Volume XIV- Selected Facebook Updates And Tweets Of Chandran K C On Scientific Homeopathy

SUBJECTIVE symptoms (symptoms that are felt or experienced only by the patient- not by the onlookers or the physician) play a decisive role in accurately identifying a similimum.

Subjective symptoms represent the biochemical processes taking place in the central nervous system in response to the 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 the reason why SUBJECTIVE symptoms appear much before observable objective pathological tissue level changes take place in the body. Actually, this phenomenon led our masters wrongly think that diseases have their origin in subjective, mental or ‘vital force’ plane.

We should realize, diseases are MOLECULAR errors happening in OBJECTIVE or MATERIAL body, but those changes are recognized by CENTRAL NERVOUS system at the very beginning through the signalling pathways, which instantly respond in the form of SUBJECTIVE SYMPTOMS.


Here is a message I received yesterday from Dr Gerson Machado PhD, a Biomedical Engineer:

“Hi, I am a bio-medical engineer and came across your dialectic homeopathy site today with interest. Many interesting articles so keep up the good work. I do however have a comment regarding an apparent strong bias of yours against what you call energy medicine under a broad label. There are many emerging works in physics showing non locality and also many works on light or sound interactions with biology including reprogramming of DNA or curing cancer. So I think a more cautions approach would serve you as well as homeopathy better, as synergies between various fields of knowledge and energetic interactions mechanisms within biology and beyond (emotional and other factors) are more likely scientific (unifying) than otherwise. Rgds. Dr Gerson Machado PhD”.


Dear friend, thank you for your nice appreciation of my website and happy to know that my articles published there were “interesting” for you.

I understand your concern over my “apparent strong bias of yours against what you call energy medicine under a broad label”.

I fear you were not aware of the difference between the pseudo-scientific ‘dynamic energy’ concept I am “biased” about, and the modern “physiotherapy” involving the scientific use of various forms of ‘physical energy’ such as heat, light, magnetism, sound and other electromagnetic radiations as therapeutic agents. There is nothing in common between the “energy medicine” some classical homeopaths, cam practitioners, spiritual healers and such ‘occult practitioners’ talk about, and the ENERGY you talk about. It is this confusion caused by the word ENERGY that made you make this comment about my “bias”.

According to the ‘energy medicine’ healers, ENERGY is ‘dynamic energy’, which is considered to be non-material, conceptual and ‘spirit-like’, which can act upon objects from any distance without any ‘material’ mediation- without any carrier ‘particles’. It is ‘spiritual energy’. For them, ‘energy medicine’ is equivalent to ‘spiritual healing’. They make theories about ‘dynamic medicinal enegy’ of drug substances ‘transferring’ into water and using as ‘energy medicine’!

In my articles, I have been trying to expose the unscientific concepts of ‘dynamic medicinal energy’ contained in homeopathic potentized drugs acting upon the ‘immaterial vital force’ and producing a therapeutic effect.

I can understand, as a bio-medical engineer, you should be involved in the use of PHYSICAL ENERGY for therapeutic purpose. Kindly understand, ‘energy medicine’ practices I have been criticizing are an entirely different thing- a most unscientific and nonsense concept that contradicts all our existing scientific understanding of ENERGY. Regards, Chandran K C.


My approach to hahnemann and his works is embodied in my frequently repeated statement “we should study organon with a ‘historical’ perspective”. That is the most positive, realistic, rational and scientific approach we can have towards every great men and their contributions in human history. This approach is the essence of ‘dialectical method’ I follow. According to this method, nothing is negated blindly, nothing is accepted blindly- everything has a positive aspect to be retained and taken forward, a negative and obsolete aspect to be negated and discarded.


Homeopathy cannot exist or advance further in the present scientific knowledge environment, without a scientific re-reading of its theoretical system and updating of its fundamental principles and methods. A radical re-building of the whole system on a rational and scientific foundation is essential, emancipating this powerful therapeutic art from the clutches of unscientific, metaphysical and vitalistic ideologies.

Modern science and its tools have evolved into such a state of maturity that we can now at least attempt with their help to provide a scientific and satisfactory explanation to the centuries-old mysteries and riddles associated with our wonderful therapeutic system.

MIT is basically an innovative and positive enhancement of classical Hahnemanian Homeopathy, and as such, may be considered as its ‘dialectical negation’ at large. Historically,MIT represents a qualitatively higher stage in the natural evolutionary growth and maturation of Homeopathy.

In this modern era of scientific enlightenment and technological advance, we can no longer hope to proceed further ahead with Homeopathy, without the help of a well proven and universally acceptable scientific THEORY an PRACTICE. We can no longer hope to depend merely upon certain set of somewhat mysterious ‘quotes’ and philosophical speculations inherited from our great masters. It is very important that Homeopathy has to be first of all dealt with as a subject of science, not as a religion or metaphysics. Essentially, the principles of Homeopathy have to achieve the right to be recognized as part of modern scientific thoughts.

Science is not a mere heap of lifeless rigid theories and dogmas. It is a live cognitive system, undergoing an endless process of self-renewal and growth. It is the the sum total of the ideas wrapped in the expressed words that really matter, than the ‘words’ of masters. It is the readiness on its part to prove its propositions on practical level, to imbibe new ideas, and to discard obsolete ones mercilessly, that makes science distinct from other intellectual activities. PRACTICE is the touch-stone of THEORY, according to scientific method. There is no water-tight compartments in the realm of science, and the basic principles and approach will be the same in any branch of science. To be scientific, our approach to the constantly advancing human knowledge should be dialectic, not dogmatic.

Human knowledge develops and unfolds itself through a never ending dialectic process of simultaneous assimilation and negation of history. It is impossible for anybody to proceed with his intellectual quest without drawing resources from the treasures of knowledge amassed by the by-gone generations. Same time, no genius can totally overcome the objective limitations imposed upon him by the space-time context of his life and activities. Development of human knowledge should be perceived in relation with this objective context of historical evolution. Man knows today much more than he knew yesterday. Certainly he would know infinitely more tomorrow, than what he knows today. The knowledge of yesterdays, however great they might have been, were much incomplete than that of today. Tomorrow, human knowledge would be definitely more expansive and more comprehensive than that of today. The basis of scientific perspective of knowledge lies in realizing this fundamental truth.

We should never forget the objective historical context of 18th century Germany, where Samuel Hahnemann lived and developed his novel therapeutic system. Two hundred and more eventful years have passed since it happened. It is not to be seen as a disrespect to say that his thoughts and propositions were ‘historically’ confined by the limitations imposed by the infantile level of science and technology then existed there. Even though the the essence of the therapeutic principle he developed is capable of transcending the boundaries of centuries to come, it would be unfair to try to evaluate his achievements and contributions detached from his objective time-space framework.

Human knowledge has attained an ever greater maturity of more than two centuries, compared with the knowledge environment that existed when Hahnemann lived. It is an indisputable fact that we are privileged to have a much better idea about the diverse phenomena of this universe than Hahnemann. Hahnemann had developed homeopathy using the existing knowledge about the universe available to him. Naturally, it is bound to bear the limitations imposed by the objective historical and geographical context. Had he happened to live in this world 200 years later, the towering genius of Hahnemann would have presented to humanity a therapeutic system totally different, and much more advanced and scientific than what we now call Homeopathy. He would have definitely rewritten completely what we preach and practice as Homeopathy today.

Whenever we try to study the ‘words’ of Hahnemann, we should be on the look out to understand what he would have said about those subjects, if he were elaborating them in the modern context. We should not take his ‘aphorisms’ as if they were ultimate TRUTH, unquestionable and beyond any scope of further revisions and improvements. We should honor the great master by following his teachings as valuable guide to tread forward, and not as lifeless dogmas. This is the essence of the rational approach of MIT towards homeopathy.


When homeopathy WORKS, it is the OBJECTIVE natural LAWS truthfully OBSERVED, explored and unraveled by hahnemann that really work- not his ‘historically-constrained’ SUBJECTIVE ideas, interpretations, theories and explanations that were grossly unscientific and mostly irrational.


If homeopaths cannot think beyond ORGANON, they can never face the intellectual challenges posed by advancing scientific knowledge and scientific-minded people. Homeopaths should study and interpret ORGANON with a scientific and historical perspective, and UPDATE homeopathy with modern scientific knowledge. Homeopathy of 18th century should be transformed into homeopathy of 21st century.


I have no doubt whether homeopathy works or not, since I have been experiencing and witnessing it happening for more than last 42+ years through thousands and thousands of live cases in front of my watchful eyes and vigilant brain.

What ever I talk about homeopathy are based on my truthful observation and conviction that HOMEOPATHY WORKS.

I am also very much convinced that HAHENEMANN WAS WRONG in his ‘theories’ and explanations regarding HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS, due to the historically imposed inevitable limitations of primitive scientific knowledge available to him during his period.

Leaving aside the biological mechanism of cure involved in SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR and the MOLECULAR IMPRINTING involved in POTENTIZATION, more than 80% of text that constitutes aphorisms of ORGANON are pure absurdity. Forgive me for speaking out this bitter truth.


It is not the NUMBER of symptoms that decide whether the selection of drug is correct or not- it is the TYPE of symptoms you select. In some cases a ‘single’ ABNORMAL PECULIAR symptom may lead to correct remedy, whereas 10 or more NORMAL symptoms may lead to wrong remedy. The question is whether the symptom or symptoms you selected are actually REPRESENTING the exact ‘molecular errors’ or not.


‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ means, a drug substance in POTENTIZED form can CURE diseases in any individual if his symptoms are SIMILAR to the symptoms that drug substance in CRUDE form could produce when applied in a healthy individual.

