases. Antibodies can even bind to enzymes involved in biochemical processes of genetic expressions, producing phenotype changes in constitutions. It is these phenotype changes that underlie the dispositions we call ‘miasmatic constitutions’.
Any substance of PROTEIN nature, alien to the genetic code of a given living organism can act as MIASM when it enters into the system, by generating antibodies that can bind to ‘off-target’ biological molecules and produce pathological molecular inhibitions. Bacteria, virus, vaccines, body fluids of other animals, venom, biological toxins, deformed proteins or any other substance of protein structure that do not agree with the genetic code of the host can act as miasms. Hahhnemann studied only ITCH, GONORRHOEA AND SYPHILIS, since those three infectious agents were most rampant in europe during his time, causing many chronic disease conditions in the population. Hahnemann never said miasms are ONLY three.
I have identified the material level molecular basis of ‘miasms’, and explained the biological mechanism by which they produce ‘chronic disease dispositions’. I think my work has contributed in the scientific advancement of hahnemann’s concept of miasms, thereby making it fitting to the modern scientific knowledge system. I have shown that masm is not an unscientific belief, but a scientific fact.
According hahnemann, MIASMS are not INFECTIOUS DISEASES as such- but miasms are CHRONIC DISEASE DISPOSITIONS produced by infectious diseases. Miasm is the chronic RESIDUAL effects of infectious diseases that remain IMPRINTED in the organism for the whole life, which produces disease dispositions, constitutional derangement, and obstructions to cure. Please note that point.
Modern ‘miasmatic experts’ ignore the fact that no where hahnemann talks about miasms unconnected with ‘infectious diseases’. If you read ‘chronic diseases’ carefully, you will realize that hahnemann considered miasms ONLY as ‘chronic disease dispositions’ produced by infectious diseases. He says very specifically that PSORA is the miasm of INFECTIOUS ITCH, SYPHILIS is the miasm of SYPHILIS INFECTION, and SYCOSIS is the miasm of FIGWARTS/GONORRHOEA infection.
It is the later ‘interpreters’ who disconnected miasms from infectious diseases, and started to explain miasms as ‘constitutional dispositions’, ‘genetic inheritence’, ‘original sin’, ‘mental make up’ ‘deviated vital force’ and such things, thereby creating all confusions now known as ‘miasmatic analysis’.
If you really want to study hahnemann’s concept of miasms, and to understand my scientific explanations for it, you should start by carefully reading ‘chronic diseases’. You will be gravely misguided if you try to learn miasms from the works of later interpreters known as ‘miasmatic experts’- they have hijacked hahnemann’s original idea to make it fit to the nonsense theories and methods they propagate. They are confusing the whole homeopathic community with their futile intellectual pretensions and obscurantism in the name of ‘miasmatic analysis’, masking their own ignorance and confusions by playing with complex phrases meaning of which even they fail to understand.
Proponents of all those ‘modern’ ENERGY MEDICINE models and practices of homeopathy and CAM, amounting to sheer occults such as ‘vibrations’, ‘resonance’, ‘wave theory’, ‘frequencies’, ‘EM signals’, ‘bio-photons’, ‘bio-magnetism’, ‘distance healing’, ‘hair transmission’, ‘photo transmission’, ‘PC resonance remedies’, ‘paper remedies’, ‘water remedies’, ‘mp3 remedies’, ‘radionics’, ‘reflexology’, ‘meditation proving’, ‘dream proving’, ‘trituration proving’, etc etc seek their solace of ‘scientific’ foundation in the ‘DIGITAL BIOLOGY’ of BENVENISTE. It is almost like a BIBLE to them. In my opinion, the REDUCTIONIST and PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC speculations of benveniste, which he called ‘Digital Biology’, is actually the ‘MOTHER OF QUACKERY’ in homeopathy as well as everything known as CAM practices.
Jacques Benveniste(1935–2004), who was once a famous and respected French immunologist, published a research paper in Nature magazine in the year 1988. This paper and the subsequent controversies which shook the world of science, were incidents which roused great interest as far as Homoeopathy was concerned. It was through this article that the idea of ‘molecular memory of water’ became a subject of discussion in the world of science. But an influential section of scientists took a stand that ideas put forward by Benveniste were nothing but nonsense. Heated controversies followed, which have not subsided yet, even after 22 years. The accusation raised by his enemies was that Benveniste could not prove his arguments in the controlled experiments overseen by experts appointed by Nature. Benvenistse had later put on record that he was a made a scapegoat, and subjected to ‘inhuman revenge and character assassination’ from the part of representatives of official science.
In his original paper, Beneveniste claimed that he could observe in his experiments that human basophil degranulation can be triggered by very dilute aqueous solutions of anti- IgE antiserum. Using the molecular weight of immunoglobulins and Avogadro’s number, he calculated that less than one molecule of antibody is present in the assay when anti-IgE antiserum is diluted to 1 x 1014(corresponding to 2.2 x 10-20 M). But in the experiments he reported, he could detect significant basophil degranulation down to the 1x l0120 dilution. Specific effects have also been triggered by highly diluted agents in other in vitro and in vivo biological systems, but he consented that it still remained unexplained. He pointed to the possibility of biological effects in the physical absence of molecules. He argued that the entities supporting this ‘meta-molecular’ biology can only be explored by physical investigation of agitation causing interaction between the original molecules and water, thus yielding activity capable of specifically imitating the native molecules, though any such hypothesis is unsubstantiated at present.
He suspected that the molecular memory of the antibodies which was imprinted in water during dilution is responsible for this peculiar phenomenon. But the sad part of this story is that he failed to prove his arguments in the repeated experiments which were conducted in an atmosphere of absolute hostility, under the supervision of experts who were inimical to him, whose sole aim was to disprove him.
If we carefully examine the story of Benevenite’s failure, we would understand that it was not his basic observations that failed, but his interpretations of those observations. It led to submitting himself to experiments which were doomed to fail. Firstly, his argument that the drugs so diluted to the extent of making it impossible to contain a single molecule, can interfere in biological processes exactly mimicking the basic drug substance was a wrong and exaggerated interpretation of results of his original experiments. This inaccurate interpretation of the phenomena he observed, led him to agree to subject himself to inappropriate experiments, obviously designed to defeat him. He failed to understand that the molecular memory of the drug substances is imprinted into water in a negative direction, in complementary configuration. Put in another way, drug molecules will be imprinted in water not as exact configurational duplicates, but as negative complements, and hence, they cannot mimic the original drug molecules in biological processes.
Failure to understand the exact process of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING involved in the observed phenomenon of WATER MEMORY was a great mistake, that cost heavy to him. His conclusion that the ‘imprinted water’ interferes in biochemical processes exactly SIMILAR to the original molecules used for imprinting proved to be immature. He failed to comprehend the exact mechanism of molecular imprinting in water, and design his experiments accordingly. Had he understood the real mechanism of molecular imprinting, he would have been conscious about the UNSTABLE behavior of hydration shells in water, and would have taken necessary precautions, before subjecting himself to a controlled experiment. He could have devised some techniques to ensure the stability of hydration shells, such as using alcohol-water mixture instead of pure water, as done in homeopathic potentization.
He tried to explain it as ‘water memory’ that can mimic the original molecules. Actually, molecular imprints never can ‘mimic’ original molecules. They can only ‘complement’ and bind to original molecules and deactivate them by configurational affinity. If drug molecules are considered ‘keys’, ‘mimics’ should act as ‘duplicate keys’. But ‘molecular imprints’ act as ‘artificial keyholes’ for those ‘keys’ and ‘similar ‘keys. This point is very important. If we forget this point, we cannot logically explain ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘similia similibus curentur’.
If beneviste could have perceived the concept of ‘molecular imprints’ acting not as ‘duplicate keys’ but as ‘artificial keyholes’, he would have designed his experiments accordingly, so that he can prove that ‘molecular imprints’ can ‘antidote’ or ‘deactivate’ original molecules, thereby preventing them from interacting with biological molecules. Since ‘anti- IgE antiserum’ contains natural ligands of enzymes involved in human basophil de-granulation, ‘molecular imprints’ of anti- IgE antiserum cannot be prevent their natural interaction. We should not forget that ‘molecular imprints’ cannot interfere in the interaction between biological targets and their natural ligands. In the absence of this understanding, the experiments of beneveniste were wrongly designed, and were inevitably bound to fail.
‘Molecular imprints’ can prevent only ‘off-target’ actions of biological ligands. For example, we use potentized thyroid extract, which contain molecular imprints of various thyroid hormones having specific roles in metabolism. Potentized thyroid extract never interferes in the natural biological actions of thyroid hormones. But those molecular imprints can rectify the pathological conditions caused by ‘off-target’ bindings of thyroid hormones, especially in situations of hyperthyroidism. This is applicable to all potentized hormone remedies. They never interfere in normal biological actions of those hormones. Reason behind this phenomenon is related with the dynamics of molecular interactions. Interactions between natural targets and their ligands involves two factors: configurational affinity and charge affinity. But interactions of ‘molecular imprints’ and their ‘ligands’ involves ‘configurational affinity’ only, without any charge affinity.
BENVENISTE’s failure to understand ‘water memory’ in its right MOLECULAR IMPRINTING perspective gradually led him to speculating more and more absurd theories, which finally led to DIGITAL BIOLOGY, and then into setting up a business of preparing and marketing of what he called DIGIBIO ‘digital signature’ products.
I am reproducing here Benveniste’s article on ‘UNDERSTANDING DIGITAL BIOLOGY’:
“Explaining digital biology is impossible without explaining its principle. The purpose of this text is not to report experimental results. Rather, it tries to explain to laymen, in the simplest terms, this radically new approach to biology. We hope it will be useful to all, scientists or not, who find it hard to “make the leap”. Indeed, is it possible to believe that the specific activity of biologically-active molecules (e.g. histamine, caffeine, nicotine, adrenalin), not to mention the immunological signature of a virus or bacterium can be recorded and digitized using a computer sound card, just like an ordinary sound? Imagine the perplexity of Archimedes confronted with a telephone, and being told that by using it he could be heard on the other side of the world, were we not to explain the nature of sound waves or their translation into electromagnetism.”
“Life depends on signals exchanged among molecules. For example, when you get angry, adrenalin “tells” its receptor, and it alone (as a faithful molecule, it talks to no other) to make your heart beat faster, to contract superficial blood vessels, etc.. In biology, the words “molecular signal” are used very often. Yet, if you ask even the most eminent biologists what the physical nature of this signal is, they seem not even to understand the question, and stare at you wide-eyed. In fact, they’ve cooked up a rigorously Cartesian physics all their own, as far removed as possible from the realities of contemporary physics, according to which simple contact (Descarte’s laws of impact, quickly disproved by Huygens) between two coalescent structures creates energy, thus constituting an exchange of information. For many years, I believed and recited this catechism without realizing its absurdity, just as mankind did not realize the absurdity of the belief that the sun circles the earth.”
“The truth, based on facts, is very simple. It does not require any “collapse of the physical or chemical worlds.” That molecules vibrate, we have known for decades. Every atom of every molecule and every intermolecular bond – the bridge that links the atoms – emits a group of specific frequencies. Specific frequencies of simple or complex molecules are detected at distances of billions of light-years, thanks to radio-telescopes. Biophysicists describe these frequencies as an essential physical characteristic of matter, but biologists do not consider that electromagnetic waves can play a role in molecular functions themselves. We cannot find the words “frequency” or “signal” (in the physical sense of the term) in any treatise on molecular interactions in biology, not to speak of the term “electromagnetic,” use of which would be – at least in France – a cause for excommunication of any offending biologist by the scientific Papal Office.”
“Like Archimedes, I would have liked to have had a brilliant idea in my bathtub: “Eureka, the vibrations of molecules don’t exist for them to dance the salsa at a Saturday night ball; vibrations are the tools of their trade, which allow them to send instructions to the next molecule down the line in the cascade of events which govern biological functions, and probably, to a large extent, chemical ones as well.” Unfortunately, this was not the case. I followed a purely experimental approach. After eight years of research, around 1991, my experiments showed that we could transfer specific molecular signals by using an amplifier and electromagnetic coils. In July, 1995, I recorded and replayed these signals using a multimedia computer. A computer sound card only records frequencies up to about 20,000 Hz. In the course of several thousand experiments, we have led receptors (specific to simple or complex molecules) to “believe” that they are in the presence of their favorite molecules by playing the recorded frequencies of those molecules. In order to arrive at this result, two operations are necessary: 1) record the activity of the substance on a computer; 2) “replay” it to a biological system. sensitive to the same substance. Therefore, there is every reason to think that when a molecule itself is in the presence of its receptor, it does the same thing: it emits frequencies which the receptor is capable of recognizing.”
“Which means that: A molecular signal can be efficiently represented by a spectrum of frequencies between 20Hz and 20,000 Hz, the same range as the human voice or music. For several hundred thousand years, human beings have been relating sound frequencies to a biological mechanism: the emotions. The signal to start a love affair is not given by a resounding rendition of the Marseillaise under our new flame’s balcony. Neither was Brahms’ lullaby played for soldiers charging out of the trenches. Composers of background music for supermarkets or elevators are practicing neuropsychology without knowing it. High-pitched rapid sounds engender lightness of spirit, high-pitched slow sounds, sweetness, sounds both deep and rapid awaken the fighting spirit, while deep, slow sounds invoke serious emotions, sadness and mourning. These are fundamentally cerebral physico-chemical phenomena, triggered by defined frequencies. We do nothing more than this when we transmit pre-recorded molecular activities to biological systems.”