In order that the DRUG SYMPTOMS and DISEASE SYMPTOMS become similar, it is obvious that SAME biological molecules are affected and similar molecular errors could be produced by DISEASE-causing molecules and DRUG molecules. In order to affect similar biological molecules, drug substance should contain some molecules that carry some FUNCTIONAL GROUPS exactly similar to the functional groups of disease-causing molecules, so that both could bind to similar biological targets and produce similar molecular inhibitions.

POTENTIZATION is a process by which the individual constituent molecules are subjected to MOLECULAR IMPRINTING, through a process of ‘guest-host’ interactions, where drug molecules act as guests and water-ethyl alcohol molecules act as hosts. By the time potentization crosses avogadro limit or 12c dilution, all drug molecules will be removed and only MOLECULAR IMPRINTS will remain. Molecular imprints are hydrogen-bonded supramolecular nanoclusters of water-ethyl alcohol molecules, into which three-dimensional conformations of individual drug molecules are engraved.

When applied as therapeutic agent by selecting as similimum, these molecular imprints can act as selective artificial binding sites for pathogentic molecules having complementary configuration. Thus, the molecular imprints deactivate the pathogenic molecules, thereby relieving the biological molecules from the molecular inhibitions. Removal of biological molecular inhibitions amount to CURE of the disease.

This is the simple, rational and scientific truth involved in similia similibus curentur. It is not difficult to understand, if you have an open mind and basic scientific knowledge. You cannot become a scientific physician without understanding these fundamental things about homeopathy


Go to ‘wikipedia’ and learn about ‘nanotoxicity’. I am sure, you will think more than twice before prescribing ‘biochemic triturations’ to your patients there after.


So-called biochemic salts are used in triturations below 12c or avogadro limit. As such, they are ‘molecular’in contents. Molecular drugs act not by a homeopathic biological mechanism, but by their chemical properties, just like allopathic or ayurvedic drugs.

Molecular drugs can interact with biological molecules and produce various molecular errors in vital processes, that may result in short term or long term adverse effects.

Only drugs potentized above 12c contain ‘molecular imprints’ which act by a homeopathic biological mechanism, without producing any harmful molecular errors.

Molecular drugs, including biochemics, may antidote higher potency drugs by deactivating the molecular imprints, if the functional moieties are similar. Hence, use of biochemics along with potentized drugs may reduce or nullify the actions of high potency drugs we use.

If trituration produces nanoparticles as some people suggest, use of biochemic triturations may lead to grave long term health problems due to nanotoxicity caused by metal nanoparticles. This aspect has to be studied more intensely


Giving one or two doses of ‘well-selected’ similimum, and then giving so-called biochemic tablets ‘ad libitum’ to fill the gaps between successive ‘doses’ instead of placebo- this is a very common ‘bad practice’ among many homeopaths. Very very bad indeed.

They also will call themselves ‘classical homeopaths’, and boast about ‘single drug’ and ‘minimum dose’!


Any patient will have a lot of ‘symptom groups’ that are not covered by any ‘well-selected’ single similimum. A’perfect’ match is impossible.

That means, there will be many other primary molecular errors in that patient that could not be removed by the molecular imprints contained in a ‘single’ drug, how much ‘well- selected’ it may be.

In order to provide a ‘total cure’, we willl have to use some other drugs also, for supplying the ‘missing’ molecular imprints that cover the remaining symptoms.

You may call it by any name as you like- polypharmacy, complementary prescriptions, intercurrent remedy, layer prescriptions, second prescriptions, antidoting, or anything else.

Such names do not make much difference, as you are actually using ‘multiple’ drugs in all these cases, whether you ‘mix’ drugs ‘in vivo’ or ‘in vitro’.


Modern biochemistry is gradually advancing to such a stage of perfection that the molecular pathology and biochemical mechanisms of all diseases are more and more explored and revealed.

Pharmaceutical chemistry advances to such a stage that the molecular structure and biological actions of all drug substances are clearly known and explained.

In parallel with these advances in modern science, MIT will make homeopathic practice gradually evolve from present ‘symptom-based’ and ‘evidence-based’ practice into ‘science-based’ and ‘knowledge-based’ practice.

I know, such an evolution will be a gradual, very slow and long-term process. At that stage, homeopathy will be universally recognized as an advanced branch of modern molecular medicine, and rightfully designated as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics.


TWO major ‘limitations’ of homeopathy are:

1. Homeopathy cannot cure diseases originating from ‘primary’ nutritional deficiencies, unless those deficiencies are resolved through proper nutrition or supplementation.

2. Homeopathy cannot cure diseases originating from defective genetic substance, unless those defects are not caused by errors in epigenetic factors of genetic expressions caused by endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules.

All diseases other than those belonging to these two categories can be successfully treated using well-selected drugs in potentized forms.


If potentization is done genuinely and accurately, ‘post-avogadro’ preparations or potencies above 12c will contain only molecular imprints.

Only ‘action’ molecular imprints can perform is to bind to pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity and deactivate them.

One molecular imprint cannot act upon another molecular imprint, or produce changes in another’s therapeutic effects. Any number of different molecular imprints can co-exist without any interaction in between them.

That means, question of any DRUG RELATIONSHIP does not arise in between POTENTIZED DRUGS. Idea of a potentized drug antidoting, facilitating, modifying, preventing, or exaggerating the action of another potentized drug is a mere BLIND BELIEF, which has no any scientific or logical basis- a belief that has done grave harm to homeopathy by preventing many homeopaths from applying well-indicated medicines to their patients, and also by prompting them to use unnecessary medicines in the name of ‘antidoting’ and ‘complementing’.


What is a ‘complementary drug’ according to MIT view?

Any drug that can supply the additional ‘molecular imprints’ required by the patient to complete the cure but missing in the earlier prescription could be considered as a ‘complementary’ drug. As per this view, complementary drug could be determined on the basis of symptoms not covered by the earlier prescription, or remaining even after the action of earlier prescription is over. ‘Complementary’ drug is ‘situation-specific’ or ‘individual-specific’- not ‘drug-specific’ as so far taught and practiced.


ANTI-DOTING is a much misunderstood concept in homeopathic practice. A lot of wrong ideas are taught and practiced by homeopaths regarding ‘anti-doting’, which prevent homeopaths from prescribing well-indicated drugs for fear of anti-doting the earlier prescriptions.

From scientific point of view, ‘molecular imprints’ cannot interact each other, and hence, drugs potentized above 12c cannot interact each other by any way. There is no question of anti-doting one potentized drug using another potentized drug.

Ant-doting happens only in two circumstances:

1. Crude forms and potencies below 12c (molecular forms) of any drug can ANTIDOTE the therapeutic effects of ‘molecular imprints’ (12c and above) of same drug as well as similar drugs.

Remember this knowledge when using low potencies, mother tinctures, medicines, food articles etc AFTER high potencies.

2. ‘Molecular imprints’ or potencies above 12c of any drug can antidote the biological effects of ‘molecular forms’ or crude drugs and below 12c of same drug or similar drugs.

Utilize this knowledge to treat the bad effects of crude substances used as medicines, foods or environmental pollution, poisoning, infections etc.


KNOWLEDGE OF SCIENCE is different from SCIENTIFIC OUTLOOK. There are many great scientists around us with elaborate knowledge in their specialized fields, but gravely lacking the essentials of ‘scientific outlook’- common sense, rational thinking, logical analysis, realistic interpretation, and above all, a holistic peripheral vision. SCIENTIFIC OUTLOOK demands something more than your principles, laws, methods, experiments, equations and charts.


When TWO entirely different drug substances show during proving some ‘groups’ of symptoms that are similar, that means both drug substances contained ‘some’ constituent molecules having ‘similar’ functional groups, so that they could bind to ‘similar’ biological molecular targets, and produce ‘similar’ molecular errors.

Obviously, both drugs in potentized form will contain ‘some’ similar molecular imprints, which can cure ‘similar’ diseases having ‘similar’ symptom groups.

This phenomenon explains why different physicians reach entirely different prescriptions in same case, and all such different prescriptions probably work. It shows different ‘similimums” being indicated in same case is not a mistake.


A drug substance could be called ‘homeopathic’ in its scientific sense, only if it can act upon the organism by a BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM that is really ‘homeopathic’. ONLY potencies 12c or above, which contain only ‘molecular imprints’, act by a ‘homeopathic’ mechanism of biological action by binding to the specific pathogenic molecules. As such, only they could be called ‘homeopathic’.

‘Molecular forms’ (crude drugs and potencies below 12c) of drugs cannot be called ‘homeopathic’ – whether they are single or mixed. They act by a biological mechanism exactly same as allopathic drugs. A ‘homeopathic’ label does not make a drug necessarily ‘homeopathic’.

It is wrong to say ‘homeopathic mother tinctures’ or ‘homeopathic triturations’. They are ‘molecular’, and they act by a biological mechanism exactly same as allopathic drugs.


We hear our learned theoreticians claiming that medicinal substances are “converted to energy” by potentization,and this “energy” being stored in the potentizing medium.

Read this extract from Materia Medica-Pura : PULSATILLA
(From vol. ii, 3td edit. 1893.)

“The expressed juice of the whole green fresh plant mixed with equal parts of alcohol by shaking. After the cloudiness has settled down, the clear fluid is decanted off. Of this two drops are dropped into the first of 30 diluting-phials (each filled three quarters full with 99 drops of alcohol), and the phial being corked is held in the hand and the contents potentized by means of two strokes of the arm from above downwards. This is to be marked first dilution or 1/100. Of this one drop is to be introduced into the second phial and two equal shakes administered (to be marked second dilution or 1/10000) One drop of this is to be introduced into the third phial, and this process is to be repeated, until the thirtieth phial is provided with one drop from the twenty-ninth (which had got its drop from the twenty eighth phial and been twice shaken) ; this is also to be twice shaken and marked 30th dilution or X.”

Here, hahnemann is explaining how pulsatilla is serially potentized up to 30c. At each stage, he advices to potentize by “by means of two strokes of the arm from above downwards”. He is very specific- “shaken twice”.

Can anybody with minimum common sense ever say, drug substances will be converted to “energy” by 30 x2= 60 ‘shakes’ using “arms from above downward” during 30 stages of diluting? Do you expect, 60 shakes will provide mechanical energy sufficient to divid molecules into atoms, atoms into subatomic particles, and convert matter into energy?


Please do not quote aphorisms to argue with me, or hoping to ‘disprove’ MIT, as MIT is not an ‘interpretation’ of ‘aphorisms’. According to my view,aphorisms are not ‘scientific proof’ for anything in science, but aphorisms themselves have to be explained in scientific terms and verified according to scientific methods. I am trying to address that historical task.

If any aphorism fails to withstand scientific scrutiny, it will have to mercilessly moved to the archives, only to be used merely as a historical reference material for future generation involved in the exploration of history of homeopathy.

I do not think that ‘aphorisms’, ‘advice’ or ‘experiences’ of our ‘great master’ are by themselves ‘ultimate’ ‘scientific’ proof or ratification for everything we teach and practice as homeopathy. We need scientific explanations and proofs for ‘words of master’ if you really want to establish homeopathy as a MEDICAL SCIENCE.


Any reasonable proposition regarding ‘dose’, potency’ or ‘repetition’ of ANY DRUG could be rationally made only on the basis of our knowledge regarding the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of drugs we use, and their BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM OF ACTION. When declaring that MIT concepts regarding multiple drugs or frequent repetitions are wrong, you should be capable of explaining your ideas on these basic questions, based on which you are expected to talk about issues such as ‘single drug’ and ‘minimum dose’. If you have no answer to these basic questions, kindly do not hurry to argue with me over my posts on MIT.


Study your repertories regularly, if you want to master the art of case taking.

The more ‘repertorial rubrics’ you know related with each clinical conditions that may be presented before you, the easier will be the process of case taking for you, and the more complete and perfect will be the case ‘picture’ you build up.

Students and beginners should be made to understand that regular study of repertorial rubrics is an inevitable part of mastering the art of case taking. If you have a good software in your possession, this study will be more easy and fruitful. You can search your repertory using the name of a particular clinical condition as a ‘search word’, and see what are the probable rubrics related with that condition. Such an understanding will be of great help during case taking, since it will give you an over all idea about what details you have to collect from your patient. For example, search the repertory using CONVULSIONS as ‘search word’- all rubrics related with ‘convulsions’ will be listed, which will give you an idea regarding all probable symptoms, modalities and accessories you have to consider during case taking of a case of CONVULSIONS. It will help you in building up a complete case.

Searching for some thing with a clear idea of what you are searching for is far better than searching without any idea about the things you are actually looking for.

It is especially applicable for homeopathic case taking, which is essentially a search for symptoms in the patient.

Homeopathic ‘case taking’ is all about deciding ‘what are to be taken from a case’ for making a homeopathic prescription. If you do not know what to ‘take’ from a case, you cannot build a right case or make a right prescription.


Remember, you are making all these protests and noises about “multiple” drugs, actually with out any idea about what are the active principles of potentized ‘drugs’ you use, or about the exact biological mechanism by which they act as therapeutic agents. On the other hand, I am commenting on ‘single-multiple’ drug issue, only after explaining my views about their active principles and the molecular mechanism of actions. Difference is obvious.


Any individual patient will have diverse types of ‘complaints’ expressed through diverse ‘groups of symptoms’ representing diverse types of molecular errors caused by diverse types of entirely different pathogenic molecules.

We will have to provide diverse types of molecular imprints representing entirely different chemical molecules contained in the drug substances, to remove ALL the molecular inhibitions.

Any drug substance, especially of vegetable or animal sources, will contain diverse types of chemical molecules, which in potentized forms will be represented by entirely different molecular imprints.

When we give a particular drug in potentized form to a particular patient, we are actually supplying only SOME of the molecular imprints required by the patient. Missing molecular imprints will have to be supplied by giving other drugs also.

You can understand the logic of this statement only if you could perceive diseases in terms of molecular errors, drug substances in terms of constituent molecules, and potentized drugs in terms of diverse types of molecular imprints they contain.

Whether you use single drug or multiple drugs is totally immaterial. Actually, there is no such a thing called ‘single’ drug, as most of our drugs contain diverse types of molecular imprints which act as individual units.

Most important thing is, we should ensure we have included ALL the diverse types of molecular imprints required to remove all the diverse types of molecular inhibitions in our patient.


It is easier to declare “science is unscientific” and lecture about “limitations of science”, than to learn science seriously and explain homeopathy in scientific terms. Most ‘classical’ homeopaths prefer to do that as any stupid ‘faith healer’ does, when they fail to understand science.


Homeopaths fight desperately to defend the absurd concepts of ‘dynamic energy’ and ‘vital force’, only because they have been made to believe by their teachers that homeopathy will cease to exist once those ‘basic principles’ are not safeguarded.

Such a situation arose due to the failure of homeopaths in explaining the biological mechanism of therapeutic action of potentized drugs using a materialistic or scientific model.

MIT hypothesis has finally resolved that problem for ever, and homeopaths can now confidently explain homeopathy to anybody as a rational medical science, without any help of unscientific concepts borrowed from vitalism or dynamism.


Some people argue that ‘psychological’ and ‘psychosomatic’ phenomena belong to a “higher realm”, and cannot be explained by modern science. Many homeopaths believe that since ’emotions’ and ‘psychosomatic diseases’ originate from MIND, they are outside the realm of biochemistry.

According to them, mind is something ‘immaterial’, ‘dynamic’ and ‘spirit-like’, and hence mental phenomena cannot be explained in terms of SCIENTIFIC knowledge. ‘Mind is beyond science’- they say. And they talk about MIND as part of immaterial VITAL FORCE.

What we call “psychological” are actually complex biological processes happening in central nervous system.

The phenomena we call MIND never exist in the absence of a MATERIAL BODY, and a highly complex central nervous system being part of that body. MIND does not exist free from the complex biochemical molecular level interactions in the central nervous system, which actually represents the highest stage of MATERIAL EVOLUTION on earth. MIND can be influenced by material substances such as drugs, which can modify the biochemical processes in brain.

Any mental activity is related with production, transportation and interactions of some CHEMICAL molecules in the body, that can influence the whole physiological processes in the organism. SENSATIONS, EMOTIONS, COGNITION, MEDITATION, LEARNING, MEMORY, THOUGHTS, CONSCIOUSNESS, MOODS, FEELINGS, DREAMS- every phenomena we associate with MIND happen through BIOCHEMICAL PROCESSES in our nervous system. Some specific chemical molecules are produced as part of those processes.

Diverse factors can influence these complex molecular biological processes in central nervous system, that we call psychological. They belong to two classes- exogenous and endogenous.

Endogenous factors include various hormones, neurochemicals, neurotransmitters, metabolic byproducts, disease products, etc etc produced inside the body and act upon central nervous system

Exogenous factors include, varuious chemical molecules entering the body through food, medicines, drugs , radiations, as well as various sensory signalsfrom the environment.

All these exogenous and endogenous factors act upon the biochemical molecules in the central nervous system, produce feffects we call psychological Do you think emotions, whether it be “happiness”, ‘sorrow’, ‘anger’ or anything else are not related with any “biological changes”? If anybody think so, you are thoroughly mistaken. I can only request you to update your scientific knowledge, especially modern biochemistry.

CHEMICAL MOLECULES produced during mental activities have specific TARGETS and specific FUNCTIONS of their own. It is the actions of those molecules on their specific targets that produce the particular state of mind and its physiological processes.

When these chemical molecules being part of MENTAL ACTIVITIES are produced in excess, or they are not removed from the system in due course, they will circulate in the body, BIND to unexpected OFF-TARGET biological molecules, and lead to their INHIBITION. Such ‘off-target’ inhibitions caused by the neuro-chemicals circulating in the body are the CAUSATIVE FACTORS pf certain pathological conditions we call PSYCHOSOMATIC DISEASES.

Obviously, there is nothing ‘immaterial’ or ‘dynamic’ in PSYCHOSOMATIC diseases. They are purely MATERIAL, that could be treated by MATERIAL drugs.

PSYCHOSOMATIC DISEASES also belongs to a class of pathological conditions caused by INHIBITIONS of biological molecules by the ‘off-target’ actions of ENDOGENOUS molecules acting as pathogenic agents.


From the very first comment they make, I can guess the intentions of ‘vitalist homeopaths’ who call themselves ‘classical’- I can anticipate the direction in which they will try to drag away the discussions. I always wanted to avoid such a turn, since from previous experiences, i have learned that it is a futile exercise to talk science to people who are more interested to discuss about “limitations of science” than science as such. But they will not let me leave even if I try to. They cannot resist the call of their natural ‘anti-science’ instincts.

They are not at all interested in discussing “biochemical processes” involved in disease and cure. Instead, they will ask a question commonly asked by all shades of spiritualists: “how these biochemical changes are initiated and by what”? They ask this question to take the discussion to another level- to the level of “beyond material”- to the “initiator”. They want to discuss about the “immaterial forces” that work “behind” molecular changes- the vital force, spirit and such things of “higher realm”. They want to discuss not science, but “beyond the limits of biochemical changes”.