“Biological systems function like radio sets, by coresonance. If you tune a receiver to 92.6 Mhz, you tune in Radio-This, because the receiver and the transmitter vibrate at the same frequency. If we change the setting a little to, say, 92.7, we no longer receive Radio-This, but Radio-That instead.”
“These advances in understanding the inmost mechanism of molecular recognition and signaling do not overturn the science of biology, and even less those of physics and chemistry. We have taken nothing away from classic descriptions, but only taken a step forward by adding to the present body of knowledge. This is the normal course of scientific progress, and there is no reason for it to provoke imprecations and anathema.”
“We can now understand how millions of biological molecules can communicate (at the speed of light), each with its own corresponding molecule, and it alone, the basic requirement for the functioning of biological systems – and why minute chemical modifications produce considerable functional consequences, something “structural” biologists are at a loss to explain. In deciding that only structures can have an action, biologists find themselves in a pre-Newtonian world where the movement of celestial bodies is described by Ptolemy in terms of epicycles. Hence the inability of contemporary biology to provide answers to the major pathologies of the end of this century (my article in Le Monde, May 22, 1996, which has not been challenged to date). The passage from the rigid biology of structures to one of information traveling at the speed of light can be accomplished without a “revolution.” Contrary to what is stupidly claimed by scientific gossips, recording the activity of molecules no more implies denying their existence (after all, molecule-specific electromagnetic messages must come from specific molecules) than it does denying the law of mass action, according to which the effect is directly proportional to the number of molecules. One might as well expect a singer to disappear by recording his voice! In other words, we eliminate neither the light-switch nor the light bulb; we only say that a wire with a current of electrons connects the two. We are not in another, electromagnetic world which we are substituting for the old molecular world. We capture, copy, transfer – and soon will modify – electromagnetic signals emitted by molecules in the course of their normal functioning.”
“What about water in all this? It is the vehicle for information. This cannot be avoided, since there are 10,000 water molecules in the human body for every molecule of protein. There is no problem with this either; a submarine communicates with its base via low-frequency electromagnetic waves, not with megahertz frequencies, which do not penetrate water. We have recently completed very simple experiments showing that a molecule at a normally active concentration does not work in a medium devoid of water. Adding water is not enough to restore activity; it must be “informed.” In other words, when molecules trigger a biological effect, they are not directly transmitting the signal. The final job is done by perimolecular water which relays and possibly amplifies the signal. Sound is not directly created by a compact disc. The latter carries data which is audible only after being amplified by an electronic system.”
“The “memory of water?” It is more mysterious, but no more so than the fact that a compound formed from two gases should be liquid at normal temperature and pressure, and dilate as it cools. Coherent domains with laser-like properties have been described in water (E. del Giudice, G. Preparata, G. Vitiello (1988) ‘Water as a free electric dipole laser’, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61:1085-1088). More recently, a unique type of stable (non-melting) ice crystal that maintains an electrical field has been identified and characterized in water (Shui-Yin Lo, Angela Lo, Li Wen Chong, et al., (1996) ‘Physical properties of water with IE structures’, Modern Physics Letters B, 10,19:921-930.) Truly, unemployment should not be a worry for physicists! Nonetheless, water has not been our subject of investigation for a long time. What interests us now is not the nature of the magnetic medium and how it functions, but the message recorded in it, which can be copied and transmitted. In the light of our experimental results, we are confident in our belief that we have elucidated the physical nature of the molecular signal. The principle is as simple as exploding a mixture of air and gasoline, but the consequences are enormous.”
“We present them in detail elsewhere. Here is a summary: At the present time, the only way to identify a molecule is to carry a sample, most often obtained invasively or even destructively, to a laboratory. With the digital method, we dispose of a signal which can be instantly transmitted and analyzed at the other end of the world by classic means of telecommunication. Using this method, the detection of toxic substances, proteins (antigens, antibodies, prions) or molecular complexes (parasites, bacteria, viruses, abnormal cells) should become possible without physical sampling. It is noteworthy that no in vivo detection methods of prions presently exists, with well-known epidemiological and economic consequences. As far as the detection of antigens and antibodies is concerned, it represents a considerable share of the activity of clinical biology laboratories. Moreover, some results seem to indicate that these methods should be applicable to the chemical industry and to environmental surveillance, e.g. to detecting, at a distance, micro-organisms or products from genetically modified plants.”
“Completion of these projects would have immense consequences on medical diagnostic procedures and the agro-food industry, with huge technological and commercial impact.”
“A final question: why are scientists so opposed to the evolution of science? Is it to defend their piece of turf? Why, in the name of intangible dogmas, which the history of science has shown to be so often ephemeral, do they reject advances which represent progress for their discipline? Do these advances appear to threaten their all-too-fragile certitudes? Such questions are not just philosophical, because these people are respected counselors, advisers to political and industrial decision-makers. They orient – most often by hampering – new applications flowing from scientific progress. I don’t know where these mental blocks come from, but they are, in theory at least, irreconcilable with a scientist’s function. Here is a quote (translated from the French edition of Encyclopedia Universalis, taken from the article on Mechanism) which shows, alas, that those blocks are eternal: We have a good example of the dilemma of “mechanism” in the Cartesians’ opposition to the Newtonian world-view, which they felt completely called into question the new science and pushed scientific thinking back to a level beneath what “mechanism” had already achieved. The problem is, for Descartes, that movement is only possible if there is contact and impulsive force; action at a distance – attraction, as Fontenelle was to say – can only mean a return to a physics of sympathetic motion and occult attributes. In this way, they do not engage Newton in a scientific controversy; they disqualify him for obscurantism. Thus the French scientific community resisted Newtonian theory for a long time, or would prefer to ignore it. But “mechanism,” which is an obstacle to scientific progress, remains blocked. No doubt, Newton is less an opponent of “mechanism” than he is the proposer, by provoking a total break, of another model of physical mechanics in which movements other than those produced by impulsion become possible.”
“Four centuries later, we hear the same words: “there must be molecules” (François Jacob) – that is, contact, forceful impulsion – according to our sages of science, still frozen in the Cartesian mechanistic dogma: the same denial of action at a distance, and the same accusations of a return to obscurantism. Descartes versus Newton. We’re in good company_ January 8, 1998; mod. June 14, 1998- J. Benveniste- LABORATOIRE DE BIOLOGIE NUMERIQUE.”
Beneveniste’s works DIGITAL BIOLOGY culminated in a 1997 paper claiming that this effect could be transmitted over phone lines. This culminated in two additional papers in 1999 and another on remote-transmission in 2000.
WIKIPEDIA says: “US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) asked Dr. Wayne Jonas, homeopath and then director of the US National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, to organize an attempt at independently replicating the claimed results. An independent test of the 2000 remote-transmission experiment was carried out in the USA by a team funded by the US Department of Defense. Using the same experimental devices and setup as the Benveniste team, they failed to find any effect when running the experiment. Several positive results were noted, but only when a particular one of Benveniste’s researchers was running the equipment. Benveniste admitted to having noticed this himself, and offered a variety of reasons to explain away what appeared to be another example of experimenter effect. The experiment is also notable for the way it attempted to avoid the confrontational nature of the earlier Maddox test. The study implemented “A social and communication management process that was capable of dealing with conflicting interpersonal dynamics among vested parties in the research effort.” One of Benveniste’s machines was used, and, in the design and pilot project phase in 2001, Benveniste and other members of his DigiBio lab participated as consultants. Interviews at the time indicated study participants were satisfied with the way the study was being conducted. In the end, the authors reported in the FASEB Journal in 2006 that “Our team found no replicable effects from digital signals”.
According to BENVENISTE, he is bringing a ‘revolution’ in biology. Essence of this ‘revolution’ is that he reduces the whole complex molecular interactions involved in biological process into EXCHANGE OF SIGNALS between molecules. He says: “”Life depends on signals exchanged among molecules”. This reductionist idea works as the foundation of his whole ‘science’ of DIGITAL BIOLOGY. He even ridicules the community of biological scientists by this statement: “If you ask even the most eminent biologists what the physical nature of this signal is, they seem not even to understand the question, and stare at you wide-eyed”.
Benveiste’s statement “when you get angry, adrenalin “tells” its receptor, and it alone (as a faithful molecule, it talks to no other) to make your heart beat faster, to contract superficial blood vessels, etc” clearly demonstrates that this ‘prominent’ biological scientist lacks some essential basics of scientific knowledge.
Anybody having a minimum working knowledge of protein chemistry and kinetics of bio-molecular interactions know HOW adrenalin “tells’ its receptors ” to “make your heart beat faster, to contract superficial blood vessels, etc”. According to BENEVENISTE, it happens through “EM signals’ of adrenaline “transmitted to its receptors” from a “DISTANCE”. He should have understood, adrenaline molecules never “talk’ to its receptors from a “distance’ as he imagines, but they have to come close together and BIND to the appropriate BINDING SITES of receptor proteins in capacity of their CONFIGURATIONAL affinity and CHARGE affinity for passing the “signals”. Benveniste and his disciples should update themselves with the basics of signal-receptor, ligand-target, substrate-enzyme, antigen-antibody interactions, before making theories about RESONANCE OF EM SIGNALS as the model of bio-molecular interactions. They should also revise their lessons about kinetics of molecular inhibitions and re-activations involved in pathology, drug actions and cure. No biological ligand interacts and “exchanges information” with its target from a “distance” without coming close together and binding to appropriate sites. According to BENVENISTE, this basic scientific understanding of kinetics bio-molecular interactions are mere “absurdity, just as mankind did not realize the absurdity of the belief that the sun circles the earth!”
Nobody will disagree with BENVENISTE on his statement: “every atom of every molecule and every intermolecular bond – the bridge that links the atoms – emits a group of specific frequencies- specific frequencies of simple or complex molecules are detected at distances of billions of light-years, thanks to radio-telescopes- biophysicists describe these frequencies as an essential physical characteristic of matter”. But the problem arises when he REDUCES all particles, atoms, molecules, organisms, objects, celestial bodies and EVERYTHING into their VIBRATIONS, disregarding their STRUCTURE and MATERIAL COMPOSITION. Actually, benveniste forgot the fact that VIBRATIONS represent only ONE aspect of MATTER- it does not represent the WHOLE aspects of matter. For him, VIBRATIONS of an atom, molecule, object, organism or human being can do ALL the works of those THINGS even their absence! VIBRATIONS of benveniste will do ALL jobs and interactions of BENVENISTE! With his flawed REDUCTIONIST views of VIBRATIONS, benveniste fell into gutters of absurd pseudo-scientific speculations, which he called DIGITAL BIOLOGY.
According to BENVENISTE, atoms communicate with other atoms from a DISTENCE, by ‘resonance of frequencies’ of their specific ‘vibrations’. Molecules communicate, organisms communicate, celestial bodies COMMUNICATE from any ‘DISTANCE’, if their ‘frequencies’ are in ‘resonance’! Infectious agents produce diseases by their vibrations acting from any DISTANCE on our body through resonance! DRUGS can ‘communicate’ with our body from a DISTANCE, through resonance and CURE! Perhaps, food articles may nourish us through resonance, because, ‘vibrations’ represent the objects!
BENVENISTE’s theories of DIGITAL BIOLOGY overnight became very popular and dear to all those who propagate and practice ENERGY MEDICINE and CAM, as they expected it to be very useful in making their practices appear as SCIENTIFIC. CLASSICAL HOMEOPATHS welcomed it with much enthusiasm, since it provided a seemingly ‘SCIENTIFIC’ explanation for their beloved VITAL FORCE and DYNAMIC DRUG ENERGY, for which they were desperately groping in the darkness for centuries. Now, every OCCULT and WOODOO could be ‘SCIENTIFICALLY’ be explained in terms of ‘vibrations’ and ‘resonance’! Homeopathic drugs are ‘vibrations’, and they act by ‘resonance’!! Vibrations could be RECORDED as MP3 files on DIGITAL MEDIUM and played to patients to produce ‘miraculous’ CURES! Any homeopathic drug in any potency could be instantly ‘prepared’ by recording ‘vibrations’ into water or sugar pills using RADIONICS machines, without bothering about any DRUG SUBSTANCES! ‘VIBRATIONS’ of diseases such as HIV or BIRD FLU are ‘recorded’ into water and marketed worldwide as ‘PC resonance medicines’ by some ‘prominent international homeopaths’ to amass wealth of billions! He claims to collect all ‘information’ about a disease in his computer, synthesizes specific ‘vibrations’ of that disease using a computer program, and then ‘records’ it on digital media or water. His ‘medicines’ for HIV and BIRD FLU are available for downloading to your computer from his website by paying a few dollars. VIBRATIONS of homeopathic drugs could be ‘transmitted’ to patients in remote corners of the world, using their photographs, hair, blood, nail or other BODY WASTES as ‘transmission antennas”
Even there is an ‘institution’ in India, where ‘distant drug transmission though hair’ is ‘taught’ to young homeopathic graduates qualified from regular colleges! These ‘institutions’ are run by people having high influence among official academic community, and they conduct SEMINARS on ‘hair transmission’ method, hosted in co-operation with official professional organizations!
ENERGY MEDICINE nonsense is based on the concept of IMMATERIAL vibrations, immaterial FORCES, immaterial FREQUENCIES, immaterial RESONANCE and such things, which contradict our existing scientific knowledge system. That is why they talk about DRUG ENERGY without any DRUG MOLECULES, which act from DISTANCE dynamically. I know it a futile exercise to talk science to those who do not know the basic lessons of science.