It is true that my discussions are “within the limits of biochemistry” and “material” science. I think medical science has to be discussed at “material” level, and nothing else. Medical science discusses molecular level biological processes involved in disease and cure, and manipulates it using drugs, tools and techniques which belong to “materaial realm”. Metaphysics has no place in medical science. But our ‘vitalist’ homeopaths want to avoid discussing biochemistry. They want to discuss philosophy and metaphysics. To discuss “beyond science”. I am not available for such futile arguments, since it does not come within the perview of my topics.


There are many ways to find similimum for a given patient. You may arrive at different similimums in same case, when you search for it though different ways, and all of them will probably work. Homeopathy is very very flexible.

Even a single ‘key note’ symptom may some times lead to a similimum.

In certain cases, you can select a similimum using totality of ‘abnormal’ mental symptoms only.

You can select a similimum using totality of ‘abnormal’ physical generals only.

Finding similimum is possible using totality of ‘abnormal’ mentals and physical generals, which is called ‘constitutional similimum’.

You can find a similimum using ‘totality’ of abnormal mentals, physical generals and particular symltoms .

In certain cases, you can combine constitutional similimum and particular similimum.

You can find similimum using abnormal particular symptoms only.

You can find multiple similimums using multiple ‘symptom groups’.

There are many specific remedies for different diseases, based on previous experiences of cures.

In iatrogenic diseases and bad effects of allopathic drugs, you can use tautopathic prescriptions.

Sarcodes and potentized biological products could be prescribed on the basis of knowledge of biochemistry.
Nosodes could be used on the basis of miasmatic history such as infections and vaccinations.



‘Classical’ homeopaths, exactly similar to all other practitioners of pseudosciences such as faith healers, spiritual healers, astrologers and other occult practitioners, defend themselves by arguing about “limitations of modern science”. They hope they can hide their ignorance and superstitions behind this argument.

They talk about phenomena “beyond these physical realm”. They try to divide science into “abstract science and absolute science”, in the hope to establish that what they practice are subjects belonging to “absolute science”, which is beyond the range of people dealing with “abstract science”. They declare “present day science cannot explain about many things existing in this world”, and hence, science has no right to say that their practices and theories are nonsense pseudoscience.

These “beyond science” theoreticians are the greatest enemies of any scientific advancement of homeopathy. They fight tooth and nail every attempts to explain and prove homeopathy in terms of modern scientific knowledge. They want homeopathy to remain for ever as an occult art of ‘spiritual healing’.


Actually, the concept put forward by hahnemann 200 years ago regarding the role of ‘miasms’ or residual effects of acute infectious diseases as causative factors of CHRONIC DISEASES should have been recognized by scientific community as one of the greatest inventions in medical history.

Unfortunately it did not happen, since nobody so far tried to explain this concept in a way fitting to the scientific knowledge system.

More over, ‘followers’ and ‘interpreters’ of hahnemann misinterpreted ‘miasms’ using the totally unscientific concepts of ‘dynamic energy’ and ‘vital force’. They destroyed the revolutionary content of hahnemann’s invention, alienated it from scientific thoughts, and converted it into a theory of their esoteric and occult-like ‘energy medicine’ practices.



It is really a great wonder how hahnemann could think about chronic diseases in terms of residual effects of acute infectious diseases and call them miasms, during a period when nothing much was known about microbes, antibodies etc. It shows what a great genious hahnemann was. Modern science has only just started to suspect about the role of infectious diseases in the evolution of so-called ‘autoimmune diseases’, which are nothing but the miasmatic diseases hahnemann explained two centuries ago. My explanation of miasms as ‘off-target’ actions of antibodies is undoubtedly of great relevance and significance in this historical context, by providing a rational link between modern science and hahnemannian concepts of ‘miasms’


According to the scientific view of life processes, 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.

I would request all respected ‘classical homeopaths’ and ‘miasmatic experts’ to explain the ‘molecular basis’ and ‘biological mechanism’ working behind the phenomena we call as MIASMS.

At least, explain whether the causative factors of miasms are MATERIAL or IMMATERIAL. I am not asking to interpret what hahnemann said or not said. What is your view? As practitioner of MEDICAL SCIENCE, can you imagine about an IMMATERIAL, CONCEPTUAL, SPIRIT-LIKE “obnoxious” agent working upon our body and producing chronic diseases?


What is MIASM, according to MIT?

MIASMS are chronic disease dispositions caused by off-target actions of ANTIBODIES.

Antibodies are produced by internal defence system of the body against all intruding ‘alien’ proteins which do not match to the native genetic substance of the individual. These alien proteins include various infectious agents and the proteinaceous toxins they release, misfolded proteins as well as proteins synthesized by any mutated genes in the cancerous cells.

Even though the primary function of antibodies are to defend the system by fighting against the ‘alien’ proteins and destroy them, in most cases, those antibodies remain in the body for long periods or even for whole remaining life time. They will circulate in the body and bind to various biological molecules having conformational affinity and produce molecular errors that amount to various chronic diseases commonly known as auto-immune diseases and miasmatic diseases. By inhibiting various essential biochemical pathways essential for normal resistance against diseases, these antibodies make the system more vulnerable to infections, disposed to chronic diseases and may interfere in normal healing processes. As such, antibodies play a major role as pathogenic agents, even though they are actually understood to be defense molecules.

It was hahnemann, who for the first time pointed his fingers to the chronic effects of MIASMS remaining after acute infectious diseases, even though due to historical limitations, he could not define this phenomenon exactly as ‘off-target actions of antibodies’.

Of course, there are chances that acute infections may cause life long miasms, through antibodies. After chikun gunia infection, the patients suffer from chronic myalgia and arthralgia. After acute sore throats, people get endocarditis, valvular disorders or rheumatic arthritis. After various skin infections such as eczema or scabies, kidneys are chronically affected. All those so-called autoimmune diseases have a prior history of acute infections. Many secondary complaints of cancer patients are identified to be caused by the antibodies generated against ‘alien proteins’ produced my muatated genes in the cancerous cells. Chronic firbromyalgia is caused by antibodies against influenza virus infections.


What is MIT?

MIT or Molecular Imprints Therapeutics refers to a scientific hypothesis that proposes a rational model for biological mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics.

According to MIT hypothesis, potentization involves a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, where in the conformational details of individual drug molecules are ‘imprinted’ or engraved as hydrogen-bonded three dimensional nano-cavities into a supra-molecular matrix of water and ethyl alcohol, through a process of molecular level ‘host-guest’ interactions. These ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘hydrosomes’ are the active principles of post-avogadro dilutions used as homeopathic drugs.

Due to ‘conformational affinity’, molecular imprints can act as ‘artificial key holes’ or ‘ligand binds’ for the specific drug molecules used for imprinting, and for all pathogenic molecules having functional groups ‘similar’ to those drug molecules. When used as therapeutic agents, molecular imprints selectively bind to the pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity and deactivate them, thereby relieving the biological molecules from the inhibitions or blocks caused by pathogenic molecules. According to MIT hypothesis, this is the biological mechanism of high dilution therapeutics involved in homeopathic cure.

According to MIT hypothesis, ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ means, diseases expressed through a particular group of symptoms could be cured by ‘molecular imprints’ forms of drug substances, which in ‘molecular’ or crude forms could produce ‘similar’ groups of symptoms in healthy individuals. ‘Similarity’ of drug symptoms and disease symptoms indicates ‘similarity’ of pathological molecular inhibitions caused by drug molecules and pathogenic molecules, which in turn indicates conformational ‘similarity’ of functional groups of drug molecules and pathogenic molecules. Since molecular imprints of ‘similar’ molecules can bind to ‘similar’ ligand molecules by conformational affinity, they can act as therapeutic agents when applied as indicated by ‘similarity of symptoms’.

No body in the whole history could so far propose a hypothesis about homeopathy as scientific, rational and perfect as MIT, explaining the molecular process involed in potentization, and the biological mechanism involved in ‘similia similibus curentur’, in a way fitting well to modern scientific knowledge system.


Various double blind scientific studies as well as millions of cured cases have proved beyond any doubt that post-avogadro dilutions of drugs used by homeopaths work if applied according to correct indications.

Fundamental questions remaining to be answered are: a) What is the molecular level process involved in homeopathic ‘potentization’, by which the medicinal properties of the crude drug substances are transferred in a ‘reverse order’ into the potentizing medium? b) What are the active ‘material’ factors contained in post-avogadro preparations used as homeopathic remedial agents? c) What is the exact biological mechanism by which these ‘active principles’ work upon the living system and produce a therapeutic effect?

Only MIT hypothesis provides rational and scientific answers to these fundamental questions of homeopathy.

Answer a) Molecular imprinting. b) Molecular imprints of drug molecules. c) Molecular imprints act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules by conformational affinity and deactivate them, thereby removing pathological molecular inhibitions.


Many young homeopaths and students are much worried about their future, since they fear that homeopathy has no relevance in a science-conscious community, and it will gradually become extinct.

I assure you young men, there is a very very bright future for homeopathy. Once the MIT concepts regarding potentization and biological mechanism of homeopathic cure are finally proved and established, homeopathy will be recognized as an advanced branch of modern molecular medicine.


Once you start perceiving our potentized drugs in terms of the diverse types of individual molecular imprints they contain, you will realize that most of our worries and confusions related with ‘single-drug/multiple drug issue’, ‘selection of potency’, ‘drug relationship’, ‘antidoting’, ‘repetitions’, ‘second prescriptions’, ‘suppression’, ‘medicinal aggravations’, ‘direction of cure’, ‘miasmatic analysis’ etc etc are TOTALLY BASELESS AND IRRELEVANT.

Only thing you will have to worry about is to ensure that ‘all the diverse types of molecular imprints required to remove all the diverse types of molecular inhibitions existing in the patient are included in your prescriptions’.

Practicing homeopathy becomes that much simple and straight-forward, once you understand and accept MIT.


Many of of our clinical failures are not due to selecting of wrong drugs or wrong potencies as we commonly infer. It may be due to the mistakes done intentionally or otherwise by the manufacturers or even the pharmacists- using wrong starting materials, wrong potentization, wrong storage, wrong transportation or even WRONG labeling.

Do not expect that the label or the big name of manufacturer will guarantee 100% perfection in quality. All businesses are run by profit motive- not due to dedication to homeopathy or community. And remember, every business house doing even the most heinous crimes will boast about their dedication and sincerity. There are chances for a lot of malpractices in homeopathy at different stages before the drug reaches the physician who apply it on his patients- intentionally or otherwise. Problems may also arise from negligence or ignorance of the people who deal with our drugs at various levels of its procuring, production and distribution.

If your prescription does not work, and you are confident that you have selected right similimum, do not hurry to change the prescription or potency- CHANGE THE SAMPLE. Use same drug, same potency, from a different source. In most cases, it will work.

Collect samples of same drug, same potency from various sources, and mix them together to make your stock. It will work better.


Most people who call themselves ‘classical homeopaths’ behave as if they are afraid of modern scientific knowledge. They seem to believe that it is their solemn duty to fight and ‘defeat’ science in order to ‘safe guard’ homeopathy. They prefer to live in a nineteenth century knowledge environment, groping in the darkness of superstitious beliefs, spirit-like vital forces and dynamic energy, where ‘our master’ is the ‘greatest scientist’, and ‘words of our master is the ultimate science’! In their fanciful dream worlds, ‘modern science’ is ‘lagging’ centuries behind their mysterious knowledge of ‘miracle cures’!


I am not qualified to teach ‘homeopathy’ to anybody. I am only trying to teach ‘science’ to homeopaths, which majority of them very badly need.


If a person claiming himself to be a ‘physician’ tries to hide his ignorance in modern science by quoting the footnote of aphorism 1 when asked to explain his opinion regarding ‘what is the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure’, I feel only sympathy for his plight.


Whether your understanding and approach to homeopathy are scientific or unscientific could be determined by the answer you give for the question ‘what are the active principles of potentized drugs’?

If your answer is ‘dynamic drug energy’, that means your approach is hopelessly unscientific and irrational, who can justify any nonsense occult practices

If your answer is ‘nano- particles’, that means you are ‘irrational’ in your outlook, incapable of applying your thoughts for distinguishing between what is really scientific, and what is not- you are prone to be easily misguided by hollow ‘scientific’ verbosity.

If your answer is “it is not my concern- I am concerned only about cure”, you are a typical ‘nineteenth century’ ‘classical homeopath’ who is proud to remain eternally ‘blind’.

If your answer is ‘molecular imprints’, that means you have acquired a really scientific understanding of homeopathy, and you are equipped with a rational approach to it. You are well qualified to be called a ‘scientific homeopath’.


Do you believe in the theory proposed by IIT-B scientists that ‘nano-particles’ of drug substances are the active principles of ‘high potency’ homeopathic drugs? If you believe so, kindly think over the following questions:

Do you know, IIT-B team conducted their experiments using ‘market samples’ of ‘metallic drugs’ only? Did you ever think why they did not use ‘vegetable’ or ‘animal’ drugs for their study?

Do you know, medicinal properties of vegetable and animal drugs in crude forms are due to the chemical properties of the diverse types of complex molecules contained in them?

Do you know, biological properties of such highly complex chemical molecules cannot be exhibited or imitated by by the simple ‘nano-particles of metallic elements’ claimed to be detected in potentized drugs?

Do you know, the claim of IIT-B team that they could detect nano-particles of original drugs in ultra-high dilutions actually contradicts the avogadro theory regarding the number of molecules in a given quantity of matter?

Do you know, there is no even a remote chance for original drug molecules to remain in a dilution above 12c, since the number of molecules in any substance is limited by avogadro number?

Do you know, most of the so-called ‘ultra-high’ potencies commercially available in the market are actually very low potencies below avogadro limit, labelled as ‘high’ by the profit-motivated pharmaceutical companies? Do you know, when ‘research’ is done using such ‘market samples’, there is always the chance for ‘detecting’ drug molecules even in samples we consider ‘ultra-high’?

Do you know, IIT-B team has reported that there is no any difference between 6c, 30c or 200c regarding nano-particle contents of the samples they tested? Did you ever think about the implications of this observation upon the homeopathic concepts regarding potentized drugs?

Do you know, IIT-B team has reported that they could ‘detect’ ‘traces of nano-particles floating only in the 1% top layers’ of the potentized drugs?

Do you know, you can use only “1% top layer”, and will have to discard the remaining 99% as useless, if you accept the IIT-B theory that nano-particles are the active principles of potentized drugs? . Do you know, you cannot explain the therapeutic actions of remaining 99% with the nano-particle theory?

Do you know, IIT-B scientists could not propose a feasible model for the ‘biological mechanism’ of homeopathic drug actions using their nano-particle theory?

Do you know, IIT-B team never tried co-relate ‘nano-particle theory’ with ‘similia similibus curentur?


What ever be the names of medical ‘systems’ you practice, medicines are only of TWO types- ‘MOLECULAR medicine’ and ‘MOLECULAR IMPRINTS medicine’.

Only homeopathy uses MOLECULAR IMPRINTS as medicine, where as all other systems use DRUG MOLECULES.

MOLECULAR drugs act by their CHEMICAL properties, where as MOLECULAR IMPRINTS act by their CONFORMATIONAL properties.

MOLECULAR IMPRINTS are ‘target-specific’ in their actions, and hence cannot cause any harmful effects, where as MOLECULAR drugs may produce various harmful side effects by their ‘off-target’ actions.

This explains the superiority of homeopathy over all other medical systems.


A day will come in near future when the scientists engaged in the search for evolving more and more perfect ‘drug designing’ techniques finally realize the potentials of ‘molecular imprinted water’ as safe, effective and target-specific therapeutic agents.

Scientists will most probably develop more perfect and sophisticated techniques and materials for molecular imprinted drug designing, far superior to the methods of drug ‘potentization’ currently adapted by homeopathy.

Modern medicine will advance into ‘molecular medicine’, and gradually into ‘molecular imprints medicine’.

Homeopathy will be naturally compelled to shed away its burdens of superstitious ‘beliefs’ and unscientific theoretical garbage of ‘vitalism’ and ‘dynamism’, and convert itself into a rational system of ‘medical science’.

Once such a historical convergence of medical systems happens, homeopathy will be finally recognized as an advanced branch of modern molecular medicine, a rightful status it has been denied for more than two centuries, of course for obvious reasons of historically imposed limitations.

MIT concepts will work as a catalyst in this inevitable revolution.


Kindly read this study report on ‘Microbiological stability of homeopathic medicines using purified water as vehicle’, published in 2011 by Virgínia Tereza Cegalla, Amarilys de Toledo Cesar, HN Homeopatia e Naturais, São Paulo, Brazil . This study is of valuable implications, as many homeopaths dispense medicines using water as a vehicle:

“Abstract: Homeopathic medicines are prepared in homeopathic pharmacies. This leads to freedom of prescription but requires more knowledge of the clinicians to achieve the best results. Preparations made of purified water receive a validity of 24 hours, but there are prescriptions for up to 30 days. This contradiction raises tensions among physicians, pharmacists and patients.

Aims: to evaluate the increase in microbiological contamination in homeopathic medicines using purified water as vehicle compared with the microbiological stability of purified water. Contribute to the quality of homeopathic medicine and treatment.

Methodology: daily microbiological analysis for one week to assess the growth of heterotrophic bacteria, Pseudomonas, yeasts and molds. The reference used was the USP 32/NF 27 and the Brazilian Pharmacopoeia 5th edition.

Results: there was a higher growth of microorganisms on the medicine, compared with purified water. From the 2nd day on, this growth has been beyond the legal limits.

Discussion: medicines for oral use are not sterile preparations, but they must remain stable during its shelf life. Our results indicate that contamination occurs from the earliest days of use. This shows the need to change the prescription in relation of the vehicle, to ensure hygiene and avoid potential contamination of the patient. It is necessary to prevent conflict of information between pharmacists and patients, and the contradiction of the doctor’s advice, besides the potential risk of responsibility to be attributed to the pharmacy. It is necessary to promote a discussion between pharmacists and clinicians, to spread this information for those that prescribe.

Conclusion: there was an increased of microbiological contamination of the medicines dispensed in purified water, which harms the quality of homeopathic medicine and homeopathic treatment. ”



In order to prove the hypothesis of ‘molecular imprints’ as active principles of potentized drugs, we have to TEST following tentative predictions:

1. Chemical structure and properties of water/ethyl alcohol mixture do not undergo any change during homeopathic potentization. Or, potentized drugs (above 12c) and unpotentized medium will be similar in their chemical properties.

2. Physical properties and parameters such as rate of evaporation, boiling and freezing points, viscosity, absorption of light, refraction of light, light permeability, brownian motion, solvent properties will be different for high potency drugs and unpotentized water-ethyl alcohol mixture

3. Potentized medicines do not contain original drug molecules.

4. Potentized medicines act up on biological molecules in a way different from unpotentized control solutions.

5. Potentized medicines react with biological molecules in exactly opposite way from that of original drug molecules.

6. When subjected to influence of physical forces such as heat, electricity or other EMRs, potentized medicines lose their power to interact with biological molecules.