A particle represents a specific ‘quantum equilibrium’ of forces. Once this ‘equilibrium’ is lost beyond certain limits, it cannot exist as it is- it will have to get divided into smaller particles, or modified to another structure. Every particle of matter vibrates in an attempt to resist external forces, and to maintain its specific internal balance of forces or quantum equilibrium. Whenever some extra force from an external source try to disturb its equilibrium, it vibrates more, in order to shed off the extra force, and retains equilibrium. That means, vibrations or motions are processes related with maintaining Quantum Equilibrium of particles. When a particle sheds of extra forces, that extra force will obviously be transmitted to other particles nearby, since force cannot exist free from matter particles. That is why motion of an object set other objects also into motion, which we call ‘resonance’.
When our vocal chords vibrate using extra forces transmitted into it by the energy generated in the mitochondria of muscle cells, that vibrations shed off forces to produce vibration in the air. Those vibrations in air travels through air or any medium as waves. It affects our body, when these vibrations reach their. Various neurochemicals in the cells in our skin is activated, and these vibrations are converted into chemical signals, which travels to brain, producing a cascading of chemical changes which we experience as SENSATIONS as well MENTAL processes. Vibrations belonging to specific frequencies activate neurochemicals in our internal ears, which are transmitted to certain centers of brain through auditory nerves, which produces the sensation of HEARING, and followed by generation of mental images associated with it.
ALL the vibrations entering our body from environment can affect the biochemical processes in our body in different ways. They can have disease-causing and disease-curing effects.
Most important point to be noted is, VIBRATIONS are physical motion of matter particles, which can be transmitted through a material medium, and its effects on our body are purely BIOCHEMICAL. There is no IMMATERIAL vibrations. Nothing immaterial, divine or spiritual in these sounds or its effects. No saint can chant mantra if there is no air to be set into motion by the motion of his vocal chords. Even if he saint chants any holy mantra of whatever intensity, it can be transmitted only through MATERIAL medium such as air. His mantra will not travel through vaccum, or affect anybody if there is no a MATERIAL medium to carry it forward to a listener.
Regarding the possibility of DNA changes or PROGRAMING by sounds as some people imagine to happen, it seems to be an exaggerated fancy. Better to say BIOCHEMICAL changes. EVEN if any effects are produced in our bodies by material vibrations of various frequencies, they are BIOCHEMICAL effects produced by PHYSICAL motion of MATTER particles. There is nothing IMMATERIAL or SPIRITUAL in this phenomenon.
There are ‘self-proclaimed’ ‘homeopaths’ using RADIONICS machines in their day-to-day practice to ‘prepare’ medicines from NOTHINGNESS, by ‘imprinting’ pre-stored ‘vibrations’ of any drug in any potency they want, into plain water or sugar pills- ANY DRUG, ANY POTENCY! It is most distressing to know that some homeopathy ‘schools’ in UK and US even ‘teach’ their students on how to use these devices, as part of their curriculum.
A message I recently received from one of homeopath friends – a teacher at a Homeopathy school- from BELFAST, UNITED KINGDOM, demonstrates this grave situation as follows:
“I was wondering, and I hope you can forgive the intrusion, what is your personal view on the use of radionics machines in the preparation of homeopathic remedies? It is something I am very uncomfortable with indeed but find myself in a situation where I am having to face the issue head on as one has been introduced to the school pharmacy where I teach.
Unfortunately, it is being used to prepare remedies for the student clinic, needless to say, no clients have shown any improvement since its introduction. I fear it is a deeply flawed financial decision and little can be learned at a teaching clinic if remedies are ineffectual. This is obviously just my own opinion, so I am making sure that it is circumstance and not my own bias that makes me uncomfortable with the situation. Un-medicated pilules are placed in the machine, and a dial is moved to the correlating remedy and potency, apparently the frequency of the medicine is imprinted onto the un-medicated pillules which are then given to the waiting client.
The manufacturer of the machine identifies and replicates the exact frequency of each remedy, in each potency, and duplicates it with a frequency on the radionics machine. I think it is all made to sound convincing to the unquestioning mind or the open impressionable minds of students, but I am unconvinced, and very uncomfortable with it. Even if this method did work, and I don’t believe it does, the frequency being used is artificial.
The idea is that no raw samples are needed, no substances need be collected and prepared in the traditional way , the frequency needs only to be duplicated by the machine.
I don’t think I am a dismissive or narrow minded person but the fact that nobody is getting better speaks volumes to me. Unfortunately it is the director of our school who is the biggest advocate of them, quite likely getting some sort of financial incentive for his enthusiasm. I think I will have to resign my job as I cannot possibly be associated with a school which teaches potential new homeopaths that this is a way forward”.
“Nobody is getting better” using ‘medicines’ prepared by RADIONICS MACHINES- but the business continues to thrive! That could be explained only by the clever art of money-making and marketing!
If it is possible as BENEVISTE theorized, that “the specific activity of biologically-active molecules (e.g. histamine, caffeine, nicotine, adrenalin), not to mention the immunological signature of a virus or bacterium can be recorded and digitized using a computer sound card, just like an ordinary sound”, and transmitted through telephone, CDs, radio or internet, and other digital media, and if by playing those DIGITAL SIGNATURES can produce the effects on human beings exactly similar to those of ORIGINAL SUBSTANCE, its implications will be beyond imagination. We could FEED millions in starvation around the globe, using NOTHING but ‘vibrations’ of nourishing food articles recorded into water or digital media! We could kill people by ‘transmitting’ DIGITAL SIGNATURE of CYANIDE POISON through a mere phone call? Terrorists could operate without guns and bombs, using digital signatures of deadly poisons, or HIV like infectious agents? Wars between countries could be waged using DIGITAL SIGNATURES of BIOLOGICAL and CHEMICAL DRUGS? If BENVENISTE is right, nobody will be starving, nobody will be safe in that illusionaary world of DIGITAL SIGNATURE!
We cannot deny one thing for sure- Jacques Benveniste, with his DIGITAL BIOLOGY, has indeed brought a GREAT REVOLUTION! A pseudo-scientific revolution that keeps practitioners of all OCCULT arts high and cheering!
Now, let us discuss the issue of so-called ‘homeopathic aggravations’. This phenomenon is very much discussed by homeopaths. It is true that in many instances we experience such aggravation of symptoms after prescribing homeopathic medicines. Some homeopaths believe that aggravations occur due to wrong prescriptions, whereas some others consider it happening as part of curative process due to ‘exact’ prescriptions. Some homeopaths differentiate between ‘medicinal’ aggravations which are harmful, and ‘homeopathic’ aggravations which are welcome.
In my opinion such ‘aggravations’ are not due to ‘prescribing wrong drugs’ or ‘exact drugs’, but due to prescribing drugs that cover only part of the ‘symptom complexes’ present in the patient. To follow what I say, one should be well aware of the concepts of ‘molecular errors’ underlying pathology, as well as ‘molecular imprints’ present in potentized medicines. As per our view, an individual will be having multitudes of ‘molecular errors’ caused by binding of diverse types of pathogenic molecules on different biological molecules. Each individual ‘molecular error’ may be expressed in the form of specific subjective and objective ‘symptom complexes’. If we select a drug as a similimum on the basis of some of the leading symptoms only, ignoring other symptoms, that similimum in fact covers only some of the molecular errors. The ‘molecular imprints’ contained in that similimum may remove those molecular errors only. But other molecular errors remain. The ‘symptom complexes’ representing those remaining molecular errors would become more expressive and come to the fore. In the absence of scientific understanding regarding the molecular processes behind this phenomenon, we happen to interpret these new expressions as ‘homeopathic aggravation’.
We experience many instances of wonderful cures that do not obey “Dr.Kent’s 3rd observation” or “Hering’s Law”. They are not universal laws of homeopathic cures. They are all only speculative theories based on isolated experiences. Many of such ‘principles’ and ‘laws’ will have to be abandoned as our scientific understanding of real process of homeopathic cure become more and more perfect and accurate.
Most of us would have experienced some initial aggravations followed by complete relief. We should understand ‘molecular errors’ not as singular static incidents. A particular molecular error caused by a particular pathogenic molecule may result in cascading of new molecular errors. It is like a traffic block in a city. A small traffic block may cause cascading of traffic blocks, ultimately resulting in total failure of traffic system in the city. When a molecular error occurs in a particular biochemical pathway in the organism, it may affect other related pathways also. That is why diseases progress expressing trains of new symptoms. When we start removing these molecular blocks, there may be readjustments happening in all these related biochemical pathways, which may appear as aggravations of symptoms. That is part of normal curative process.
That means, when studying the phenomena of ‘homeopathic aggravations”, both chances will have to be considered. “Re-adjustments’ happening in various biochemical pathways as part of curative process, as well as ‘appearing of remaining symptoms’ because of prescription being partial.
When we follow the TOTAL CURE METHOD of prescribing a combination of drugs that would contain all the ‘molecular imprints’ required to rectify all the ‘molecular errors’ covering all ‘symptom complexes’ expressed by the individual, so-called ‘homeopathic aggravations’ are never experienced.
Stuart N. Close in his ‘Lectures on Philosophy’ (Chapter 13) pp 184-5 says:
“The homeopathic doctrine of dosage, like the law of cure was based upon the discovery of the opposite action of large and small doses of medicine. It is another application in medicine of Law of Mutual Action – the third Newtonian law motion – “Action and Reaction are Equal and Opposite”. Every one at all acquainted with the action of drugs knows, for example, that Ipecac in large doses causes nausea and vomiting and in small doses, under certain conditions, will cure the same; that Opium in large doses will cause a deep sleep or narcosis, and in small doses, under certain conditions, will cure the same.”
I disagree with Stuart Close regarding his concepts of ‘primary-secondary’ actions of drugs.
I cannot see any substance in the comparison of homeopathic principle and newton’s laws of motion.Newton’s law is related with the action of ‘mechanical force on material bodies’, where as homeopathy deals with an entirely different subject. The principle “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction’ is applicable to the interaction of ‘material bodies and mechanical forces’. Even if a great homeopath like Stuart Close says that homeopathy “is another application in medicine of Law of Mutual Action – the third Newtonian law motion”, it amounts to utter nonsense. He interprets homeopathy as well as newton’s law in a very absurd way through this statement. How can anybody with sound reasoning say that the phenomenon of ‘Opium in large doses causing deep sleep and in small doses cure the same’ is similar to ‘for every action there is an opposite reaction’?Newton’s law has nothing in it comparable to action of ‘Opium in large doses causing deep sleep and in small doses cures the same’. Anybody with minimum common sense would realize that Stuart Close has used a wrong comparison here.
Stuart Close says: “Closely allied to this is the so-called primary and secondary action of drugs, in which we see many drugs, in the first or primary stage of their action producing one group of symptoms, and in the second stage a directly opposite set of phenomena; as when the deep sleep of the primary action of Opium is followed by much longer lasting wakefulness; or where the diarrhea induced by a cathartic is followed by a longer lasting constipation. This applies, of course, only to drugs given in tangible form and considerable quantities, in what are called “physiological doses”.
How can anybody say the phenomenon of “so-called primary and secondary action of drugs, in which we see many drugs, in the first or primary stage of their action producing one group of symptoms, and in the second stage a directly opposite set of phenomena” is “closely allied to” the phenomenon of “opium in large doses causing deep sleep and in small doses cure the same”. First phenomenon is related with ‘large dose’ getting antidoted by ‘small dose’ of same drug, where as second phenomenon is related with “action of opium causing deep sleep followed by much longer lasting wakefulness”.
The logic of Stuart close has obviously misfired in both these statements.
In fact, the ‘effects of large doses being antidoted by small dose of same substance’, on which the principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’ is built up, is related with the known phenomenon of ‘molecular inhibitions getting removed by competitive affinity of similar molecules’. But the “action of opium causing deep sleep followed by much longer lasting wakefulness” is related with the phenomenon of ‘nerve receptors getting blocked by accumulation of ligand molecules, thereby initiating feedback mechanisms’ inducing the up-regulation of glutamate and other pathways in the brain induced by the over-activation of opioid receptors, thereby exert an opioid-opposing effect and so reduce the effects of opioid drugs by altering downstream pathways.
Both are different, and cannot be compared to one another.
In any discussion regarding the ‘primary-secondary’ actions of homeopathic drug substances, the phenomenon of ‘opium causing excessive sleep and constipation, later followed by profound sleeplessness” is always cited as an example.
Opium contains two main groups of alkaloids. Phenanthrenes such as morphine, codeine, and thebaine are the main narcotic constituents. Isoquinolines such as papaverine and noscapine have no significant central nervous system effects
To understand the biochemistry of ‘primary- secondary’ actions of opium, we should learn the biochemical processes involving μ-opioid receptors.
Read from Wikipedia: “The μ-opioid receptors (MOR) are a class of opioid receptors with high affinity for enkephalins and beta-endorphin but low affinity for dynorphins. They are also referred to as μ opioid peptide (MOP) receptors. The prototypical μ receptor agonist is the opium alkaloid morphine; μ (mu) refers to morphin. MOR can mediate acute changes in neuronal excitability via “disinhibition” of presynaptic release of GABA. Activation of the MOR leads to different effects on dendritic spines depending upon the agonist, and may be an example of functional selectivity at the μ receptor. The physiological and pathological roles of these two distinct mechanisms remain to be clarified. Perhaps, both might be involved in opioid addiction and opioid-induced deficits in cognition.
Activation of the μ receptor by an agonist such as morphine causes analgesia, sedation, slightly reduced blood pressure, itching, nausea, euphoria, decreased respiration, miosis (constricted pupils) and decreased bowel motility often leading to constipation. Some of these side effects, such as sedation, euphoria and decreased respiration, tend to lessen with continued use as tolerance develops. Analgesia, miosis and reduced bowel motility tend to persist; little tolerance develops to these effects.