7. Potentized medicines can prevent their original drug molecules from interacting with biological molecules.

8. Potentized medicines can antidote the biological actions of their original drug molecules.

9. Potentized medicines contain supra-molecular clusters of water/ethyl alcohol, different from control medium, which will be evident from spectroscopic studies.

10. Those supra-molecular clusters will disappear once the potentized medicines are subjected to heat or electric current or strong EMRs.

11. Potentized medicines can absorb more UV light than controls, during spectrometric studies

12. Scattering of light in potentized medicines and controls will be different.

13. Spectroscopic patterns of potentized medicines and control solutions will be different.

14. Hydrogen bonds in potentized medicines are more strong and stable than that of control solutions.

Once these predictions are proved to be right by experiments, MIT hypothesis could be considered scientifically validated. Additional predictions if necessary could be evolved in due course.


Here I am saying something that most homeopaths would not be very happy to hear, because my statement goes against their long-existing beliefs and practices. I expect strong opposition on this concept, which directly evolved from my scientific understanding and observations of potentization.

If ‘molecular imprinting’ is the real mechanism involved in homeopathic potentization, it is obvious that there is no likelihood of any special benefit by higher and higher potentisations above 12C. Logically, potentization need be continued only just beyond the limit of Avagadro number. By that stage, all the drug molecules would be removed from the medium, and the molecular imprinted water–alcohol mixture would have attained sufficient concentration of ‘molecular imprints’, which are the real active principles of potentized medicines. The three-dimensional structure of drug molecules used as ‘guests’ will have already got sufficiently imprinted into the hydration shells or hydrosomes by that time. There is no point in continuing potentization even after that stage.

Even those who believe that potentization is a process by which ‘medicinal energy’ of drug substances are transferred into the medium, would find it difficult to explain what ‘medicinal energy’ could be ‘transferred’ even after the whole drug molecules are removed through serial dilutions.

As per my observation, the medicinal property of any homeopathic drug beyond 12c will be the same. It is only a very rare possibility that there could be any significant difference between various so called higher potencies used by us, with regard to their content or medicinal qualities. Many master prescribers have already put on record that if the selection of similimum is correct, any potency would render the expected therapeutic result.

Since I consider molecular imprints as the active principles of potentized drugs, I do not subscribe to the idea that ‘higher’ potencies are more ‘powerful’, and I see no special benefit by using ‘higher’ potencies.

I think 12c is enough for completing molecular imprinting and removal of all drug molecules from the medium. What happens at molecular level during further potentization is still an open question for me. In supra-molecular chemistry, there is research going on regarding a phenomenon known as ‘induced molecular assembly’. That means, supra-molecular clusters acting as templates and inducing other molecules to form similar clusters. We know, ‘induced molecular assembly’ is involved in crystallization, clathrate formation etc. Even ‘prions’, which are misfolded proteins, multiply by ‘induced misfolding’. Antibodies, which are ‘molecular imprinted proteins’, also multiply by ‘inducing’ other globulin proteins to change configuration. Molecular imprints, which are supra-molecular clusters of water, may also multiply by the process of ‘induced molecular assembly’, where existing ‘molecular imprints’ may act as templates and induce formation of similar molecular imprints. It is only a possibility, which need in-depth study, which may provide us a rational way of resolving the riddle of high potencies.

What actually happens when potentization is continued ‘higher’ even after crossing avogadro limit or 12C?

Actually, large-sized drug molecules disappear from the potentizing medium much before 12c. By crossing 12c, even the smallest molecules will be removed. 12c will contain only molecular imprints. In order to understand what exactly happens when potentization goes higher and higher, we should study the behavior of supra-molecular nano-aggregates. They can act as ‘seeds’ to induce other water-alcohol molecules to form similar nano-structures. This phenomenon is commonly studied and utilized in making of crystals using ‘seeding’. Crystals are nothing but supra-molecular clusters. A few crystals are added to a solution as ‘seeds’ to induce further supra-molecular assembling and crystallization. When 1 drop of 12c is adding to 99 drops of water-ethyl alcohol, we are actually using molecular imprints as ‘seeds’ to induce the formation of similar molecular imprints.

It is obvious that there is no any special benefit by potentizing ‘higher’ above 12c. There is no any increase in power by going higher. Active principles of all potencies above 12c are molecular imprints, which act same way what ever the potency is. Actually, 12c will be ideal, as it contains molecular imprints formed by direct molecular imprinting, where as in higher potencies it is produced by ‘induced’ molecular assembly

Even though ‘molecular imprints’ may be formed in higher potencies through the process of ‘induced molecular assembling’, by no way that makes higher potencies more ‘powerful’ or ‘potent’. By 12c, all drug molecules will be removed from the medium, and medium gets saturated with ‘molecular imprints’. 12c will be ideal homeopathic. therapeutic agent. I see no special benefits by going ‘higher’. But, diluting medicines while administering by mixing with water may be beneficial, by increase the number of molecular imprints.

Based on this observation, for the last five years I use only 30c, and I get expected results in all cases where selection of similimum was correct.


Genuine scientific spirit is all about inquiring truth about unknown and unexplained phenomena EXISTING in this universe- not ‘attacking’ and ‘dismissing’ phenomena only because they could not be yet scientifically explained. Phenomenon of ‘gravitation’ is not well explained even now- but would you ‘attack’ gravity, and say that ‘gravity’ does not exist?

It is true that BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM of homeopathic cure is still unexplained scientifically. It is also true that people talk a lot of nonsense unscientific theories about it. In spite of all those nonsense theories and confusions, phenomenon of ‘homeopathic cure’ EXISTS as an objective truth, same way as ‘gravity’ exists. If you are a person with genuine scientific spirit, you should ‘attack’ those unscientific theories going around about homeopathy, but it should be done from the premise that ‘homeopathic cure’ is an OBJECTIVE TRUTH.


Scientific community always hesitates to accept any research reports about homeopathy, since they consider homeopathy as such is fundamentally antiscientific and implausible. Major reason for this hesitation is, homeopaths have been talking all sorts of nonsense theories about homeopathy. Nobody so far tried even to propose even a scientifically viable hypothesis regarding the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure and molecular mechanism involved in potentization. Everybody talks about ‘dynamic drug energy’ and ‘vital force’, which no scientific-minded human being can accept.

Homeopaths should prudently discard the totally unscientific and nonsense concepts of ‘vital force’ and ‘dynamic drug energy’ from the theoretical framework of homeopathy. Explain homeopathy using the paradigms of modern science. Propose a rational and scientific model for the biological mechanism for homeopathic cure. Explain and prove the molecular mechanism involved in potentization in a way fitting to the modern scientific knowledge system and its methods. Explain ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ using the concepts of biochemistry and modern life sciences.


All those various constituent molecules of drug substances of plant, mineral or animal origin, bacterial and viral products, and new generation sulphur-containing synthetic drug molecules having sulphur-containing functional groups have to be subjected to in-depth study of their chemical structure and biological roles. This is essential for understanding SULPHUR as a leading homeopathic drug.

Such a scientific study may enable us to understand how ‘constitutions’ of sulphur get evolved in individuals, as a cumulative result of genetic factors, environmental influences and life style, including food, drinks, bacterial or viral diseases and usage of medicinal substances.

A comparative study of symptomatology of sulphur with other drugs containing sulphur moieties like natrum sulph, hepar sulph, kali sulph, ars sulph, aethiops, cadmium sulph, calc sulph, carboneam sulph, chininum sulph, ferrum sulph, hydrast sulph, mag sulph, manganum sulph, merc suph, sulph Iod, scid sulph and zinc sulph, petroleum etc., will be much interesting and useful. All the similar symptom groups found in the symptomatologies of all these substances can be attributed to the suphur moieties contained in these drug molecules.

We have already seen that various viral and bacterial toxins contain sulphur functional groups. Such a study of the roles of ‘alien proteins’ in disease processes will reveal the real depth and gravity of the ‘miasm’ which Hannemaan called ‘psora’ in the whole human race. This study clearly shows how much important is the use of potentized sulphur as a constitutional ANTI-PSORIC medication for the protection of our health and vitality.

Suplhur is present in most of the food articles we consume. The same is the case with the drugs used by different medical systems in the treatment of diseases. Sulphur ions, sulphur-containing drugs and sulphur- containing bacterial and viral toxins can compete with the thiol groups of various natural ligands in our body such as enzymes and antibodies, in binding with their legitimate molecular targets, resulting in unwanted molecular blocks and pathological conditions. All these factors may contribute in building up constitutional states of sulphur in a large percentage of population, by creating diverse types of biochemical deviations in their organism.

Homeopathy, based on the principle of ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ uses potentized drugs, containing molecular imprints or ‘hydrosomes’ of drug molecules. Obviously, sulphur,which plays versatile roles in normal physiology and various states of pathology, will be the most important drug in potentized form in homeopathic therapeutics. As such, the title ‘the king of anti-psorics’ is not at all an exaggerated statement as far as sulphur is concerned.



According to Samuel Hahnemann, the ‘miasm’ of ‘psora’ is the main cause of chronic diseases. As per his interpretation, ‘psora’ is ‘suppressed itch’, which means, the chronic constitutional susceptibility to diseases, resulting from the suppression of ‘itch’ appearing on the surface of the skin. Homeopathic theory of ‘chronic diseases’ is built up on this fundamental concept of ‘psora’. He describes ‘psora’ as a hiding ‘multi-headed hydra’, which expresses its presence in the organism in the form of multitudes of chronic ailments with periodical acute exacerbations, persisting until death. Potentized sulphur is supposed to be a an antidote of this chronic miasm of ‘psora’, and hence the saying “ sulphur is the king of anti-psorics”.

ITCH is actually a clinical condition caused by bacteria which are transmitted by ‘mites’. It is interesting to observe at this point that toxins released by bacteria found in lesions of ‘itch’, are complex chemical molecules of protein nature, containing ‘sulphide’ radicals in their functional groups. The presence of sulphur-containing amino acid ‘cysteine’ in the bacterial proteins is responsible for this factor. During infection, bacterial toxins bind to various biological molecules in the organism using this ‘sulphide’ group as the ligands.

Antibodies against ITCH are formed in the infected body by a process of ‘molecular imprinting’ of certain class of protein molecules called globulins, with these bacterial toxins. Obviously, the antibodies are molecular imprints of these bacterial toxins, and contain three-dimensional complementary configurations of this ‘sulphide’ group on them. These molecular imprints can immunize the organism against further infections, by acting as neutralizing agents towards the bacterial molecules, and hence the name ‘antibodies’.

At the same time, these anti-bodies or molecular imprints can create unwanted molecular blocks in diverse biochemical channels in the organism, by binding themselves to various sulphide-containing bio-molecules, due to their configurational affinity towards sulphide groups. These molecular blocks and biochemical inhibitions arising there from are the real cause of chronic diseases that Hahnemann attributes to ‘miasm of ‘psora’.

We already know that the antibodies produced against bacterial skin infections or ‘itch’ may attack heart, kidney, brain, and other vital organs causing different types of diseases. Streptococcal and staphylococcal antibodies formed against acute throat and teeth infections may attack synovial membranes of joints, endocardial linings, and valvular structures of heart.

During drug proving, sulphur also binds to the same molecular targets as the bacterial toxins, and produces similar molecular deviations and similar symptoms. The similarity between certain symptom groups produced by these bacterial infections and the homeopathic provings of sulphur correlates with this observation.

Potentized sulphur, being molecular imprints of sulphur molecules in alcohol-water medium, can act in the same way as ‘itch’ antibodies and deactivate bacterial toxins having sulphur-containing functional groups. Here we get the scientific explanation for the observation of Hahnemann that potentised sulphur is the most important antipsoric medicine, ‘The King of Antipsorics’.

During drug proving, ionized sulphur may also compete with sulphide radicals of various biological protein molecules, thereby preventing their normal biochemical interactions. It is already known that the amino acid called ‘cysteine’, containing ‘sulphide’ groups, play an important role in almost all molecular interactions in the organism, especially involving protein molecules of enzymatic functions. This may be the reason for the appearance of so many symptom groups, involving almost every biochemical channels of the body, in the homeopathic proving of sulphur.

Potentized sulphur, being molecular imprints with three-dimensional complementary configuration of sulphur, can neutralize the sulphide groups of bacterial toxins, by binding to them. More over, molecular imprints of sulphur can compete with the bacterial antibodies, in their interactions with biological molecules, and act as a most powerful ‘anti psoric’ drug. As crude drugs also, sulphur exhibits an anti bacterial and antifungal action, by the competitive relationship of sulphur ions with sulphide groups of such proteins.

A few words about the homeopathic nosodes such as ‘psorinum’, ‘tuberculinum’, ‘streptococcin’, etc. will be relevant here. These nosodes in the potentized form contain molecular imprints of antibodies themselves, formed in the organism against bacterial toxins. Hence, these potentized nosodes will be more useful in treating the chronic miasmatic effects of itch and other bacterial infections, whereas potentized suphur will be appropriate to deal with the direct bacterial infections and bacterial toxins themselves. Hahnnemann also has observed that potentized ‘psorinum’ is more appropriate antipsoric in the treatment of chronic diseases, where as potentized ‘sulphur’ will be ideal for acute complaints of ‘psora’.


I think sulphur should be a universal constituent of our prescription plans. Giving sulphur 30 in occasional doses over and above other indicated remedies will be very much helpful in ensuring perfect cure in acute as well as chronic diseases.

‘Thiol’ functional groups containing sulphur are part of active sites and binding sites of most of the biological molecules such as antibodies, enzymes andreceptors. Many drugs substances of animal and vegetable origin also contain suphur ‘functional groups’. A wide range of infectious agents such as bacteria and viruses produce diseases by binding to biological molecules using their sulphur moieties. Many of our food articles also contain various molecules having functional groups with sulphur as their essential parts.

Food articles, infectious agents, environmental pollutants and drug substances having sulphur-containing functional groups may competitively bind to various essential biological molecules in the organism and produce molecular inhibitions. Most of us will have some or other molecular errors in us caused by ‘sulphur-containing’ functional groups. As such some of the sulphur symptoms will be present in almost all individuals. That means, sulphur is at least partially indicated in majority of human beings. For ensuring a ‘total cure’, we have to remove the molecular blocks caused by sulphur-containing functional groups by using potentized sulphur, over and above other indicated drugs.

Therefore, I would suggest to use occasional doses of sulphur 30 to all patients along with other indicated drugs, so that a complete, long-lasting ‘total cure’ can be ensured to our patients.


Your teachers talk a lot about ‘miasms’, ‘miasmatic diseases’ and ‘anti-miasmatic treatments’. Right?

Did you ever ask them, or they tell you, anything about the molecular level factors that act as miasms, or the biological mechanism by which they cause diseases, and how exactly the anti-miasmatic drugs cure those diseases?

Please ask them. If the phenomenon known as ‘miasms’ is real, there should be a molecular level biological process behind it. Ask your teachers to explain miasms using the language of modern science, instead of lecturing like ‘dark age philosophers’ about some mysterious “immaterial and spirit-like dynamic forces” that act as miasms.


Can anybody cite an instance of ‘vital force’ existing in the absence of complex biological molecules and their interactions? NEVER! Can anybody convert or “animate” a NONLIVING body without biological molecules into a LIVING ORGANISM by transferring some ‘vital force’ into it? NEVER! It is obvious that what we call ‘vital force’ is actually a property of CHEMICAL INTERACTIONS OF COMPLEX BIOLOGICAL MOLECULES. Once those INTERACTIONS stop, there is no ‘vital force’!


Dear sir, with out any idea about WHAT is actually contained in our potentized drugs and HOW they act upon our body, how can you teach RATIONALLY about selection of potency, quantity, doses, repetition, antidoting and such things?


A lot of seminars are being conducted around the world these days to teach ‘how’ to practice homeopathy, but nobody is bothered to ask the essential fundamental questions involved in homeopathy.

Nobody teaches ‘what happens during potentization by which the medicinal properties of drug substances are transferred to the potentizing medium without a single drug molecule being present in it’.

Nobody teaches ‘what are the active principles of potentized drugs’.

Nobody teaches ‘what is the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure’.

Nobody teaches ‘similia similibus curentur’ in a way fitting to modern scientific knowledge system.

Our teachers feign deaf and dumb when any body raises these questions to them. They pretend as if these questions are unnecessary and irrelevant. According to them, such questions will mislead homeopaths.

Without any idea about these fundamental questions, what are you actually ‘teaching’, sir?



Who? – the patient, his age, sex, constitution, dispositions

What? – the complaints, sensations, appearance, presentations, discharges etc.

Where? – the location, sides or organs that are affected

Why? – causation of complaints.

When? – time of appearance; time of aggravation and amelioration, the sequence of events etc.

How? – the conditions of aggravations, ameliorations and modalities

With? – concomitants, accessories, extensions, alternations etc.

This is the ‘W6+H’ Formula of Case Taking.


Once you understand and accept MIT explanations of homeopathy, you will realize that there is nothing unscientific, pseudoscientific, ‘ultra-scientific’ or ‘fringe-scientific’ about homeopathy. Homeopathy now fits well into the frame works, methods and paradigms of modern scientific knowledge system.


Dear homeopath, you cannot become a ‘physician’ worthy of that prestigious title in this era of scientific awareness, if you are not willing to abandon the superstitious beliefs you were so far taught as homeopathy, and embrace the ever-advancing modern scientific knowledge system with homeopathy only as a specialized area of its rational application.


If you do not know WHAT are the active principles contained in the potentized drugs you use, or HOW they really act up on the body, how can you rationally say a certain potency is better than another? I know you will say, “by experience”. ‘Experience’ of an individual is not a scientifically viable proof for anything, until the ‘experience’ could be scientifically explained and persistently reproduced. Otherwise, your ‘experiences’ are no way more reliable than that of those five blind men of the proverbial fable who ‘experienced’ an elephant in five different ways!


All those ‘laws’ we are taught regarding potency, dose, repetition, aggravations and drug relationships are based on the superstitious concept that ‘active principles’ of potentized drugs are ‘dynamic drug energy’ that act upon the ‘vital force’ and produce curative effect.

Whatever I say about potency, dose, repetition, aggravations and drug relationships are based on the scientific concept that ‘active principles’ of potentized drugs are ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules, that act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity, and produce a curative effect by removing pathological molecular inhibitions.

Obviously, my views are basically different from the views of ‘conventional’ homeopaths. That is quite natural. It is the difference between science and superstition.


With all my respects to all SENIOR HOMEOPATHS AND TEACHERS, and honoring their wonderful contributions to homeopathy as great teachers and physicians, I would humbly request them to share their views here regarding following fundamental questions about homeopathy:

1. What exactly happens during potentization, by which the medicinal properties of drug substances are transferred to the potentizing medium even without a single drug molecule remaining it?

2. How potentization changes the biological properties of a mixture of ethyl alcohol and water without changing its chemical structure or properties?