As with other G protein-coupled receptors, signalling by the mu opioid receptor is terminated through several different mechanisms, which are upregulated with chronic use, leading to rapid tachyphylaxis. The most important regulatory proteins for the mu opioid receptor are the β-arrestins Arrestin beta 1 and Arrestin beta 2, and the RGS proteins RGS4, RGS9-2, RGS14 and RGSZ2.
Long-term or high dose use of opioids may also lead to additional mechanisms of tolerance becoming involved. This includes downregulation of mu opioid receptor gene expression, so the number of receptors presented on the cell surface is actually reduced, as opposed to the more short-term desensitisation induced by β-arrestins or RGS proteins. Another long-term adaptation to opioid use can be upregulation of glutamate and other pathways in the brain which can exert an opioid-opposing effect and so reduce the effects of opioid drugs by altering downstream pathways, regardless of mu opioid receptor activation.
Opioid overdoses kill through apnea and fatal hypoxia, often aggravated by simultaneous use of alcohol, benzodiazepines or barbiturates. Substantial tolerance to respiratory depression develops quickly, and tolerant individuals can withstand larger doses. However tolerance to respiratory depression is lost just as quickly during withdrawal. Many overdoses occur in people who misuse their medication after being in withdrawal long enough to lose the tolerance to respiratory depression. Less commonly, massive overdoses have been known to cause circulatory collapse.
Opioid overdoses can be rapidly reversed with any of several opioid antagonists: naloxone, or naltrexone, differing primarily in their duration of action and potency. While commonly referred to as antagonists, and when used to treat an overdose they do appear to function as such, naloxone & naltrexone are inverse agonists”.
So-called secondary actions of opioid substances such as opium can be explained by the phenomenon up-regulation of glutamate and other pathways in the brain induced by the over-activation of opioid receptors, thereby exert an opioid-opposing effect and so reduce the effects of opioid drugs by altering downstream pathways, regardless of mu opioid receptor activation. In effect, the ‘primary-action’ of opioids finally lead to ‘secondary actions’, which are totally in reverse direction.
This is the biochemical mechanism underlying the ‘primary-secondary actions’ of ‘opioid’ substances.
Opium Induces Profound sleep, followed by sleeplessness- To understand this phenomenon, study the biochemistry of ‘rebound actions’ and ‘secondary actions’ of drugs
We should study the biochemistry involved in ‘biomolecular feedbacks’, ‘cascading of molecular inhibitions’ and ‘upregullation-down regulation’ mechanisms of cellular receptors, to understand the phenomenon of rebound actions and secondary actions. Trying to explain these complex biochemical interactions using 250 year old concepts and ideas of hahnemann will lead us no where.
For example, the “action of opium causing deep sleep followed by much longer lasting wakefulness” is related with the phenomenon of ‘nerve receptors getting blocked by accumulation of ligand molecules, thereby initiating feedback mechanisms’ inducing the up-regulation of glutamate and other pathways in the brain induced by the over-activation of opioid receptors, thereby exert an opioid-opposing effect and so reduce the effects of opioid drugs by altering downstream pathways.
The terms ‘potency’, ‘infenitsmel’ all comes from the concept of ‘dynamic drug energy’, which is part of vitalistic or ‘energetic’ approach to homeopathy. According to me, drugs belongs to only two groups- molecular forms and molecular imprints forms. All allopathic drugs, homeopathic mother tinctures, low potencies belong to molecular forms. They act by their molecular level chemical properties. Molecular imprints forms are drugs diluted above avogadro limit, which do not contain drug particles. As per calculations, this limit comes around 12c. Molecular imprints act by their complementary configurational affinity towards pathogenic molecules.
We cannot expect molecular imprints to create molecular inhibitions in biological molecules. Natural ligands and their biological targets interact by a double affinity- configurational and energetic. Since molecular imprints have only configurational affinity, they cannot compete with natural ligands to bind with biological molecules. Only molecules can create molecular inhibitions- molecular imprints cannot. As such, potentized drugs above 12c will not create any molecular inhibitions or pathological response in organism, in the absence of endogenous or exogenous pathological molecules. ‘Actions’ and ‘reactions’ happen only when we use molecular forms of drugs.
Actually, so called ‘rebound actions’ have to me studied on the basis of scientific knowledge of ‘biomolecular feedback systems’- not in a vitalistic view point. We can explain any rebound actions or secondary actions using biochemistry.
Since potenized forms of opium do not contain ‘molecules’ to block the nerve receptors, they cannot cause any ‘secondar’ action. In a crude opium-dosed individual, only thing molecular imprints contained in potentized opium is to bind to the molecules of opium, and relieve the nerve cells from ‘block’. That means, potentized opium can antidote the biological actions of crude opium- that is all.
Similar way, we can explain this phenomenon of ‘primary-secondary’ actions regarding any drug substance in terms of modern biochemistry, by studying the molecular pathways affected by the constituent molecules of those drug substances. There is nothing ‘mysterious’ in it. We need not drag any ‘dynamic’ ‘vital force’ into it.
Shall we consider a ‘cancer miasm’? This question is
frequently asked whenever the topic ‘miasms’ is
discussed. Since hahnemann has talked about only three
chronic miasms (psora, syphilis and sycosis), ‘classical’
homeopaths will not agree to the proposals regarding new
miasms other than these three. But some homeopaths talk
about miasms such as tuberculous, typhoid, vaccinosis,
cancer, malaria etc etc.
According to my interpretation of miasms as chronic
disease dispositions caused by off-target actions of anti-
bodies generated against ‘alien proteins’ such as
infectious agents, we need not limit the number of
miasms in three hahnemann explained. Any infectious
disease that can generate antibodies in the organism can
act as a causative factor of chronic miasms. Vaccinations,
which induce production of anti-bodies in the organism,
have to be considered as miasmatic factors. More over,
history of allergic reactions towards any ‘alien proteins’
entering the organism, such as various allergens, bites
and stings of insects and serpents, and anaphylactic
reactions also have to be considered as ‘miasms’.
How can we explain the concept of ‘cancer miasm’ from
this ‘anti-body’ view point?
Cancer is not an infectious disease, or it does not involve
‘alien’ proteins entering from outside. But, we know,
cancer cells contain some mutant genes that are different
from ‘native genetic substance’ of organism. These
mutant genes can synthesize proteins that are in fact
‘alien’ to the immune system of organism, and antibodies
will be produced against these ‘alien’ proteins. In most
cases, cancer cells will be destroyed by the immune
system before the appearance of observable cancer
manifestations. But, these antibodies remain, and will act
as miasms, by their ‘off-target’ actions upon various
bilogical molecules. As such, ‘cancer miasm’ is a reality.
But it is obvious that there cannot be ‘cancer miasm’
without an immune process happened against ‘cancer’
proteins at any point of time in the individual’s life history.
We should remember, our genetic material may anytime
go astray due to the action of various environmental
factors such as carcinogenic substances and ionizing
radiations to which we are constantly exposed.
Metabolic bye-products such as free radicals, which are
regularly produced in our body, may also create
mutations in our genes. Such mutant genes may lead to
the production of cancerous cells, which are constantly
identified, located, entrapped and destructed by the
scavengers of our immune system. These mutant cells
grow into cancer disease only in very rare occasions,
when our immune system fail in its duties. That means,
production and destruction of mutant genes and cancer
cells are a constant process in the organism.
Destruction of mutant genes and cancer cells involves
production of antibodies also against the proteins
synthesized by them. These ‘cancer antibodies’ will
remain in the system even after ‘cancer cells’ are
destroyed. These antibodies generated against ‘alien’
proteins synthesized by mutant genes can travel in the
organism, migrate to different parts and may bind to
various biological molecules having configurational
affinity. Such ‘off-target’ bindings lead to molecular
inhibitions of biological molecules, which amount to
molecular level pathologies similar to any miasmatic
chronic disease. That means, antibodies generated
against cancer cells would act as ‘cancer miasms’,
causing disease dispositions of chronic nature. Obviously,
not only in persons of known history of cancer, but almost
all seemingly ‘cancer-free’ people may carry cancer
Cancer antibodies, or cancer miasms can be effectively
combated using cancer nosodes such as ‘carcinocin’,
‘schirinum’ etc, which are potentized cancer products,
which would contain molecular imprints of ‘cancer
proteins’ as well as ‘cancer antibodies’. Molecular
imprints of cancer antibodies act therapeutically by
competing with cancer antibodies in binding to the
biological molecules, where as molecular imprints of
cancer proteins directly bind to the cancer proteins
themselves. Molecular imprints cannot interfere in the
interactions of antibodies with cancer cells, as they are
their natural ligands. That means, even while rectifying the
‘miasmatic’ effects of cancer antibodies, carcinocin
nosode will not by any way reduce the anti-cancer fight of
our immune system.
This study clearly shows the importance of regular use of
cancer nosodes in the management of various diseases
of chronic nature.
I think we have to re-invent ‘miasm of sycosis’ of Hahnemann on the basis of modern understanding of gonorrhoea, a bacterial infection, and Human Papillomma Virus infections.
We are taught by our ‘teachers’ that ‘sycosis’ is the miasm of gonorrhoea. But on closely observing the symptoms hahnemann said to be of ‘sycotic miasm’, we can understand that many of those symptoms like warts belong to human papilloma virus infection.
Acually, Gonorrhoea and HPV comes mostly as mixed infections. Since much information was not available during Hahnemann’s time about HPV as the causative agent of ‘ano-genital warts’ or ‘figwart disease’ and ‘uterine fibromas’, he attributed all these complaints and symptoms to gonorrhoea, and called it ‘sycotic miasm’. Gonorrhoea cannot produce papillomma.
Kindly note, in most occasions hahnemann refers his miasm of ‘sycosis’ as ‘miasm of figwart disease’, not ‘miasm of gonorrhoea. Obviously, hahnemann confused between gonorrhoea and ‘figwart disease’. ‘Figwart disease is not gonorrhoea- it is Human Papilloma Virus disease. Since he could not differentiate between gonorrhoea and HPV, he wrongly considered ‘figwart disease’ as part of gonorrhoea.
I was trying to explain concept of ‘miasms’ as ‘chronic disease dispositions’ due to the ‘off-target’ molecular inhibitions caused by ‘antibodies’ formed against ‘infectious agents’ and ‘alien’ proteins. As per this view, antibodies are the causative agents of ‘miasms’.
Many friends now raise the question ‘how would you explain autoimmune diseases?”
All of us know, so-called ‘autoimmune diseases’ are caused by ‘antibodies’. But, those ‘antibodies’ are considered to be formed not against ‘exogenous antigens’, but ‘endogenous or host antigens’. If we explain ‘miasms’ as ‘antibodies’ formed against ‘exogenous’ proteins, should we exclude ‘autoimmune diseases’ from ‘miasms’, since they are considered to be formed against ‘endogenous antigens’, not ‘exogenous proteins’?
Here, we have to undertake a serious study of the phenomena of ‘autoimmunity’ and ‘autoimmune diseases.
According to immunologists, ‘autoimmune diseases’ arise from an overactive immune response of the body against substances and tissues normally present in the body. In other words, the body actually attacks its own cells. The immune system mistakes some part of the body as a pathogen and attacks it. This may be restricted to certain organs (e.g. in autoimmune thyroiditis) or involve a particular tissue in different places (e.g. Goodpasture’s disease which may affect the basement membrane in both the lung and the kidney).
Hundreds of chronic systemic diseases are now classified as ‘autoimmune diseases’. This group include Coeliac disease, diabetes mellitus type 1, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), Sjögren’s syndrome, Churg-Strauss Syndrome, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, Graves’ disease, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), lupus and allergies. This group is expanding every day.
Autoimmune diseases are broadly divided into systemic and organ-specific or localised autoimmune disorders, depending on the principal clinico-pathologic features of each disease.
Systemic autoimmune diseases- include SLE, Sjögren’s syndrome, scleroderma, rheumatoid arthritis, and dermatomyositis. These conditions tend to be associated with antibodies to antigens which are not tissue specific. Thus although polymyositis is more or less tissue specific in presentation, it may be included in this group because the autoantigens are often ubiquitous t-RNA synthetases.
Local syndromes which affect a specific organ or tissue:
Endocrinologic: Diabetes mellitus type 1, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, Addison’s diseaseGastrointestinal: Coeliac disease, Crohn’s Disease, Pernicious anaemia
Dermatologic: Pemphigus vulgaris, Vitiligo
Haematologic: Autoimmune haemolytic anaemia, Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura
Neurological: Myasthenia gravis
Autoimmunity is defined as “the failure of an organism to recognize its own constituent parts as self, which allows an immune response against its own cells and tissues. Any disease that results from such an aberrant immune response is termed an autoimmune disease”.
This definition does not answer the question we are interested. Are the antibodies ‘formed against’ native targets, or ‘antibodies formed against’ exogenous antigens mistaking native targets as the ‘exogenous antigens’?
Actually, are the antibodies considered to be the causative agents of ‘autoimmune diseases’ really formed against ‘host antigens’? Or, are they ‘antibodies’ formed against ‘exogenous proteins’ attacking ‘off-target’ sites in the organism?
This topic is still a controversial subject in immunology. We should remember that ‘immune’ mechanism is basically a defense mechanism of our organism to identify and destroy ‘exogenous proteins’ which are alien to our genetic blueprint. Several mechanisms are thought to be operative in the pathogenesis of autoimmune diseases, against a backdrop of genetic predisposition and environmental modulation. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss each of these mechanisms exhaustively, but a summary of some of the important mechanisms suggested by various hypotheses may be examined.
1. T-Cell Bypass – A normal immune system requires the activation of B-cells by T-cells before the former can produce antibodies in large quantities. This requirement of a T-cell can be bypassed in rare instances, such as infection by organisms producing super-antigens, which are capable of initiating polyclonal activation of B-cells, or even of T-cells, by directly binding to the β-subunit of T-cell receptors in a non-specific fashion.
2. Molecular Mimicry – An exogenous antigen may share structural similarities with certain host antigens; thus, any antibody produced against this antigen (which mimics the self-antigens) can also, in theory, bind to the host antigens, and amplify the immune response. The idea of molecular mimicry arose in the context of Rheumatic Fever, which follows infection with Group A beta-haemolytic streptococci. Although rheumatic fever has been attributed to molecular mimicry for half a century no antigen has been formally identified (if anything too many have been proposed). Moreover, the complex tissue distribution of the disease (heart, joint, skin, basal ganglia) argues against a cardiac specific antigen. It remains entirely possible that the disease is due to e.g. an unusual interaction between immune complexes, complement components and endothelium.
3. Idiotype Cross-Reaction – Idiotypes are antigenic epitopes found in the antigen-binding portion (Fab) of the immunoglobulin molecule. Plotz and Oldstone presented evidence that autoimmunity can arise as a result of a cross-reaction between the idiotype on an antiviral antibody and a host cell receptor for the virus in question. In this case, the host-cell receptor is envisioned as an internal image of the virus, and the anti-idiotype antibodies can react with the host cells.
4. Epitope spreading or epitope drift – when the immune reaction changes from targeting the primary epitope to also targeting other epitopes. In contrast to molecular mimicry, the other epitopes need not be structurally similar to the primary one.
If we carefully study the above hypotheses proposed by modern immunology, you will find that all these hypotheses indirectly agree with our contention that so called autoimmune diseases are actually caused by ‘off-target’ inhibitions created by ‘antibodies’ formed against ‘exogenous antigens’
A recent observation regarding relationship of autoimmune diseases and infectious diseases is found to be very important from our ‘miasmatic’ angle. Studies revealed strong association of certain microbial organisms with autoimmune diseases. For example, Klebsiella pneumoniae and coxsackievirus B have been strongly correlated with ankylosing spondylitis and diabetes mellitus type 1, respectively. This has been explained by the tendency of the infecting organism to produce ‘super-antigens’ that are capable of polyclonal activation of B-lymphocytes, and production of large amounts of antibodies of varying specificities, some of which may be self-reactive.
This ‘polyclonal’ ‘super-antigen’ theory goes very close to our explanation of ‘miasms’ as antibody-mediated.
There is a recent proposal among immunologist that the spectrum of autoimmunity should be viewed along an “immunological disease continuum,” with classical autoimmune diseases at one extreme and diseases driven by the innate immune system at the other extreme. Within this scheme, the full spectrum of autoimmunity can be included. Many common human autoimmune diseases can be seen to have a substantial innate immune mediated immunopathology using this new scheme.
MODERN SCIENCE is advancing towards the realization about the TOXIC and PATHOGENIC properties of DEFORMED PROTEINS and their role as a major class of pathogenic agents that cause most of the chronic diseases.
Peculiar three-dimensional conformations resulting from characteristic tertiary folding decides the specific biological roles of protein molecules. If this three-dimensional shape is ‘deformed’ by any way, a protein molecule becomes incapacitated to perform its biological function, and may turn into pathogenic agents.
Proteins could be deformed by various ways:
1. Genetic errors: Presence of faulty genes with wrong nucleotide sequences may result in production of deformed protein molecules.
2. Genetic expression errors: Genetic expression or synthesizing of protein molecules utilizing the genetic blueprints involve a series of systematic biochemical processes involving diverse types of enzymes. Any errors in these enzyme systems may result in the production of deformed proteins. This includes epigenetic errors also, resulting from inhibitions of enzymes involved in dna mythylation and histone folding.
3. Post translational Misfolding : Peculiar three dimensional structures of individual protein molecules synthesized by genetic expression are attained through their post-translational tertiary folding. Errors in mediator enzymes as well as inappropriate intracellular physical environment may result in misfolding of protein molecules.
4. Off-target binding of hormones, enzymes and other endogenous biological molecules: Even though hormones and enzymes have specifically determined roles in biochemical processes, and they are expected to bind only to specific molecular targets for executing these functions, there are occasions when some of them bind to unexpected off-target protein molecules, there by changing their tertiary structures. In such cases, protein molecules get deformed, and may become pathological.
5. Binding with harmful endogenous byproducts such as reactive oxygen species: As part of normal biochemical processes, various harmful reactive molecules such as superoxides are produced in the system, which get instantly destroyed or eliminated by a special defense mechanism working in our body. But in some cases, these hyper-reactive superoxides may bind to essential protein molecules and deform them. Such deformations lead to pathological conditions.
6. Binding with metal ions, toxic drugs or other exogenous molecules.
7. Denaturation by chemicals, ionizing radiations, pH variations, dehydration, abnormal temperature etc.
8. Molecular imprinting by alien proteins such as infectious agents: ANTIBODIES generated against various infectious agents belongs to this class of DEFORMED PROTEINS.
9. Molecular misfolding induced by other deformed proteins: DEFOEMED PROTEINS can act as templates to induce similar proteins also to undergo deformation through a process of molecular imprinting. Prion diseases are found to advance by this process.
It is obvious that DEFORMED proteins cannot perform their SPECIFIC biological functions, which by itself results in pathological conditions.
Moreover, DEFORMED PROTENS can act as PATHOLOGICAL factors in TWO ways.
Deformed proteins bind to totally unexpected biological targets and produce pathological molecular errors. Diverse types of auto-immune diseases and antibody-mediated diseases belong to this class of CHRONIC DISEASES.
Deformed proteins can INDUCE other proteins into MISFOLDING, through a process of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING. Alshiemer’s, Parkinson’s. Prion diseases and various other Amyloid diseases belong to this class.
Various ANTIBODIES generated in the body against infectious agents and other alien proteins can remain in the body for long periods, and probably induce misfolding in diverse types of native proteins through molecular imprinting. By this way, antibodies act as a major class of pathological factors that cause diverse kinds of CHRONIC DISEASES.
Hahnemann explained CHRONIC DISEASES in terms of MIASMS, which he considered to be the life long disease dispositions caused by INFECTIOUS DISEASES such as itch and leprosy, sexually transmitted genital pappiloma disease, and syphilis. He named these three miasms as PSORA, SYCOSIS and SYPHILIS respectively, of which prime importance was given to PSORA.
Due to limitations of scientific knowledge available during his period, hahnemann could not explain the molecular mechanism by which infectious diseases can produce diverse types of life long chronic diseases. As such, he tried to explain this phenomenon in terms of ‘vital force’ concepts.
With great scientific advancements that happened during last 250 years after hahnemann, we are now in a position to explain how infectious diseases can produce chronic diseases. We know, ANTIBODIES are produced in the body when it get infected. Though antibodies are normally considered to be defense molecules that fight infections, they remain in the body for long periods after infections are over. Since ANTIBODIES are actually globular proteins getting molecular imprinted by ALIEN PROTEINS of infectious gents, these antbodies can act as DEFORMED PROTEINS. Similar to other deformed proteins, ANTIBODIES can act as pathogenic agents by attacking other native proteins, and inducing them to DEFORM.
It is these ANTIBODIES or DEFORMED PROTEINS generated against infectious agents and ALIEN PROTEINS that cause the whole range of CHRONIC DISEASES hahnemann called as MIASMATIC DISEASES.
ANTIBODIES may be playing a causative role in the development of so called AUTO IMMUNE DISEASES, AMYLOID DISEASES and PRION DISEASES by INDUCING deformation in various kinds of native proteins. I hope this possibility also will be considered by the scientists in future. If this prediction is proved to be true, It will be a great recognition of hahnemann’s concept of MIASMS as causative factors of chronic diseases.
Treating DISEASE DISPOSITIONS caused by DEFORMED PROTEINS is a very difficult task even for MODERN MEDICINE. These protein molecules do not undergo normal biological degrading or destruction. Chemical drugs are no effective in most of such diseases.
Homeopathy can treat chronic diseases caused by DEFORMED PROTEINS by a process of Molecular Capping, which involves deactivation of functional groups of DEFORMED PROTEINS using molecular imprints of causative antibodies, thereby making them incapable of binding to biological molecules. It will prevent deformed proteins from inducing misfolding in other similar proteins or forming supra-molecular complexes by combining themselves.
A whole new range of target specific therapeutic agents that could be used for ‘molecular capping’ of deformed proteins could be effectively synthesized using modern drug designing technology in future. Same time, possibilities of these designer drugs themselves producing new molecular inhibitions and molecular pathologies also will have to be addressed.
All these things scientifically ratify the 250 year old theory of MIASMS proposed by hahnemann, and the wonderful technology of homeopathic potentization
I hope the scientific community could probe deeper into the ideas put forward in this article regarding role of antibodies formed against infectious agents, in producing various types of AUTO-IMMUNE DISEASES, AMYLOID DISEASES, PRION DISEASES and various other CHRONIC DISEASES. Researches on these lines may lead to the development of a whole new range of target specific therapeutic agents to combat these diseases, synthesized by utilizing Molecular Imprinting Technology. If this idea is found to be of any relevance, scientific community should be thankful to hahnemann, homeopathy and theory of MIASMS for enabling this great REVELATION.
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.
Since ANTIBODIES are actually DEFORMED globulin proteins, subjected to MOLECULAR IMPRINTING by ALIEN PROTEINS, they can induce MOLECULAR MISFOLDING in native proteins having complementary conformations. Such misfolded proteins are already known to be the causative agents of diverse types of PROTEINOPATHIES such as amyloid diseases and prion diseases.
These diseases include AUTO-IMMUNE DISEASES (Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis , Addison’s disease, Agammaglobulinemia, Alopecia areata, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Ankylosing Spondylitis, Antiphospholipid syndrome, Antisynthetase syndrome, Atopic allergy, Atopic dermatitis, Autoimmune aplastic anemia, Autoimmune cardiomyopathy, Autoimmune enteropathy, Autoimmune hemolytic anemia, Autoimmune hepatitis, Autoimmune inner ear disease , Autoimmune lymphoproliferative syndrome, Autoimmune pancreatitis, Autoimmune polyendocrine syndrome , Autoimmune progesterone dermatitis , Autoimmune thrombocytopenic purpura, Autoimmune urticaria, Autoimmune uveitis, Balo disease/Balo concentric sclerosis, Behçet’s disease, Berger’s disease, Bickerstaff’s encephalitis , Blau syndrome, Bullous pemphigoid, Cancer , Castleman’s disease , Celiac disease, Chagas disease, Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy , Chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis , Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Churg-Strauss syndrome, Cicatricial pemphigoid, Cogan syndrome, Cold agglutinin disease, Complement component 2 deficiency, Contact dermatitis, Cranial arteritis, CREST syndrome, Crohn’s disease, Cushing’s Syndrome, Cutaneous leukocytoclastic angiitis , Dercum’s disease, Dermatitis herpetiformis , Dermatomyositis , Diabetes mellitus type 1 , Diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis , Dressler’s syndrome , Eczema, Endometriosis , Enthesitis-related arthritis, Eosinophilic fasciitis, Eosinophilic gastroenteritis , Epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, Erythema nodosum, Erythroblastosis fetalis , Essential mixed cryoglobulinemia, Evan’s syndrome, Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva , Fibrosing alveolitis, Gastritis , Glomerulonephritis , Goodpasture’s syndrome, ,Graves’ disease, Guillain-Barré syndrome, Hashimoto’s encephalopathy, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, Henoch-Schonlein purpura, Herpes gestationis aka Gestational Pemphigoid, Hidradenitis suppurativa, Hughes-Stovin syndrome, Hypogammaglobulinemia , Idiopathic inflammatory demyelinating diseases, Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis , Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, Inclusion body myositis, Interstitial cystitis, Juvenile idiopathic arthritis, Kawasaki’s disease, Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome, Leukocytoclastic vasculitis , Lichen planus, Lichen sclerosus , Linear IgA disease, Lou Gehrig’s disease, Lupoid hepatitis aka Autoimmune hepatitis, Lupus erythematosus, Ménière’s disease, Microscopic polyangiitis , Miller-Fisher syndrome, Mixed connective tissue disease, Morphea , Mucha-Habermann disease, Multiple sclerosis, Myasthenia gravis, Myositis , Narcolepsy, Neuromyelitis optica , Neuromyotonia , Occular cicatricial pemphigoid , Opsoclonus myoclonus syndrome , Ord’s thyroiditis, Palindromic rheumatism, PANDAS, Paraneoplastic cerebellar degeneration , Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, Parry Romberg syndrome , Parsonage-Turner syndrome , Pars planitis , Pemphigus vulgaris , Pernicious anaemia , Perivenous encephalomyelitis , POEMS syndrome , Polyarteritis nodosa , Polymyalgia rheumatica , Polymyositis , Primary biliary cirrhosis , Primary sclerosing cholangitis , Progressive inflammatory neuropathy, Psoriatic arthritis , Pyoderma gangrenosum , Pure red cell aplasia , Rasmussen’s encephalitis, Raynaud phenomenon, Relapsing polychondritis, Reiter’s syndrome , Restless leg syndrome , Retroperitoneal fibrosis , Rheumatoid arthritis, Rheumatic fever, Sarcoidosis, Schizophrenia, Schmidt syndrome, Schnitzler syndrome, Scleritis , Scleroderma, Serum Sickness, Sjögren’s syndrome, Spondyloarthropathy , Stiff person syndrome, Subacute bacterial endocarditis, Susac’s syndrome , Sweet’s syndrome , Sydenham chorea, Sympathetic ophthalmia, Takayasu’s arteritis , Temporal arteritis, Thrombocytopenia, Tolosa-Hunt syndrome, Transverse myelitis, Ulcerative colitis, Undifferentiated connective tissue disease, Undifferentiated spondyloarthropathy , Urticarial vasculitis , Vasculitis, Vitiligo, Wegener’s granulomatosis Etc Etc), AMYLOID DISEASES, PARKINSONS DISEASE, ALZHEIMERS DISEASES, PRION DISEASES, PROTEINOPATHIES, TYPE2 DIABETES, Cerebral β-amyloid angiopathy, Retinal ganglion cell degeneration in glaucoma, Tauopathies , Frontotemporal lobar degeneration , Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis , Huntington’s disease , dementia, Alexander disease, amyloidotic neuropathy, Senile systemic amyloidosis, primary systemic amyloidosis, Aortic medial amyloidosis, Lysozyme amyloidosis, Fibrinogen amyloidosis, Dialysis amyloidosis, Inclusion body myositis/myopathy, Retinitis pigmentosa , Medullary thyroid carcinoma, Cardiac atrial amyloidosis, Pituitary prolactinoma, lattice corneal dystrophy, Cutaneous lichen amyloidosis, Mallory bodies, Corneal lactoferrin amyloidosis, Pulmonary alveolar proteinosis, Odontogenic (Pindborg) tumor amyloid, Seminal vesicle amyloid, Cystic Fibrosis, Sickle cell disease etc etc. This list is growing day by day.
At this point, THEORY OF MIASMS as causative factors of CHRONIC DISEASES proposed by hahnemann fits well to the modern SCIENTIFIC view of CHRONIC diseases in terms of PROTEINOPATHIES caused by DEFORMED PROTEINS.
Hahnemann’s observations of CHRONIC DISEASES, relating it with INFECTIOUS MIASMS, would have been a revolutionary event in medical history, had anybody- hahnemann, 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.
The molecular mechanism by which ANTIBODIES produce chronic diseases could be now ell explained by the scientific knowledge already available now. ANTIBODIES being DEFORMED PROTEINS can bind to various types of NATIVE PROTEINS, and induce them to deform themselves, resulting in diverse types of PROTEINOPATHIES, AMYLOID DISEASES, AUTO IMMUNE DISEASES and PRION DISEASES.
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.
MIASMS, ANTIBODIES, MOLECULAR IMPRINTED PROTEINS or MISFOLDED PROTEINS- what ever we call it, this factor plays a big role in determining the process of AGING as well as natural LIFE SPAN. As the age of an individual advances, the harmful ANTIBODIES and MISFOLDED PROTEINS accumulate in the system, resulting in more and more diseases, age-related problems and gradual decay. Once we could find some ways to combat ANTIBODIES and MISFOLDED PROTEINS, we may be capable of enhancing our life span an delay aging and natural death. I hope HOMEOPATHY can find answer to this greatest question haunting humanity
MIASMS, ANTIBODIES, MOLECULAR IMPRINTED PROTEINS or MISFOLDED PROTEINS- what ever we call it, this factor plays a big role in determining the process of AGING as well as natural LIFE SPAN. As the age of an individual advances, the harmful ANTIBODIES and MISFOLDED PROTEINS accumulate in the system, resulting in more and more diseases, age-related problems and gradual decay. Once we could find some ways to combat ANTIBODIES and MISFOLDED PROTEINS, we may be capable of enhancing our life span and delay aging and natural death. I hope HOMEOPATHY can find answer to this greatest question haunting humanity
MIASMS are expressed through a complex interaction of ANTIBODIES with the specific GENETIC substance of an INDIVIDUAL. Antibodies may bind to various enzyme systems involved in genetic expression and PROTEIN SYNTHESIS, as well as cell division , there by influencing the phenotype constitution of the individual and the EPIGENETICS of inheritance also.Through these EPIGENETIC role, miasms can affect the next generation also. It is obvious that inheritance of miasms is not by GENETIC route, but it is EPIGENETIC inheritance. Actually, CHRONIC DISEASES involves a very complex interplay of ANTIBODIES or MIASMS, GENETIC substance, and INTERNAL BIOCHEMICAL ENVIRONMENT decided by NUTRITION and external ENVIRONMENTAL factors.
According to hahnemann, there are no ‘miasms’ unrelated with infectious agents. He explains PSORA as miasm PRODUCED BY ‘infectious agents of itch’, SYCOSIS as miasm PRODUCED BY’infectious agents of ‘figwart disease’, and SYPHILIS as miasm PRODUCED BY ‘infectious agents of syphilis’.
My inquiry is: HOW an infectious agent can create a life long ‘chronic diseases and dispositions’ that are no way part of the pathology of that infectious disease? WHAT is the biological mechanism working behind that phenomenon? WHAT are the material molecular factors that act as carriers of this phenomenon?
My answer is, it can happen only through the antibodies generated in the body against the specific infectious agents. Antibodies remain life long in the body, creating off-target molecular inhibitions and chronic multi-system disease dispositions. We can explain miasms scientifically only in terms of antibodies.
What is an ‘ANTI-MIASMATIC’ drug? An anti-miasmatic drug is a drug substance, which in potentized forms contain specific types of ‘molecular imprints’ that can either prevent ‘anti-bodies’ from producing ‘off-target’ molecular inhibitions or remove such inhibitions in the organism that cause chronic diseases and disease dispositions. Potentized forms of antibodies, antigens, off-target biological molecules, drugs having functional moieties or groups similar to those of antigens or off-target biological molecules- all these can be used as ANTI-MIASMATIC DRUGS.
One homeopath expressed his displeasure to my posts on MIT by making a comment as follows:
“We need skills for speedy healing to suffering humanity rather than vivid theories.Unfortunately there are too many theories without proofs.I feel many homoeopaths make fool of patients.”
Sir, do you mean to say “it is unfortunate” to have MIT explanation of homeopathy also? If ‘yes’, did you read MIT concepts before reaching this conclusion?
Saying “we need only skills” and “not scientific knowledge” is equivalent to saying “we need no light, we need skills to grope in the dark”.
MOLECULAR MEDICINE is an advanced branch of theory and practice of modern medicine based on the modern scientific understanding of bio-molecular mechanisms of life, disease, cure and drug actions as explained by modern biochemistry and molecular biology.
MIT or MOLECULAR IMPRINTS THERAPEUTICS is a SPECIALIZED branch of modern MOLECULAR MEDICINE, which uses ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules as therapeutic agents., where as molecular medicine uses drug molecules themselves. HOMEOPATHY is actually MOLECULAR IMPRINTS THERAPEUTICS.
Once the explanation of ‘miasms’ in terms of ‘off-target’ actions of antibodies is understood and accepted, scientific community will have to recognize that ‘theory of miasms’ proposed by hahnemann was an invention of great historical relevance and implications in understanding ‘chronic diseases’, which will give homeopathy decisive edge for homeopathy over modern medicine.
Once the homeopathic community understands the scientific explanation regarding the biological mechanism of ‘miasms’ in terms of ‘off-target’ actions of antibodies generated against infectious agents and alien proteins, all intellectual exercises of our ‘miasmatic experts’ and modern gurus will become obsolete as null and void. It is obvious that they will not be happy with me, as it will ultimately lead to the withdrawal of their textbooks and closing down of their seminar businesses.
ANTIBODIES are MOLECULAR IMPRINTED PROTIENS- native globulin proteins into which spacial configuration of active functional groups of ANTIGENS are engraved as three-dimensional nano-pockets through a process of ‘molecular imprinting’. These ‘molecular imprinted proteins’ act by binding to the antigens and initiating a process of deactivation as part of defense mechanism of the living organism. This is the biological mechanism of ‘immune response’. These ANTIBODIES or MOLECULAR IMPRINTED PROTEINS can also bind to any ‘off-target’ biological molecules that carry functional groups having configurational similarity to the specific antigens. Such ‘off-target’ bindings lead to unexpected molecular inhibitions in associated biochemical pathways, leading to diverse types of chronic diseases and disease dispositions, including so-called ‘auto-immune’ diseases. This is the biological mechanism of MIASMATIC DISEASES.
Once you understand ‘miasms’ as chronic disease dispositions caused by ‘off-target’ bio-molecular actions of ANTIBODIES generated and circulated in the body against protein molecules such as infectious agents which are ‘alien’ to the genetic code of of an organism, all confusions created by our ‘experts’ and ‘interpreters’ will be finally resolved for ever. The term ‘miasm’ becomes a part of paradigms of modern science and scientific medical thoughts and dialogues.
What ‘material’ factors an infectious agent leaves behind in a living body once the disease process is over? ANTIBODIES. Antibodies generated by the immune system in the body against the ‘specific’ infectious agents. They remain in in the body even after the infectious disease is gone. These antibodies can bind to varoius ‘off-target’ biological molecules in the body, and produce disease dispositions and chronic diseases. We already know hundreds of chronic diseases caused by off-target actions of antibodies, which are presently classified as ‘auto-immune’ diseases. Presumably, ANTIBODIES are the ‘material causative factors’ of MIASMS. Hope my point is clear
Kindly read ‘chronic diseases’ once again carefully. You will understand, hahnemann NEVER considered ‘miasms’ unrelated with ‘infectious diseases’, even though our ‘modern experts’ theorize about miasms as if they have no any relationship with infectious diseases. According to hahnemann, PSORA is the miasm CAUSED by itch infection, SYPHILIS is the miasm CAUSED by syphilis infection, and SYCOSIS is the miasm CAUSED by gonorrhoes infections. According to master, an individual attains miasms only by getting infected by that disease. He never said miasms are ONLY three in number. He said, he was considering only three miasms, as they were the major ‘infectious’ diseases most wide spread in EUROPE ‘during his period’.
You are learning and talking a lot of ‘theories’ about ‘miasms’. Did you ever think WHAT is the molecular level biological mechanism by which these ‘miasms’ work? Did you ever think WHAT are the ‘molecular factors’ that influence the biological molecules to induce changes in vital processes and produce ‘miasmatic dispositions’ and ‘chronic diseases’? Did you ever think HOW an ‘infectious disease’ such as itch, gonorrhoea or syphilis can leave a life-long chronic disease disposition in a living body even after the disease is cured? Did you ever think WHAT are the molecular factors left behind by an infectious disease in a living body? Did you see any ‘stalwart’ or ‘theoretician’ ever asking or answering such fundamental questions while making elaborate theories and interpretations about miasms? How can you understand ‘miasms’ scientifically, if you do not begin your inquiries by asking these preliminary questions and searching for rational answers for them?
If you consider ‘miasms’ as some ‘immaterial’, ‘dynamic’ and ‘spritual’ influence that affect the vital force without any mediation of any ‘material’ agent, I do not agree with your concept of miasms. According to me, there should be a ‘material’ agent for miasms, that can act upon the biological molecules by a ‘material’ biomolecular mechanism and produce molecular errors in vital processes that amounts to ‘miasmatic dispositions’ and ‘diseases’. We should explain the biological mechanism of the phenomena we call ‘miasms’.
I consider myself a proud heir to all knowledge humanity so far acquired through various civilizations. I do not find a division between ‘indian’ knowledge and ‘western’ knowledge. I see only ‘human’ knowledge. Of course, ‘ancient’ knowledge of our visionery forefathers contain many great things, but they can never be more advanced and perfect than modern scientific knowledge we possess, as advancement and perfection of knowledge is a historical process. We know many things far better and clearer than our ancient forefathers, and our next generation will know everything still better than we do now.
I am not against ‘ancient indian vedic knowledge’, or do not want to belittle its ‘greatness’. But I disagree with the view that ‘ancient indian vedic knowledge’ was more advanced than modern scientific knowledge. Such theories about an ‘ancient indian vedic knowledge more advanced than modern science’ are always promoted by people who want to justify unscientific concepts and occult practices. Their intentions are obvious.
As part of his tricks for providing a ‘quantum’ glare to ‘hair transmission’, one of my learned friends proposes to consider ‘anti-matter’ as the active principles of potentized drugs!
This proposal gives hope of making a new ‘quantum theory’ to homeopaths who are eagerly waiting to grab any nonsense ‘ultra science’ that may justify their superstitious beliefs. Now they can theorize about ‘anti-matter’ generated by potentization, and ‘preserved’ in potentized drugs! They will be elated to know that with ‘anti-matter’ theory, they can now comfortably defy space and time, and all ‘limitations’ of physics, chemistry and biology. They can now fly freely in the unlimited sky of fancies and imaginations, and practice any occults in the name of ‘anti-matter’. VIVA ANTI-MATTER THEORY!
Plausible explanations for homeopathy will not come from heavens. It will not come from simply ‘interpreting’ and theorizing about the writings of the master and ‘stalwarts’. It should be explored using the light of ‘existing’ modern scientific knowledge and tools of modern scientific methods.
Please do not misunderstand what I said. I never said the terms ‘vital force’ and ‘dynamic energy’ should be removed from organon or other works of hahnemann. Nobody has right to remove change anything from those texts of great historical importance. What I said is, we should avoid such unscientific terms and concepts from “any explanation WE PROPOSE for homeopathy”. Hope you understand the difference.
Without FACEBOOK, my MIT concepts of scientific homeopathy would have remained unknown to the community for ever. Being an insignificant person, no journals would have published my ideas. Nobody would have organized seminars or offered me a platform. Nobody would have discussed it anywhere. Even if I wrote a book, no publishers would have shown interest, as I have no ‘credentials’.
Thanks to the wonderful opportunities provided by the digital and cyber worlds, especially FACE BOOK, now I am able to interact effectively with a large section of the world homeopathic community and talk to them about my ideas. I can share my ideas instantly as they germinate in my brain, get responses and discuss them. Actually my ideas evolve into more and more perfection through these interactions.
I know MIT is now widely being discussed by the young generation of homeopaths around the world, especially in campuses. My posts and articles are shared and downloaded by thousands. It is a matter of immense satisfaction for me. Seeds of scientific revolution in homeopathy is already sown by MIT. Now I am sure the revolution will happen, whether I am here or not
I have 13500+ members in my HOMEOPATHY FOR TOTAL CURE group, 5500 members in my SIMILIMUM ULTRA group, and 4250 members in my friends list. I have 62000 readers for my blog REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY. I am talking to them daily, most of them seeing and reading my posts whether they respond or agree with me or not.
THANKS FACE BOOK!
Concepts of ‘vital force’ and ‘dynamic drug energy’ come from most unscientific or ‘pre-scientific’ philosophy of ‘dynamism’ and ‘spiritualism’. These ideas have no any role or relevance in the scientific understanding of life, disease and cure in modern knowledge context. To make homeopathy a real medical science, we should stubbornly reject these terms from any explanation we propose for homeopathy.
Scientific community casts aside homeopathy as ‘implausible’, only because it was so far presented before them using scientifically ‘implausible’ paradigms, theories and explanations such as vital force and dynamic drug energy, which contradict even the basic principles and methods of modern scientific knowledge.
In order to effectively communicate with scientific community, it is essential that we propose a scientifically viable hypothesis that rationally explains potentization as well as biological mechanism of homeopathic cure, using concepts and paradigms of modern science.
By explaining potentization in terms of molecular imprinting, and homeopathic cure in terms of molecular mechanism of biological interactions as envisaged in modern biochemistry, MIT is trying to address this preliminary task.
Once we could there by open up a channel of reasonable communication with scientific community, I hope we can convince them to experiment with MIT concepts of homeopathy using scientific methods, without any bias and prejudice.
If you are doubtful whether something is real or not, ‘experimenting’ is the ideal way to resolve that doubt. But we need not experiment things which we are very much sure about, and is clear regarding the scientific answers to the ‘what-why-how’ of it. Regarding hair transmission and other occult arts, I have no doubts. Hence there is no need of experimenting them as far as I am concerned. I do not consider the idea of ‘a plucked hair keeping its contact and interacting with its owner even if he is thousands of kilometers away’ worthy of any experimentation. My existing scientific knowledge is enough for me to cast it aside as UTTER NONSENSE. If anybody has doubt on it, let them experiment and report.
Any scientific-minded person with essential knowledge in fundamental principles of physics and biological sciences can DISMISS THIS NONSENSE called ‘hair transmission’, without any ‘experiments’. When you ask for experimenting, it means you are still in doubt on it.
If you think ‘hair transmission’ is a ‘new idea’ deserving experimentation before rejecting it, you will have to experiment with woodo, black magics, demons, witch crafts, tarot reading, talisman, occult, astrology, prayers, reflexology, radionics, paper remedies, digital remedies, mp3 remedies, photo-transmission, phone transmission- everything. All of them say “it works”. All of them say “come to me, i will show you”. If you go for it, your whole life hereafter will be very busy and engaged with ‘new ideas’ and ‘experiments’.
HAIR TRANSMISSION EXPERT: “The biggest difference between ours and Chandra ji is that we are doing it practically with all the patients all the time and and he is only THEORIZING about Drug Transmission with his limited knowledge”.
MY COMMENT: “Sir, you are repeatedly asking for doing scientific “research” about ‘hair transmission’. But how can you do any research without any ‘hypothesis’ or ‘theorizing’? Do you think ‘research’ involves ‘practice’ only? According to SCIENTIFIC METHOD, a research should be done according to a systematic protocol. First, there should be a ‘phenomenon’ to be researched about. In the present case, it is ‘hair transmission’. Then there should be a ‘hypothesis’ that explains the ‘phenomenon’ in terms of existing scientific knowledge. You cannot develop a ‘hypothesis’ without some ‘theorizing’ about the phenomenon you are going research up on. Then only it becomes a ‘scientific hypothesis’ that could be presented as a candidate for ‘verification through experiments’. Once the ‘scientific hypothesis’ is evolved, we have to prepare a list of ‘questions’ to prove the hypothesis. Then comes of designing ‘experiments’ to find the answers for the questions. Scientific ‘experimentation’ are done for verifying each ‘question’. Results are analyzed, and the ‘hypothesis’ is either rejected or accepted. If accepted, it becomes a ‘scientific theory’.
I have explained all these steps of scientific research to say that you cannot do research on ‘hair transmission’ without doing some ‘theorizing’ to develop a ‘hypothesis’ that should be the basis of our research work.
I KNOW IT IS A WASTE OF TIME TO DISCUSS THIS NONSENSE CALLED ‘HAIR TRANSMISSION’. BUT WE ARE FORCED TO SPEND OUR TIME SINCE THIS NONSENSE IS PROMOTED AMONG STUDENTS BY A PERSON HOLDING THE CHAIR OF ‘HEAD OF EDUCATION COMMITTEE OF CCH OF INDIA’.
MY QUESTION: “For ‘hair transmission’ to work, a plucked strand of hair should be capable of keeping its contact with its owner even if he is thousands of kilometers away. Do you think it is plausible?”
HAIR TRANSMISSION EXPERT: “Yes They are but not perceptible by any scientific instrument devised so far”
I KNOW IT IS A WASTE OF TIME TO DISCUSS THIS NONSENSE CALLED ‘HAIR TRANSMISSION’. BUT WE ARE FORCED TO SPEND OUR TIME SINCE THIS NONSENSE IS PROMOTED AMONG STUDENTS BY A PERSON HOLDING THE CHAIR OF ‘HEAD OF EDUCATION COMMITTEE OF CCH OF INDIA’.
MY QUESTION: “For hair transmission to work, hair should have ‘life’ and ‘vital force’ even after it is separated from a body. Do you think it is plausible?”
HAIR TRANSMISSION EXPERT: “Yes, please read foot not of aphorism 11 of 6th Edition of Organon to know the dynamic nature of disease and medicine”
I KNOW IT IS A WASTE OF TIME TO DISCUSS THIS NONSENSE CALLED ‘HAIR TRANSMISSION’. BUT WE ARE FORCED TO SPEND OUR TIME SINCE THIS NONSENSE IS PROMOTED AMONG STUDENTS BY A PERSON HOLDING THE CHAIR OF ‘HEAD OF EDUCATION COMMITTEE OF CCH OF INDIA’.
MY QUESTION: “For hair transmission to work, there should be ‘vital force’ vibrating in resonance with the vital force of the owner, even after away from the body. Do you think it is plausible?”
HAIR TRANSMISSION EXPERT: “Yes resonance may be best possible phenomenon occuring at Drug Transmission”
MY QUESTION: “For hair transmission to work, changes in ‘vibrations’ of vital force of the body will have to produce same changes in the vibrations of his hair kept thousands of kilometers away. Do you think it is possible?”
HAIR TRANSMISSION EXPERT: “Yes even thousands of KM away patients are feeling the changes”
MY QUESTION: “For hair transmission to work, when an individual is affected with a disease, his hair kept thousands of kilometers away will be affected with same disease. When he is cured, the distant hair also will be cured. Do you think it is plausible?”
HAIR TRANSMISSION EXPERT: “Distant hair is not cured but the person whose belonging is this”
MY QUESTION: “For hair transmission, any thing that produce changes in ‘vibrations’ of vital force of hair should produce similar changes in vital force of its owner, how far away he stays. Do you think it is plausible?”
HAIR TRANSMISSION EXPERT: “I have patients in 8 countries who are experincing benefits of this method, hence distance is no bar—even can provide u email id and phone no of patients”
I fear he does not understand what is meant by ‘plausible’ in scientific terms.
MY QUESTION: “If hair transmission works, you should be capable of producing toxic changes in a body by applying toxic substances upon a hair kept in a distant place. Do you think it is plausible?”
HAIR TRANSMISSION EXPERT: “This will depends on susceptibility of person in question— till date no malicious person is doing so”.
OCCULT PRACTITIONERS are never bothered about the fundamental principles of science or methods of science. See how they respond to scientific discussions:
MY QUESTION: “For hair transmission to work, potentized drugs should have a drug energy that can travel in great distances through space without any carrier particle. Do you think it is plausible?—-”
ANSWER FROM HAIR TRANSMISSIONIST: “If u don’t believe/know potentised drug has energy , then my dear Sir u are far from homeopathy—”
I was trying to discuss the scientific ‘plausibility’ of the concept that potentized drugs contain an “energy that can travel in great distances through space without any carrier particle”. But for him, it was a question of my “belief” in homeopathy. For him, my question has proved I am “far from homeopathy”!
To prove I am ‘close to homeopathy’, I should believe that “potentized drugs contain an “energy that can travel in great distances through space without any carrier particle”! I should not ask any questions about its plausibility or the physics involved in it!
Proponents of all those ‘modern’ ENERGY MEDICINE models and practices of homeopathy and CAM, amounting to sheer occults such as ‘vibrations’, ‘resonance’, ‘wave theory’, ‘frequencies’, ‘EM signals’, ‘bio-photons’, ‘bio-magnetism’, ‘distance healing’, ‘hair transmission’, ‘photo transmission’, ‘PC resonance remedies’, ‘paper remedies’, ‘water remedies’, ‘mp3 remedies’, ‘radionics’, ‘reflexology’, ‘meditation proving’, ‘dream proving’, ‘trituration proving’, etc etc seek their solace of ‘scientific’ foundation in the ‘DIGITAL BIOLOGY’ of BENVENISTE. It is almost like a BIBLE to them. In my opinion, the REDUCTIONIST and PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC speculations of benveniste, which he called ‘Digital Biology’, is actually the ‘MOTHER OF QUACKERY’ in homeopathy as well as everything known as CAM practices.
IT IS A WASTE OF TIME TO DISCUSS THIS NONSENSE CALLED ‘HAIR TRANSMISSION’. BUT WE ARE FORCED TO SPEND OUR TIME SINCE THIS NONSENSE IS PROMOTED AMONG STUDENTS BY A PERSON HOLDING THE CHAIR OF ‘HEAD OF EDUCATION COMMITTEE OF CCH OF INDIA’.
Let us think whether ‘hair transmission’ is plausible.
For ‘hair transmission’ to work, a plucked strand of hair should be capable of keeping its contact with its owner even if he is thousands of kilometers away. Do you think it is plausible?
For hair transmission to work, hair should have ‘life’ and ‘vital force’ even after it is separated from a body. Do you think it is plausible?
For hair transmission to work, there should be ‘vital force’ vibrating in resonance with the vital force of the owner, even after away from the body. Do you think it is plausible?
For hair transmission to work, changes in ‘vibrations’ of vital force of the body will have to produce same changes in the vibrations of his hair kept thousands of kilometers away. Do you think it is possible?
For hair transmission to work, when an individual is affected with a disease, his hair kept thousands of kilometers away will be affected with same disease. When he is cured, the distant hair also will be cured. Do you think it is plausible?
For hair transmission, any thing that produce changes in ‘vibrations’ of vital force of hair should produce similar changes in vital force of its owner, how far away he stays. Do you think it is plausible?
If hair transmission works, you should be capable of producing toxic changes in a body by applying toxic substances upon a hair kept in a distant place. Do you think it is plausible?
For hair transmission to work, potentized drugs should have a drug energy that can travel in great distances through space without any carrier particle. Do you think it is plausible?
Homeopathic community should come forward and demand CCH to urgently intervene and take necessary steps to stop the most unscientific practice of ‘hair transmission method’ promoted by DR M K SAHNI, who decorates the high profile position of ‘chairman, educational committee of central council of homeopathy’. He also conducts a private ‘institution’ to offer ‘training’ to homeopathy graduates and distribute ‘post graduate diploma in hair transmission’. Utilizing his official clout, he is influencing homeopathic medical colleges to conduct seminars and training programs in ‘drug transmission’, misleading the new generation into occult practices under the label of homeopathy. It is totally illegal and unethical to offer ‘post graduate diploma’ in a ‘speciality’ not recognized by CCH, and obviously superstitious. It should be immedeately stopped, if we want homeopathy to be recognized as a legitimate MEDICAL SCIENCE.
The claim that ‘hair transmission was ‘invented’ by Dr Sahni is untrue. The concept of ‘hair transmission’ actually evolved from what is known as “radionics”. Roots of this ‘philosophy’ could be found in the ‘black magics’ inherited from ancient civilizations, and still existing among certain tribal communities, street healers and occult practitioners.
The concept behind radionics originated in the early 1900s with Albert Abrams (1864–1924), who became a millionaire by leasing radionic machines which he designed himself.
Radionics also is the use of blood, hair, a signature, or other substances unique to the person as a focus to supposedly heal a patient from afar.
In one form of radionics popularised by Abrams, some blood on a bit of filter paper is attached to a device Abrams called a dynamizer, which is attached by wires to a string of other devices and then to the forehead of a healthy volunteer, facing west in a dim light. By tapping on on his abdomen and searching for areas of “dullness”, disease in the donor of the blood is diagnosed by proxy. Handwriting analysis is also used to diagnose disease under this scheme. Having done this, the practitioner may use a special device known as an oscilloclast or any of a range of other devices to broadcast vibrations at the patient in order to attempt to heal them.
Albert Abrams claimed to detect such frequencies and/or cure people by matching their frequencies, and claimed them sensitive enough that he could tell someone’s religion by looking at a drop of blood. He developed thirteen devices and became a millionaire leasing his devices, and the American Medical Association described him as the “dean of gadget quacks,” and his devices were definitively proven useless by an independent investigation commissioned by Scientific American in 1924. Indeed, Abrams’ black boxes had no purpose of their own, being merely obfuscated collections of wires and electronic parts.
Radionics devices contradict principles of biology and physics, and no scientifically plausible mechanism of function is posited. In this sense, they can be described as magical in operation. No plausible biophysical basis for the “putative energy fields” has been proposed, and neither the fields themselves nor their purported therapeutic effects have been convincingly demonstrated.
No radionic device has been found efficacious in the diagnosis or treatment of any disease, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not recognize any legitimate medical uses of any such device. According to David Helwig in The Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine, “most physicians dismiss radionics as quackery.”
Similar to ‘hair transmissionists’, proponents of Radionics also uses terms such as “frequency”, “energy”, and “vibrations’ not in its standard meaning but to describe an imputed energy type, which does not correspond to any property of energy in the scientific sense. Radionics is not based on any scientific evidence, and contradicts the principles of physics and biology and as a result it has been classed as pseudoscience and quackery by men of scientific mind set all over the world. The United States Food and Drug Administration do not recognize any legitimate medical uses for such devices.
Why should I experiment with a ‘practice’ that is based on the ‘theory’ that discarded ‘body wastes’ such as hair, nail, excreta, skin scrapings, blood clots etc will maintain a ‘dynamic relationship’ with its owners from thousands of kilometers away, and can ‘transmit’ vibrational energy of drugs applied on them to the distant owners by a ‘dynamic’ way so far ‘unknown’ to science? I never experiment with obviously NONSENSE THINGS!
If anybody ‘practice’ ‘hair transmission’ method, that means he is pathetically ignorant of modern scientific advancements happening around. Homeopathic community should feel ashamed that there are some people among them practicing this occult art.
HAIR TRANSMISSION is based on the belief that a plucked hair maintains a ‘dynamic’ relationship with its owner even if he is thousands of kilometers away, and it can ‘transmit’ the energy of drugs to the owner. There is nothing to experiment in this nonsense theory. NONSENSE IS NONSENSE. Would you ask me to “test” woodo, occult, tarot, faith healing, prayers, and such things before “blaming” them?
If this type of occult practice is being claimed to be homeopathy, I really feel ashamed to say I am a homeopath. How can I face the scientific community and talk about “scientific explanation of homeopathy”?
If ‘drug energy’ can be “transmitted” to me from long distances through a hair, nail, blood or other tissues removed from my body, and even photographs, how can I dare to throw away my hair in a garbage pit? What if somebody unknowingly deposits some toxic substances on it? How can I entrust my blood sample to a clinical lab, without fearing that they can do some mischief to me by putting some harmful medicines in my blood sample? I think I have to be very cautious to preserve my cut hair and nail without reaching the hands of my enemies!
If any body want to ‘practice’ ‘drug transmission’ or any other such occult practices, it is their choice. But when you link those unscientific practices with homeopathy, and to conduct ‘courses’ and seminars for attracting homeopaths into it, it is a different matter. Homeopathy is a system of therapeutics. Any ‘therapeutic’ system uses one or other drug substance into the body of the patient. Nobody can practice ‘drug transmission’ in the name of homeopathy. Sir, did you ever think about the harm you are doing to our attempts to make homeopathy accepted as part of modern scientific medical practice? Adding something that goes completely against accepted scientific knowledge system into homeopathy will create a lot of difficulties to the homeopathic profession who try it it to establish as a scientific therapeutics. You are making homeopathy a subject of constant mockery before the scientific community.I feel very much disgusted to see eminent respected homeopaths like you being part of these unscientific practices. I can only pray your goodness to return back to your rational senses.
Until a scientific revolution happens in homeopathy, it will be a fertile land for all sorts of ‘system builders’, ‘energy healers’, ‘occult practitioners’, and all those who make their own ‘brands’,’theories’, ‘laws’, ‘charts’, ‘principles’ and ‘methods’. They will continue to conduct seminars, sell ‘theoretical’ books, amass money and misguide the budding young generation of homeopaths into total darkness and chaos. They will build groups of ‘dedicated followers’ and continue to threaten anybody who raises any questions. Homeopathy will remain a subject of ever-lasting mockery before the scientific community..
Anybody has the right to “explore possibilities” of “transmission of homeo drug energy from a distance”. But until your concept is proved using “scientific methods” such “exploring” has to be done on “experimental basis”, and not as a “regular practice”. It is obviously wrong, unethical and illegal to conduct seminars and course to propagate such a “system” until it is scientifically verified by an authentic scientific body, especially claiming it is part of homeopathy. According to my scientific knowledge and rational thinking, I need not wait for any experiments to call these “photo transmissions” and “drug transmissions” as unscientific absurdity.
When a BHMS holder, with an additional MPhil in psychology attached to his name, writes “Hair transmission might be considered as an advanced variant under animal magnetism.”, I prefer to leave him without further argument.
My sympathies, sir!
Personally, I have nothing against Dr Sahni or anybody else promoting ‘hair transmission’. We are totally strangers. But,sorry to say, the HAIR TRANSMISSION being practiced and promoted by them is PURE OCCULT. Anybody may practice any occult as they like- it is their right, if law permits. My request is, kindly avoid claiming such practices are homeopathy. Such claims are seriously eroding the scientific credentials of homeopathy, and making it a piece of mockery before the scientific community as well as elite public in general.
If ‘homeopathic distant hair transmission’ is right, whole of the existing physics books will have to be rewritten or withdrawn. All research institutes working on physics will have to be shut down. All nobel prizes so far given to scientists for inventions in physics will have to be taken back by swedish academy. And all nobel prizes will have to be given to dr sahni and dr ravi singh. There should be some limits in talking nonsense, sir
Pseudoscience and occults always present anecdotes of ‘experiences’ as ‘proofs’ for their claims. They come with ‘witnesses’ to vouch for them. Scientific method never accepts anecdotes as ‘scientific proof’. To be acceptable to scientific community, homeopathy should be validated by ‘scientific proof’- not anecdotes and witnesses.
Today I got a message from GOOGLE+, which led me to this picture:
“Dr. Mridul Kumar Sahani, FACE TO FACE WITH PG STUDENTS OF DR.M.L.DHAWALE INSTITUTE OF HOMOEOPATHY, PALGHAR, MUMBAI SHARING TANSMISSION OF HOMOEO DRUG ENERGY FROM A DISTANCE ON 23rd NOVEMBER 2013”
Do you know who is this Dr M K Sahni? He is the “Chairman, Education Committee, Central Council of Homoeopathy, New Delhi” .
He runs the Research Institute Of Sahani Drug Transmission & Homoeopathy in Patna . The Sahani protocol is rather wonderful: a homeopathic remedy is chosen in the classical way, by matching symptoms to a remedy. The chosen pill is then dissolved in a vial and a single hair is then plucked from the customer’s head and placed in the vial with a little bit sticking out. The hair is then able to transmit the ENERGY of the remedy back to the owner.
This Institute with the present Chairman Dr.M.K.Sahani is now working on Research, Teaching and Clinical Help to patient by this method. It has come out with a postgraduate course in Drug Transmission for the medical graduates, which is of three months duration . Institute is also working on the project of Tele-medical Center with satellite center in different places, with facility to treat patient with Drug Transmission.
According to their website, Dr. M K Sahani MD (Hom.) PGDHHM is also the Chairman, Education Committee, Central Council of Homoeopathy, New Delhi, and President, The Homeopathic Medical Association of India, Bihar State Branch.
KINDLY NOTE: A person decorating the high profile official position of “Chairman, Education Committee, Central Council of Homoeopathy, New Delhi” is also working as the “Chairman of Institute Of Sahnai Drug Transmission & Homoeopathy in Patna”, and conducting “postgraduate course in Drug Transmission for the medical graduates”. Did anybody inquire whether “hair transmission” is RECOGNIZED by Central Council Of Homeopathy? Is it LAWFUL and ETHICAL for the Head of Education Committee of Central Council of Homoeopathy of Government of India to run such an UNRECOGNIZED ‘post graduate course’ in DRUG TRANSMISSION?
By electing the chairman of ‘Institute Of Sahani Drug Transmission & Homeopathy’ as the Chairman of Education Committee of CCH, the CCH authorities are giving a dangerous message to homeopathic community. What SCIENTIFIC educational system we can expect from this EDUCATION COMMITTEE for homeopathy?
And remember, CCH is the highest statutory body constituted under government of india as per a parliamentary act, to oversee the whole system of education and practice of homeopathy in india. It is a shame for indian homeopathy that such an important body is headed by the top-most proponent and trainer of the most unscientific occult practice known as DRUG TRANSMISSION THROUGH HAIR
AND, YOU ARE ASKING ME TO ‘SUBMIT’ MIT CONCEPTS FOR ‘VERIFICATION, EVALUATION AND SANCTION’ BY AN ‘AUTHORITY’ CONSISTING OF PEOPLE LIKE DR M K SAHNI! I FEEL ASHAMED AND HUMILIATED!
Homeopaths should demonstrate the humility and wisdom to limit themselves to saying “homeopathy works, but presently we do not know how it exactly works”. That is the plain truth, and there is no harm in telling it openly. Why should we fool ourselves and try to make fools of others by talking nonsense ‘theories’ that contradict all existing scientific knowledge system, until we are well equipped and confident in winning our case scientifically?
My advice to all students of homeopathy who study ‘organon of medicine’:
Be careful not to allow your ‘new’ teachers to erase from your brains the basic science lessons you so far painstakingly learned in your school and college classes. Learn organon with a rational, scientific and historical perspective, keeping in mind that it is a medical text more of historical relevance, not a religious book. Guard yourselves from dogmatism. Always remember organon was written 250 years ago, in a very primitive scientific knowledge environment. Hesitate to follow anything or anybody blindly. Keep your inner eyes always open. Build up the habit of always asking ‘what-why-how’ of everything you are taught.
The deeper I explore and the more I excavate the real science behind ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’, the more fascinating homeopathy appears to me. It always makes me wonder about the sharp observational skills and genius of hahnemann, which led him into the making of these epoch-making inventions utilizing the limited resources availabe to him during his period. From his ‘dynamic’ ‘explanations’ of HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS, it is obvious and understandable that he has no and cannot have any scientific idea about the biological mechanism involved in homeopathic cure or molecular imprinting involved in potentization. He succeeded in observing and experimenting with certain unexplored natural phenomena very sharply, and in deducting the ‘natural laws’ involved in them very accurately, even though his ‘theorizations’ regarding its ‘HOW’ went awry due to his historically imposed inevitable limitations.
Dr Dharmendra Sharma, Principal at Dr D Y Patil Homoeopathic Medical College, says about MIT explanation of homeopathy:
“As of today its the best explanation by far…”
Thank you, sir.
Dr. Paramjeet Singh Ranu Posted on my timeline:
“In my Opinion MIT is the right answer to the modern challenges which Homoeopathy is facing in this materialistic age of Modern Medicine and I personally feel that MIT can help the Homoeopaths to explain the theory of How Homoeopathy works which has been a mystery till now.
Even our books were silent on the Phenomenon of working of Homoeopathy and we used to explain through hypothesis that Homoeopathy is just like electricity which can run a fan but it cant be seen only the action can be seen and all and all..Now I think we have reached to some conclusion with scientific and authentic facts based on Principles.
Even this theory has proved that our Master Hahnemann was a farsighted scientist and his Organon was based on scientific principles prevailing during his times and as we know that the science has developed a lot hence something has to be changed and though based on the past one.
So I hope that not only the new generation but the Old one should also be happy enough to recieve it with an open Mind and broad Heart..REGARDS to ALL….
Dr.Paramjeet Singh Ranu”
If MIT explanations were attached to the name of a scientist belonging to any premier research organization, a noblel laureate, an academician or any ‘powerful’ person in the higher echelons of ‘authority’, the whole homeopathic profession the world over would have been by now celebrating it with seminars, honors and awards, even without understanding what it is all about. It happened with the ‘water memory’ of benveniste, theory of hormesis, ‘nano-particle’ theory of IIT-B, Luc Montaigner’s casual statements, BARC gadget, various ‘methods’, and even radionics machines and many such things. I know very well why the majority of profession is feigning deaf and dumb to MIT.
I am a bit disappointed by the coldness, but I am fully confident, how much you ignore, MIT will have to be ultimately accepted as the SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF HOMEOPATHY, because it is the TRUTH of homeopathy. May be tomorrow or day after tomorrow. I am prepared to wait.
Do you think the ideas proposed by MIT is a positive step in homeopathy and it will help the future advancement of homeopathy? Or, do you think it is totally wrong, irrelevant, misguiding, or harmful for homeopathy? Inviting your assesments opinions, whatever it may be.
I see facebook not as a place of fun or leisure. I consider it as a serious and effective WORK PLACE. I make hundreds of posts and comments daily on my facebook timeline, discussion groups, pages as well as on twitter, as part of my endeavor to evolve and promote MIT concepts of scientific homeopathy. My friends, who come on face book only occasionally, and those who are able to spend very limited time here, may miss most of my updates. There are also many late comers in my growing friends list. There may be also some people willing to read some of my posts again and again. In order to ensure my works are secured for future use, and to make them easily available for everybody any time, I regularly compile my face book posts and updates into large volumes. So far, SEVEN volumes have been compiled.