3. What are the active principles of potentized drugs?

4. What is the molecular level biological mechanism by which potentized drugs act upon the body and produce a curative effect?

5. Why a potentized drug has properties exactly opposite to its crude form, so that it acts as an antidote to the biological actions of same drug or similar drugs in crude form?

6. How would you explain the actions of potentized drugs upon in vitro biological samples devoid of any ‘vital force’, as shown by published scientific experiments?

7. Can you provide a rational and scientific explanation for the homeopathic therapeutic principle ‘similia similibus curentur’?


What ever ‘hypothesis’ anybody proposes to explain homeopathy, it is not worthy of serious consideration,

a) if it does not provide a rational explanation regarding what exactly happens during potentization, by which the medicinal properties of drug substances are transferred to the potentizing medium even without a single drug molecule remaining it,

b) if it does not rationally and scientifically explain how potentization changes the biological properties of a mixture of ethyl alcohol and water without changing its chemical structure or properties,

c) if it does not rationally and scientifically explain what are the active principles of potentized drugs,

d) if it does not propose a rational model for molecular level biological mechanism by which potentized drugs act upon the body and produce a curative effect, in a way fitting to the principles and paradigms of modern scientific knowledge system,

e) if it does not rationally and scientifically explain why a potentized drug has properties exactly opposite to its crude form, so that it acts as an antidote to the biological actions of same drug or similar drugs in crude form,

f) if it does not answer the question how potentized drugs are proved to act upon in vitro biological samples devoid of any ‘vital force’, as shown by published scientific experiments,

g) if it does not help to provide a rational explanation for the homeopathic therapeutic principle ‘similia similibus curentur’.


How can the medicinal properties of a drug substance be transferred to a medium consisting of only water and ethyl alcohol, without even a single drug molecule remaining in it? It is the fundamental question involved in understanding potentization, and homeopathy at large. Only possible answer that is rational and scientific is ‘molecular imprinting’. If you fail to understand the process of molecular imprinting involved in potentization, you cannot understand the scientific explanations regarding the biological mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics.


Can anybody tell me about any ‘model for biological mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics’ that is more rational and fitting to the modern scientific knowledge system than the one that is proposed by MIT? I am ready to consider.


For the larger interests of scientific advancement of our system, I would request all leading homeopaths, academicians, authorities, teachers and spokespersons of homeopathy around the world to try to understand what is MIT EXPLANATION OF HOMEOPATHY, and come forward with their opinions about it. Kindly shed off your egos, prejudices and narrow interests. MIT is the common property of homeopathic community, since it represents only a new stage in the natural evolution of homeopathy. MIT is nobody’s invention- I have no any personal ownership, right or interest over it.


What are the details a homeopath should ‘take note of’ in a patient during CASE TAKING?

Carefully read Organon Sixth Edition Aphorism 6:

“The unprejudiced observer – well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience – be his powers of penetration ever so great, takes note of note of nothing in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses; that is to say, he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease.”

In this aphorism, hahnemann asks to “take note of nothing” in the patient except the “changes in the health of the body and of the mind”. l Hahnemann did not advice to take note of the ‘constitution’ of the patient- but only the “morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms which can be perceived externally by means of the senses”.

Master clarifies: “only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician”. And, “these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent”, “they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease.”

That means, only DISEASE SYMPTOMS have to be “taken note of”. Only the “deviations!. Only “changes in the health of the body and of the mind”! Only what represent “morbid phenomena”! Only “symptoms which can be perceived externally by means of the senses”! Not his constitution or personality!

That is why I always say only ABNORMAL SYMPTOMS should be taken into consideration for selecting similimum, since only they represent the “deviation from health”.

And remember, “symptoms which can be perceived externally by means of the senses” inevitably include what we can perceive through ‘extended senses’ or modern diagnostic equipment and laboratory investigations.


Is there any difference between CRAVINGS and DESIRES in repertorial language? If ‘YES’, How would you differentiate them from a patient’s narrations during case taking?


[Boericke]Stomach : APPETITE : Perverted : Cravings (pica) : Salt:- Calc., Carb-v., Caust., Con., Med., Nat-m., Nit-ac., Phos., Sulph., Verat.

[Kent]Stomach : DESIRES : Salt things:- Aloe., Arg-n., Atro., Calc., Calc-p., Calc-s., Carb-v., Caust., Cocc., Con., Cor-r., Lac-c., Lyss., Manc., Med., Meph., Merc-i-f., Merc-i-r., Nat-m., Nit-ac., Phos., Plb., Sanic., Sel., Sulph., Tarent., Teucr., Thuj., Tub., Verat.

Following ‘salt desiring’ drugs contained in KENT are missing in BOERICKE:

Aloe., Arg-n., Atro., Calc-p., Calc-s., Cocc., Cor-r., Lac-c., Lyss., Manc., Meph., Merc-i-f., Merc-i-r., Plb., Sanic., Sel., Tarent., Teucr., Thuj., Tub.,

Kent and boericke [Combined] Salt, desire, craving:

[Kent]Stomach : DESIRES : Salt things:- Aloe., Arg-n., Atro., Calc., Calc-p., Calc-s., Carb-v., Caust., Cocc., Con., Cor-r., Lac-c., Lyss., Manc., Med., Meph., Merc-i-f., Merc-i-r., Nat-m., Nit-ac., Phos., Plb., Sanic., Sel., Sulph., Tarent., Teucr., Thuj., Tub., Verat.

Which rubric you will use for CRAVING SALT, and DESIRE SALT?

In order to resolve this confusion, I use to collect all SIMILAR RUBRICS from various repertories, and then combine them to make a SINGLE RUBRIC during repertorization. That is why I decided to incorporate a special ‘COMBINE RUBRICS’ tool for this purpose in Similimum Ultra- Homeopathic Software


The greatest hindrance to the scientific advancement of homeopathy are those people considered to be ‘masters’, ‘experts’, ‘gurus’ , leaders’, ‘representatives’ and ‘authorities’ of homeopathy, who lack even the minimum level of knowledge in modern science. They consider themselves as ‘know-alls’, and declare everything beyond their range of comprehension as ‘anti-homeopathic’. They are vehemently supported by people of same genre, who constitute the ‘majority’ of homeopathic community. Reason why they oppose MIT is very obvious and simple- they cannot understand MIT!


Constituent chemical molecules of a drug substance interact with our body by binding their diverse types of ‘functional groups’ or ‘moieties’ with specific biological target molecules in our organism and modifying their actions. This interaction is determined by conformational as well as charge affinities between those functional groups and biological target molecules.

Different types of ‘functional groups’ of individual molecules contained in a drug substance bind to different biological target molecules, and produce different types of modifications. It is this ‘modifying’ or ‘inhibitory’ actions that produce molecular states of ‘drug diseas’ during drug proving, which are expressed through diverse types of subjective and objective symptoms.

Similar functional groups being part of different drug molecules of even different drug substances can bind to same target molecules and produce similar bio-molecular modifications and similar symptoms.

When a drug molecule has functional groups or moieties similar to those of a pathogenic molecule, they can attack same biological targets, and symptoms they produce also would be similar. In such a situation, the drug molecule is said to be ‘similimum’ to that pathogenic molecule.

Obviously, according to scientific perspective, we should understand the concept of ‘similimum’ in terms of similarity of ‘functional groups’ or ‘moieties’ of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules.


Diseases, other than those originating from genuine ‘primary’ nutritional deficiencies and genetic abnormalities, are caused by diverse types of exogenous or endogenous pathogenic molecules inhibiting the normal functioning of essential biological molecules by binding to them. Exactly, it is the ‘functional groups’ of pathogenic molecules that bind to biological molecules and produce pathological inhibitions, which are expressed through subjective and objective symptoms we call as ‘symptoms’.


MIT has succeeded in rationally explaining the scientific meaning of ‘similia similibus curentur’, and has provided scientifically viable answers for the THREE fundamental questions of homeopathy- a) what happens during potentization, b) what are the active principles of potentized drugs, and c) what is the exact molecular mechanism by which potentized drugs produce a therapeutic effect.

Answers to all other secondary questions could be easily evolved once you comprehend these fundamental answers.


Potentization is exactly a process of ‘host-guest’ interactions, by which the three-dimensional configuration of ‘functional groups’ of individual constituent molecules of drug substances (guest) are imprinted into a hydrogen-bonded supra-molecular matrix of water-ethyl alcohol molecules (host) as ‘nanocavities’.

These nanocavities or ‘molecular imprints’ can bind to and deactivate any functional group having configuration similar to that of original ‘host’ molecule imprinted into it. As such, a potentized drug can act as biological antidote towards any pathological molecule, if the drug and disease were capable of producing ‘similar’ symptoms, which actually mean, they contain similar ‘functional groups’.

Author: Chandran Nambiar K C

I am Chandran Nambiar K C Author, REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY Managing Director, Fedarin Mialbs Private Limited Developer. SIMILIMUM ULTRA Homeopathic Software I am not a scientist, academician, scholar, professional homeopath or anybody with 'big credentials', but an old lay man, a retired government servant, who accidentally happened to fall into the deep waters of the great ocean of homeopathic knowledge during his fiery teenage years, and was destined to live a whole life exploring the mysteries of that wonderful world with unending enthusiasm. My interest in homeopathy happened very accidentally when I was only 20 years old UNDERGRADUATE ZOOLOGY student, through a constant relationship with a local practitioner who happened to be father of my classmate. I was a regular visitor in his clinic, where from I started reading BOERICKE MATERIA MEDICA and other homeopathic books, which helped me to cure myself my troublesome asthma that have been haunting me since my childhood days. I became a voracious reader of homeopathy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: