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

What I am opposing is the practice of modern medicine by people who are not qualified in it. A ‘bhms’ holder is not qualified or authorized to practice allopathy. They should advice their patients to consult another homeopath or a qualified modern physician, whenever they feel they cannot handle the situation with homeopathy- instead of resorting to quackery.


A ‘bhms’ holder asking for ‘permission to practice allopathy’ is a very ‘bad homeopath’ indeed- not even deserving to be called a ‘homeopath’ in the noble sense of the word. He gravely discredits and humiliates homeopathy. Homeopathy community should feel ashamed of him.


If you wanted to practice allopathy, why should you join a ‘homeopathic’ medical college, and get a BHMS degree? Go and join an ‘allopathic’ medical college, get an MBBS degree and practice as you like- nobody will question you.


Let those qualified in modern medicine practice modern medicine. Homeopaths are legally, ethically and philosophically not permitted to practice modern medicine. They should practice ONLY homeopathy.

As a medical system Homeopathy is qualitatively much superior and basically different from modern medicine, if homeopaths approaches it scientifically.


Some parents dream and groom their children to make ‘doctors’, which is seen as a good ‘money-making’ profession with high social status. But the child fails to get appropriate ranking in entrance exams, and do not get admission to MBBS course. Parents could not invest lakhs to ‘buy’ an MBBS seat for their child. Finally, cursing his parents and his fate, he is enrolled for BHMS course to get at least a ‘doctor’ label. He ‘studies’ homeopathy with indignation, reluctance and inferiority complex. He never loves his homeopathy lessons. For him homeopathy is like a hard dry coconut, and do not know how to dehull it and relish its sweet inner kernel. Some how he comes out of college after completing the course with a BHMS degree. He is never a HOMEOPATH in his hearts. He wants to make some money any how, by practicing allopathy. Such ‘misplaced’ homeopaths are making all these noises in the name of “permitting homeopaths to practice allopathy”! Poor guys!


When you start perceiving potentized drugs in terms of diverse types of hydrosomes or ‘molecular imprints’ as the ‘active principles’ they contain, you will realize that all controversies over ‘monopharmacy/polypharmacy’ issue become totally irrelevant.

SIMILIMUM essentially means a drug substance that can provide the specific molecular imprints required to remove the particular molecular errors that caused the particular disease condition in the particular patient.

Since ‘multiple’ molecular errors exist in any patient in a particular point of time, expressed through ‘multiple’ groups of symptoms, he will inevitably need ‘multiple’ molecular imprints to remove them. If potentized form of a ‘single’ medicinal substance can provide all those ‘multiple’ molecular imprints, that ‘single’ drug substance will be enough. If we could not find a ‘single’ drug substance that contain ‘all’ the ‘multiple’ molecular imprints required by the patient as indicated by the ‘symptom groups’, we will have to include ‘multiple’ drug substances in our prescription. It is the constituent molecular imprints contained in our particular prescription that matter.

Important point is, we have to ensure that our prescription supplies ALL the diverse types of molecular imprints required to deactivate all the diverse types of pathogenic molecules working in the patient, as indicated by the diverse groups of subjective and objective symptoms expressed by him. If we could find a SINGLE drug preparation that could supply all the molecular imprints required by the patient I am dealing with, we can use that SINGLE drug preparation only. If we do not find such a single drug, we have to include as many number of drug preparations as required, in order to provide all the molecular imprints needed to remove all the molecular errors in the patient.

SINGLE/MULTIPLE drug controversy never bothers if we understand this scientific approach proposed by MIT, as we start thinking in terms of molecular imprints- not drug names. Actually, a drug become ‘single’, if it contains ‘single’ type of molecular imprints only. IF a drug contains more than one type of molecular imprints, it is a COMPOUND DRUG, even if it is known by a ‘single’ drug name, prepared from a ‘single’ SOURCE material, kept in a ‘single’ bottle, consumed as a ‘single’ unit for ‘drug proving’, or considered by ‘masters’ as ‘single’ drug.


When we consume NUX VOMICA Q, it is absorbed into the blood as various individual chemical molecules contained in it. It is these individual chemical molecules that interact with various biological molecules. Different molecules act up on different biological targets according to the molecular affinities of their functional groups. Biological molecules are inhibited, resulting in errors in the biochemical pathways mediated by those biological molecules. Such molecular level errors in biological processes cascades into a series of molecular errors, which are expressed through various groups of subjective and objective symptoms.

It is obvious that what we consider as the SYMPTOMS OF NUX VOMICA are actually the sum total of different SYMPTOM GROUPS, representing entirely different molecular errors produced in entirely different biological molecules, by the actions of entirely different chemical molecules contained in NUX VOMICA TINCTURE.

We have to remember, there is no such a thing called nux vomica molecule- only individual chemical molecules contained in nux vomica tincture. Each constituent molecule has its own specific chemical structure and properties. They act on different biological targets by this chemical properties.

Each individual chemical molecule contained in nux vomica acts as an individual drug. That means, NUX VOMICA is not a SINGLE drug, but a COMPOUND drug.

Homeopaths may find it difficult to accept this fact, as it contradicts with their beliefs as well as the lessons they are taught. But it is the scientific fact.


From scientific point of view of pharmaceutical chemistry, a DRUG is a biologically active unit contained in a substance used as therapeutic agent.

IT is the structure and properties of that chemical molecule that decides its medicinal properties and therapeutic actions. If such as substance contains only ONE type of biologically active unit, it is a SINGLE drug. If it contains different types of biologically active units, it is a COMPOUND drug.

It is obvious that most of the drugs we use in homeopathy – especially drugs of biological origin and complex minerals- contain diverse types of biologically active units, and hence they cannot be considered SINGLE drugs.

Molecular imprinting happens as individual molecules, and as such, potentized drugs prepared from a SINGLE drug substance will contain diverse types of molecular imprints representing the diverse types of individual constituent molecules contained in the substance. Those molecular imprints also act as individual units when applied in the organism. Hence, potentized drugs prepared by using a complex, seemingly single drug substance is actually a COMPOUND drug, containing diverse types of biologically active units, or ‘MOLECULAR IMPRINTS’.

IF you still cannot realize the meaninglessness and utter folly involved in talking about SINGLE DRUGS, it is the blindness caused by your dogmatic learning and lack of scientific awareness. I cannot help you for that!


I am here only to share my ideas and get creative feedbacks that will help to make my ideas more perfect. You may agree or disagree. Creative suggestions, queries, disagreements, and topic-specific criticisms are welcome- only if the language is polite and decent. No abuses, humiliations or personal attacks allowed.

I am not available for ‘street-fighting’ here. If anybody makes personal comments or abusive posts here, they will be instantly blocked.


A lot of my young ‘bhms’ friends- especially from maharashtra- have turned fiery foes by a single day, due to my posts on allopathy practice. Seems they are more concerned about allopathy practice than homeopathy practice. I can understand their problem- they have miserably failed to earn a living by practicing homeopathy, due to the low quality education and training they got. Sorry friends, I cannot change my views on this topic, how much you abuse me.

If homeopaths start prescribing allopathy drugs, it will be the end of homeopathy.


No scientific research could be done without evolving a viable ‘working hypothesis’ as the starting point of that research. MIT HYPOTHESIS is the basis of my research works in homeopathy.

Homeopaths falsely claim all their fanciful ideas and explanations to be ‘theories’ and ‘hypotheses’. Scientifically, the term ‘hypothesis’ means a ‘proposed explanation’ or “educated guess” for a phenomenon that we observe around us. Every ‘proposed explanation’ cannot be considered a ‘scientific hypothesis’. To be a ‘scientific hypothesis’, the scientific method requires that one can test the hypothesis using available scientific tools and methodology. Every new scientific hypotheses are generally based on previous observations that could not be satisfactorily be explained with the existing scientific theories. The words “hypothesis” and “theory” are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, even though a ‘scientific hypothesis’ is not exactly the same as ‘a scientific theory’. A hypothesis should be proved ‘using scientific tools’ in order to become a scientific theory.

A ‘working hypothesis’ is a provisionally accepted hypothesis that is ready to be proved. Experimenters will have to test and reject several hypotheses before solving the given problem ultimately. Testability (using existing scientific tools), Simplicity (avoiding excessive numbers of entities), Scope (apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena), Fruitfulness (hypothesis may help to explain further phenomena in the future), and Conservatism (fitting with existing recognized knowledge-systems) are considered to be the essential qualities of a good scientific ‘working’ hypothesis.

Viewing from this standpoint, it is very much clear that most of the presently existing most celebrated ‘theories’ regarding homeopathy cannot be even considered as ‘scientific hypotheses’ since they contain concepts and conclusions that ‘could not be tested by any scientist using currently available scientific tools and methodology’ or do not ‘fit with existing recognized knowledge-systems’.

When attempting to provide a scientific explanation to homeopathy, first we have to propose a ‘scientific hypotheses’. That means, a hypothesis that ‘could be tested by any scientist using currently available scientific tools and methodology’ and that ‘fits with existing recognized knowledge-systems’.

Such a ‘working hypothesis’, over and above the aforesaid qualifications, should also be immediately useful to the practitioner, because homeopathy is a therapeutic art of practical implications. Besides lending the essential scientific credibility to the homeopathic paradigm, any hypothesis we propose should try to meet some practical utility criteria as a minimum requirement.

There are already many imaginative and ‘scientific’ ‘theories’ going around that seek to explain everything about homeopathy but fail to predict or offer anything of relevance. If a hypothesis fail to predict some relevant practical outcomes, then it becomes scientifically untestable, and therefore, unusable in practice.

Assumptions being proposed by a scientific hypothesis should be simple, testable and their numbers should be held to a minimum. The assumptions should also reflect the basic experience that is already generally held to be known.

Any working hypothesis about homeopathy should clearly identify a ‘biological mechanism’ that represents the action-reaction homeostasis of ‘vital processes’, and explain the molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics on that basis, instead of the unscientific ‘vital force’ theory in homeopathy. Such an explanation should be fitting to the verified scientific paradigm of modern biochemistry and molecular biology.

Once a ‘working hypothesis’ is proposed, there is much more research to be done before that is accepted as a ‘scientific theory’. The hypothesis needs to offer predictions that can be repeatedly and conclusively proved or disproved in the laboratory and in the clinic with out any bias.


INTEGRATED MEDICINE does not mean qualified homeopath prescribing allopathy medicines to his patients. Integration means qualified modern physicians and qualified homeopaths interacting, sharing their views and co-operating in treating the patients and managing their cases.


If anybody has any notion that they can silence me by insulting me, calling me “quack”, or questioning my ‘credentials’, sorry to say they are living in fool’s paradise. No criticisms or humiliating attacks can weaken me, silence me or change my views. I will continue to talk what I think right, criticize what I think wrong. I will carry on with my MIT mission till my last breath. My ‘heart’ is made of pure steel- nothing can break it. Future history of homeopathy will prove my ‘credentials’ and ‘qualifications’ in terms of my contributions, which will prove much much higher and valuable than those of my ‘learned’ critics.


What should we understand when a homeopath working in an allopathic hospital says “I speak not as a homeopath or allopath..I speak as a doctor registered in CCH and recognized by govt of India”, “as a doctor, I practice for the patient not for the “pathy” and “a homoeopath practicing allopathy is not quack but he is simply doing so to avoid crisis”?

If by becoming a “doctor” you can practice homeopathy, allopathy or any other “pathy” as you wish irrespective of the degree you possess, why should there be different degrees, different institutions, different medical councils and different laws? Is it not enough to have only a ‘doctor degree’ and ‘doctor registration’?


A successful and self-confident homeopath will never have to even think about practicing allopathy. Such thoughts come when he realizes that he has miserably failed in understanding and applying homeopathy. In such a situation, ‘money’ comes above ‘pathy’.


As a system of therapeutics, homeopathy is much superior to all other medical systems, in spite of the fact that it is not yet scientifically well-explained how it works. It becomes “inferior” only when homeopaths practice allopathy, since they do it due to their failure in understanding and applying homeopathy!


If you are a genuine “homeopath cum allopath” having qualifications in both systems, it is a very good thing.

A homeopath with an additional degree in modern medicine can make great contributions in the scientific advancement of homeopathy, as he will have better knowledge in modern biochemistry, molecular biology and pharmacology. Only thing is, he should have homeopathy in his heart as his FIRST love.

If you are only a qualified homeopath doing allopathy practice without any qualification in it, it is the worst thing we can imagine. It is the ulterior form of quackery.

If you are dissatisfied with homeopathy and want to practice allopathy, only way is to get an mbbs degree as well, and then start allopathy practice.


All ‘scientific-minded’ students usually get a little frustrated by the ‘unscientific’ lessons they are taught in homeopathic colleges for five years. Some of them may want switch over to allopathy and try to get an mbbs degree. If they were taught MIT also in colleges, such a frustration could have been avoided.


Homeopathy exists not due to “faith” of anybody, but due to the RESULTS it produce, even if the homeopaths do not know HOW such results are really produced. It is the OBJECTIVE TRUTH of homeopathy that works- not the UNSCIENTIFIC theories homeopaths talk.


If a physician qualified in modern medicine desires to study homeopathy and convert to homeopathy practice, homeopathic community should whole-heartedly welcome and encourage that move, since it indicates a victory of homeopathy over allopathy.

If a physician qualified in homeopathy desires to convert to allopathy practice, it indicates a failure of that particular individual as a homeopath. It is retrograde step, which is deplorable and unwelcome. It is an insult to homeopathy.


There are some homeopaths who “support” and “agree” with MIT to a “certain extent”, and have only “minor disagreements”. One lady homeopath told me she is a “fan of MIT”, and then proposed some “minor” ammendments regarding the biological mechanism of cure, by way of incorporating some “energy resonance” into it!

They are happy to “agree” with the concept of “molecular imprints”, and then very cleverly try to fit it into their “energy medicine”concepts. They have only “minor” disagreements!

They want to make theories that molecular imptints “carry the medicinal energy of drug substances, which are transmitted to the body, and cures by resonating with the the energy field of the individual”.

I want to reiterate:

1. According to MIT, ‘molecular imprints are hydrogen-bonded supramolecular formations of water-ethyl alcohol molecules, into which the spacial conformations of individual drug molecules are engraved as three-dimensional nanocavities, through a process of ‘host-guest’ interactions between drug molecules and water-ethyl alcohol molecules.’

This observation explains the MIT answer to the question ‘what are the active priciples of high potency homeopathic drugs’.

2. According to MIT, ‘molecular imprints can act as specific artificial binding sites, and deactivate the pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity, thereby relieving the biological molecules from pathological molecular inhibitions.’

This observation explains MIT answer to the question ‘what is the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure’.

MIT consists of these wo essential observations, which form the theoretical basis of this scientific hypothesis. They cannot be ‘ammended’ by separating one from the other as per your convenience to make it fitting to some other ‘theories’ you promote. If you do so, it has nothing to do with MIT. You cannot “support MIT” partially. If you disagree with any one of these two fundamental observations, that means you disagree with MIT in toto- “100 percent”.


Our search to resolve the mysteries of homeopathic potentization inevitably leads us to the study of the wonderful physical and chemical properties of water and alcohol, which constitute the medium used to prepare the ultra dilute preparations. The answers to our questions lie in the wonderful physico–chemical properties of water, arising from its peculiar supra-molecular structure. Water is a solvent with higher polarity than similar liquids. H–O–H have bond angle of 105 degrees. That means, water molecule is a dipole. Because of this peculiarity, water molecules can exist like a supra-molecular network by forming hydrogen bonds between themselves. A minimum number of five water molecules will be contained in this network. Such five-molecule formations are called ‘pentamers’. Most of the wonderful properties of water arise from this capacity of peculiar hydrogen bonding and supra-molecular formations.

Water molecules(H2O) are symmetric (point group C2ν), with two mirror planes of symmetry and a 2-fold rotation axis. The hydrogen atoms in this molecule may possess parallel or anti-parallel nuclear spin. The water molecule consists of two light hydrogen atoms(H) and a relatively heavy oxygen atom(O). The approximately 16-fold difference in mass between hydrogen and oxygen gives ease of rotation, and the significant relative movements of the hydrogen nuclei, which are in constant and significant relative movement.

Although not often perceived as such, water is a very reactive molecule at a high concentration. This reactivity of water molecules, however, is greatly moderated at ambient temperatures due to the extensive hydrogen bonding between them. Water molecules possess a strongly nucleophilic oxygen atom that enables it for many of its biological functions, as well as ionizing to produce reactive hydrogen and hydroxide ions. Reduction of the hydrogen bonding at high temperatures, or due to electromagnetic fields, results in greater reactivity of the water molecules. ‘Magnetized’ water will be more reactive, with strange properties. Much experienced phenomenon of loss of medicinal properties of homeopathic potencies, when subjected to influence of magnetic fields and electrical fields could be well explained now. This also gives an indication to the role of hydrogen bonding in potentization.

Essentially, ‘hydrogen bonding’ is a special type of dipole force. It is a force of attraction formed between partially charged atoms being part of different molecules. The reason for this bonding is the partial positive charge attained by hydrogen. Hydrogen is capable of establishing similar bonds with the atoms of nitrogen, fluorine and oxygen. That is to say that the basis of hydrogen bonding is the attraction between one hydrogen atom which is part of a molecule which is attached to oxygen or nitrogen and oxygen or nitrogen which remains part of another molecule. This force is less powerful than the covalent bonds which keep the atoms inside molecule bound together. But it may be strange that these less powerful bonds are responsible for the wonderful physico–chemical properties and biological relevance of water.

In the ordinary liquid state, in spite of 80% of the electrons being engaged in bonding, the three atoms in water do not stay together, as the hydrogen atoms are constantly exchanged between water molecules due to protonation/deprotonation processes. Both acids and bases catalyze this exchange and even when at its slowest(at pH 7), the average time for the atoms in an H2O molecule to stay together is only about a millisecond. As this brief period is, however, much longer than the timescales encountered during investigations into water’s hydrogen bonding or hydration properties, water is usually treated as a permanent structure. But when water exist in its crystalline form, hydrogen atoms become more stable.

The presence of ethyl alcohol in water is considered as a factor reducing the rate of protonation/deprotonation processes, thereby enhancing the stability of hydration shells. Importance of using water-ethanol mixture for homeopathic potentization is self-explained here.

It has been already stated that hydrogen bond strength can also be affected by electromagnetic and magnetic effects.

Any factor, such as polarization, that reduces the hydrogen bond length, is expected to increase its covalency. There is still some dispute over the size of this co-valency, however any co-valency will increase the network stability relative to purely electrostatic effects. As hydrogen bond strength depends almost linearly on its length (shorter length giving stronger hydrogen bonding), it also depends almost linearly (outside extreme values) on the temperature and pressure .

It has to be verified whether the violent succussion and rotatory motion done during potentization procedure any how plays a role in polarization of molecules, thereby reducing the hydrogen bond lengths, and increasing the stability of hydration shells formed.

Hydrogen bonded chains (that is, O-H····O-H····O) are cooperative; the breakage of the first bond is the hardest, then the next one is weakened, and so on (see the cyclic water pentamer). Thus unzipping may occur with complex macromolecules held together by hydrogen bonding, for example, nucleic acids. Such co-operativity is a fundamental property of liquid water where hydrogen bonds are up to 250% stronger than the single hydrogen bond in the dimer . A strong base at the end of a chain may strengthen the bonding further.

At this stage we have to understand a few facts about Ethyl Alcohol(CH3- CH2 – OH ). The molecules of alcohol also have the dipole structure as water molecules. It is possible for them to establish mutual connection through hydrogen bonding. The molecular weight of alcohol molecule is 46. The molecular weight of water(H2O) is 18. That means that the number of water molecules contained in 18 gram of water and the number of alcohol molecules contained in 46 gram of ethyl alcohol are equal. When alcohol and water are thoroughly mixed alcohol molecules forms a network with water molecules through hydrogen bonds, The mobility of water molecules is restricted by the bonds established with alcohol molecules. Hence, hydration shells formed in alcohol–water mixture are comparatively more stable. The count of alcohol molecules and the count of water molecules contained in their mixture in 73:27 ratio will be equal. (73% w/w. alcohol and 27% w/w water) This mixture is known as (40 power spirit).

Medium used for homoeopathic potentization contains 87% w/w of alcohol and 13% w/w of water. In this ratio, the number of alcohol molecules will be about more than that of of water molecules. Such a ratio will be very suitable for the production of stable hydration shells. More over, the presence of ethyl alcohol in water is considered as a factor reducing the rate of protonation/deprotonation processes, thereby enhancing the stability of hydration shells. This may further explain the importance of water-ethyl alcohol mixture being used as the medium of homoeopathic potentization.

We know that water is a good solvent. Let us see what happens when foreign molecules are made to dissolve in water. If a foreign molecule, ion, or colloidal particle happens to enter the matrix of 3-dimensional dynamic network of water molecules, they are entrapped inside this network. Water molecules arrange themselves around the intruder or ‘guest’ in a peculiar way by the formation hydrogen bonds. These formations of water molecules around the ‘guest’ molecules are known as hydration shells. These hydration shells exist in a dynamic state, and are more or less unstable. The foreign molecules dissolved in water exist in a state of being entrapped inside these hydration shells as ‘guests’. This phenomenon can be seen both in ionic solutions and colloidal solutions. Obviously, hydration shells assume an internal spacial arrangement exactly fitting to the 3-dimensional spacial configuration of the foreign molecule entrapped in them. If we could devise some technique to remove the entrapped ‘guest’ molecules from these hydration shells, without disturbing the hydrogen bonds between the constituent water molecules, these hydration shells can still retain the molecular memory of the molecular configurations of the removed ‘guest’ molecules. This rarely studied phenomenon is known as ‘molecular memory of water’. Actual mechanism and forces underlying this phenomenon has to be investigated minutely by physical scientists. Minute changes occurring in the electron clouds of atoms of water molecules during the formation of hydration shells may be one factor responsible for this phenomenon.

It has been well proven that these hydration shells later show a peculiar capability to differentially recognize the original ‘guest’ molecules which were responsible for their formation. This may be due to the existence of some imprinted memory of those ‘guest’ molecules retained in the hydration shells. This imprinting of memory may be compared to formation of finger prints. As in the case of finger prints, configuration of these molecular imprints also will be a complementary negative of ‘guest’ molecules. These empty hydration shells, or supra-molecular formations of water subjected to molecular imprinting, may be called ‘hydrosomes’, which means, minute ‘nano-cavities of water’. Homeopathic process of potentization is essentially a crude method of preparing hydrosomes, prepared by using various drug molecules as ‘guests’. It should be specifically noted that the medium used for homeopathic potentisation is not pure water, but it is mixed with ethyl alcohol in a particular ratio. It may be inferred that the presence of comparatively heavy ethyl alcohol molecules in this mixture may be contributing to stabilization of ‘hydrosomes’, preventing their easy dissociation. The convergent forces of rotational movements to which the mixture is subjected as part of potentization, may also be a contributing factor in stabilizing the empty hydration shells by polarization and subsequent reduction of hydrogen bond lengths..

This peculiar configuration of hydrosomes are destroyed only when the energy level of water molecules are disturbed by the effect of heat, electricity, magnetism and other electromagnetic radiations. As stated earlier the hydration shells formed in pure water are comparatively unstable. Here lies the importance of the fact that homeopathic potencies are made using alcohol- water mixture.


If a layman or scientist says homeopathy does not work, I can understand his position, and will try by all means to convince him otherwise. Perhaps, I may succeed in that.

If a ‘homeopathy graduate’ says that he is not convinced homeopathy works, or that he still needs ‘evidence’ to believe homeopathy works, I will not argue with him, but simply delete him from my friends list- let him get lost, as it is a hopeless case.


I am here for sharing my ideas with those who are interested in it. I am posting only on my pages. If you are not interested, or if you disagree with my ideas, you can keep away from me. I will not come to disturb you.

If you want more explanations and clarifications on my ideas, I am always ready to deliver. If you are not satisfied with my explanations, you may leave me.

If you have a different idea to share, you may do it on your pages- not under my posts. If you want to prove I am wrong, you may do it on your pages.

I am not interested in arguments. I have nothing to prove through arguments. Nobody could be convinced of anything through arguments.


MIT is all about inquiring HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS. If you are not convinced that HOMEOPATHY WORKS, there is no point in discussing HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS.

When a ‘homeopathy graduate’ declares that “he is not convinced about homeopathy”, “there is no evidence to prove homeopathy works”, and that he is not “supporting or against homeopathy”, I am really baffled.

Homeopaths may have “confusions” regarding HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS. But a homeopath who has prescribed at least for 10 cases in his life will not have any doubt regarding whether homeopathy works or not!

Only options left to this type of “homeopathy graduates” are to fight the government for getting permission to practice allopathy, or seek some other jobs some where else, as this particular guy has done in ‘tata consultancy services’. Every body has to earn a living by any means!


I am always open to STUDIED criticisms. I do not welcome blind, sweeping, generalized ‘criticisms’, which are made without understanding what are the actual points I am trying to convey in my ‘hypothesis’.

In order to criticise an idea, first of all you have to understand it clearly. Otherwise you can make only generalised, sweeping criticism- without touching any actual points mentioned in the idea being criticised.

Why should you hurry to criticize MIT, until you clearly understand what exactly is MIT?


From scientific point of view, any crazy idea cannot be called “hypothesis”. To be called a “hypothesis”, a concept should explain an unexplained phenomenon ‘in terms of existing scientific knowledge’, and it should be ‘verifiable using existing scientific methods’.

In homeopathy, no ‘master’ or ‘guru’ so far proposed an idea that could be legitimately called a “hypothesis”. All of them are talking unscientific and ‘ultrascientific’ things that contradict all existing scientific knowledge, and which could never be verified by scientific methods.

For the first time in history, MIT has proposed an explanation for homeopathy that could be called a ‘scientific hypothesis’. It explains homeopathy using existing scientific knowledge, in a way that could be veified using scientifically defined ‘methods’.


You need extraordinary courage and will power to question yourselves the righteousness of what you have so far firmly beieved to be the only right things. It is the first step towards enlightenment.

Homeopaths should urgently aquire that courage and will power, if they really want to keep abreast with the revolutionary scientific advancement happening in homeopathy.


Only MIT can RATIONALLY answer the fundamental question “what is the active MATERIAL FACTOR of potentized drugs”, and propose a viable BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM for its therapeutic actions, in a way that could be subjected to validation by SCIENTIFIC METHODS.

Earlier the homeopathy community realize the importance and implications of MIT explanations of homeopathy, the better for our survival and advancement. If you fail to understand it, or hesitate by ulterior prejudices to accept it, homeopathy will be the ultimate loser.



Our self-proclaimed ‘gurus’, ‘lions’, ‘einsteins’, ‘living legends’ and all other learned ‘theoreticians’ of homeopathy should understand, by talking theories of ‘vital force’, ‘dynamic drug energy’, ‘electromagnetic drug signatures’, ‘biomagnetic field resonance’, ‘quantum entanglement’ , ‘spiritual healing’, ‘non-material drug power’ , ‘energy medicine’ and all those imaginative NONSENSE things, you are contributing nothing positive for scientific advancement of homeopathy. You are only making homeopathy more and more INCOMPATIBLE with modern scientific knowledge system. You are only ‘proving’ homeopathy is not worthy of any serious consideration as a SCIENTIFIC medical system. You are destroying homeopathy.


‘Homeopathy is energy medicine’- this theory is widely propagated world over by proponents of diverse colors of occult and pseudo-scientific practices destroying the scientific credentials of homeopathy. Some people go to the extend that ‘homeopathy is spiritual healing’! Most disturbing part of this story is that these people are considered the ‘international representatives’ and ‘spokespersons’ of homeopathy!

They propagate ‘vibration theory’, ‘bio-magnetism’,’wave theory’, ‘electro- magnetic radiations’, ‘frequencies’, ‘energy plasma’, ‘resonance theory’, ‘energy medicine’ and various other theories, pretending themselves to be ‘ultra-scientific’. They will talk a lot about ‘quantum theory’, which actually they do not understand!

They would discuss topics such as ‘how the electro-magnetic signals are produced’, ‘the basic background radiation’, and how ‘piezo-electricity is generated during potentization’.

These theoreticians promote occult practices in the label of homeopathy, such as hair transmission, telephone transmission, photo transmission, mp3 file transmission, telepathy, radionics, dowsing, spiritual homeopathy and such things.

Homeopathic community should say an emphatic “NO” to all these unscientific theories, which harm the scientific credentials and even the future existence of homeopathy by providing weapons to ‘anti-homeopathic’ skeptics to attack homeopathy.

Without abandoning these ‘ultra-science’ and ‘fringe-science’ ‘energy medicine’ theories, we cannot make homeopathy a medical science.


Few months back, a prominent lady homeopath from US came and posted an article on my page, explaining her dispensing methods. After exhaustive case taking and repertorization she selects a similimum. Then she writes the name of drug on a piece of paper and places on a table. Then she would place a glass of water on that paper and keep it there for 30 minutes to ‘potentize’ the water with medicinal energy. Then she would ask the patient to take this ‘energized’ water in teaspoon doses. She was practicing this ‘method’ for last 5 years with ‘miraculous results”!

I asked her in which language I should write on the paper, and whether abbreviation is enough. She got annoyed and started educating me regarding ‘fringe science’, ‘ultra-science’ and ‘energy medicine’. She used all sorts of scientific terms from quantum science to explain her theory, and told a lot about ‘unscientificness’ of modern science. It ended in a bitter encounter of words, and she quit cursing me!

You should know, this lady writes a lot of blogs about homeopathy, ‘defending’ homeopathy from the attacks of skeptics! She is very active on various homeopathic forums, and is considered a ‘prominent face’ of international homeopathy!

Without freeing homeopathy from the malignant influence of diverse shades of these ‘energy medicine’ theories and their highly influential international propagators, we cannot hope to establish homeopathy as a scientific medical practice.


THEORETICAL part of homeopathy is essentially the SUBJECTIVE explanation hahnemann provided for his OBJECTIVE observations regarding a peculiar kind of relationship between ‘drug symptoms and disease symptoms’, and the phenomenon of cure happening on the basis of that relationship. We should learn to differentiate between this ‘objective’ TRUTH and hahnemann’s ‘subjective’ THEORIES.


We should approach homeopathy not as merely ‘applying’ some ready-made “immutable theories”, but as a dialectical process of evolving and updating theories for ‘explaining’ what is being experienced and applied in objective situations.

Hahnemann developed homeopathy not by ‘making’ theories from his imaginations first, but by observing and experimenting real objective phenomena of nature, and then evolving theories to explain what he observed, in the light of scientific knowledge available to him during his time.


Dear Homeopath, try earnestly to understand MIT explanation of homeopathy. You will be a big loser, if you miss it, or fail to grasp it.


There are many homeopaths who talk most foolish irrational theories about homeopathy, but make excellent prescriptions that work. They try to make us believe that their successful prescriptions ‘prove’ the correctness of their theories. The fact is, if you prescribe a similimum for your patient, it will work, irrespective of the nonsense theories you talk. It is homeopathy that is working- not your ‘theories’.

What ever absurd ways the blind men described the elephant, it is there as it is- the real ELEPHANT.


Once you understand the concept of ‘molecular imprints’ as nanocavities that can bind to pathogenic molecules by conformational affinity, you will realize how simple it is to explain homeopathy in pure scientific terms and paradigms exactly similar to modern molecular medicine. No need of ‘dynamic energy’, no need of ‘vital force’, no need of ‘vibrations’ or ‘resonance’. No ‘riddles’ or ‘miracles’. You can now answer any hard questions about homeopathy, and face the critics with confidence.


You need extraordinary courage and will power to question yourselves the righteousness of what you have so far firmly beieved to be the only right things. It is the first step towards enlightenment.

Homeopaths should urgently aquire that courage and will power, if they really want to keep abreast with the revolutionary scientific advancement happening in homeopathy.


Potentized ‘biological ligands’- heralding a new revolution in homeopathy and modern molecular medicine:

Once modern biochemistry advances to such a stage of perfection that the molecular pathology and biochemical mechanisms of all diseases are explored and revealed to the homeopaths, and pharmaceutical chemistry advances to such a stage that the molecular structure and biological actions of all drug substances are clearly known, homeopathic practice will 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.

MIT opens up enormous scope of potentized forms of various biological ligands as powerful therapeutic agents that could be used in different kinds of acute and chronic diseases. Many diseases are caused by blocking of biological receptors by exogenous and endogenous pathogenic molecules. If we could remove those pathological blocks of receptors using appropriate molecular imprints of biological ligands such as hormones, metabolites, signalling molecules, neurotransmitters, cytokines etc, that would herald a great revolution in whole medical science and pharmaceutical research. I hope policy makers and people of authority would listen to this point, for the benefit of humanity.

For example, let us see how INSULIN 30 acts in certain cases of Type 2 Diabetes:

According to my view, molecular imprints of insulin will have conformational affinity to any pathogenic molecule that can bind to insulin receptors. As such, molecular imprints contained in insulin 30 can act as specific binding sites for pathogenic molecules that inhibit insulin receptors. By this action, insulin receptors are relieved of their inhibitions, thereby facilitating the normal interaction between insulin and insulin receptors. Positive effects of insulin 30 in type 2 diabetes could be rationally explained by this model. That means, insulin 30 will be effective only in cases where insulin production is not completely hindered, where diabetes is caused by inhibition of insulin receptors by some exogenous or endogenous pathogenic molecules.

We already know that most of the diseases are caused by endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules binding to various essential biological molecules such as enzymes and receptors, and inhibiting their normal functioning.

When biological molecules are inhibited, they are prevented from interacting with their natural ligands, where as such interactions are essential for normal vital processes.
Pathogenic molecules block the biological molecules by binding to the binding sites or active sites. This happens when the functional groups of pathogenic molecules are similar in conformation to those of natural ligands.

From homeopathic point of view, it is obvious that natural ligands of biological molecules will be the most appropriate similimum for the pathogenic molecules that may inhibit those biological molecules. That means, molecular imprints of biological ligands will be capable of binding to the pathogenic molecules that may attack those biological molecules. As such, it is possible that potentized biological ligands could be used as powerful therapeutic agents in various kinds of diseases.

This understanding opens up possibilities of developing a whole new range of novel potentized homeopathic drugs from BIOLOGICAL LIGANDS, that could be used as specific therapeutic agents on the basis of advanced knowledge of biochemistry and molecular pathology.

Here I am for the first time introducing an idea of revolutionary dimensions, not only for homeopathy, but for whole medical science and pharmaceutical industry.

Potentized BIOLOGICAL LIGANDS will be a great leap in establishing homeopathy as a part of modern medical science. It will also make homeopathic prescriptions morespecific.

Understanding LIGANDS is very important in studying the biological mechanism of homeopathic drug action as proposed by the scientific explanation of homeopathy proposed by MIT.
In biochemistry and pharmacology, a LIGAND is a substance- a small molecule- that forms a complex by binding with a biomolecule to serve a biological purpose. In protein-ligand binding, ligand usually is a signal triggering molecule, binding to a site on a target protein. In DNA-ligand binding studies, ligand is usually any small molecule or ion, or even a protein that binds to the DNA double helix.

The binding occurs by intermolecular forces, such as ionic bonds, hydrogen bonds and van der Waals forces. The docking (association) is usually reversible (dissociation). Actual irreversible covalent bonding between a ligand and its target molecule is rare in biological systems. In contrast to the meaning in metalorganic and inorganic chemistry, it is irrelevant whether the ligand actually binds at a metal site, as is the case in hemoglobin.

Ligand binding to a receptor (receptor protein) alters its chemical conformation (three dimensional shape). The conformational state of a receptor protein determines its functional state. Ligands include substrates, inhibitors, activators, and neurotransmitters. The tendency or strength of binding is called affinity. Binding affinity is determined not only by direct interactions, but also by solvent effects that can play a dominant indirect role in driving non-covalent binding in solution.

Radioligands are radioisotope labeled compounds are used in vivo as tracers in PET studies and for in vitro binding studies.
The interaction of most ligands with their binding sites can be characterized in terms of a binding affinity. In general, high-affinity ligand binding results from greater intermolecular force between the ligand and its receptor while low-affinity ligand binding involves less intermolecular force between the ligand and its receptor.

In general, high-affinity binding involves a longer residence time for the ligand at its receptor binding site than is the case for low-affinity binding. High-affinity binding of ligands to receptors is often physiologically important when some of the binding energy can be used to cause a conformational change in the receptor, resulting in altered behavior of an associated ion channel or enzyme.

A ligand that can bind to a receptor, alter the function of the receptor and trigger a physiological response is called an agonist for that receptor. Agonist binding to a receptor can be characterized both in terms of how much physiological response can be triggered and in terms of the concentration of the agonist that is required to produce the physiological response. High-affinity ligand binding implies that a relatively low concentration of a ligand is adequate to maximally occupy a ligand-binding site and trigger a physiological response.

Various pathogenic molecules and drug molecules work by binding and blocking upon the biological molecules, thereby preventing the normal interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands. LIGANDS that facilitate biological actions are called ‘agonists’, andthose inhibiting biological actions are called ‘antagonists’.

LIGANDS are also called as ‘inhibitors’ and ‘activators’ according to the roles they play.

ANY endogenous or exogenous molecule may be considered a LIGAND, if it can bind to a biological molecule and modify its action.

By BIOLOGICAL LIGANDS, we refer to various endogenous molecules and ions that play essential roles in normal biological processes by acting upon biological molecules. Cytokines, signalling molecules, prostaglandins, hormones, neuromediators, co-factors, vitamins, neurotransmitters, free radicals— list of biological ligands will be very exhaustive.


How INSULIN 30 acts in certain Type 2 Diabetes cases?

According to my view, molecular imprints of insulin will have conformational affinity to any pathogenic molecule that can bind to insulin receptors. As such, molecular imprints contained in insulin 30 can act as specific binding sites for pathogenic molecules that inhibit insulin receptors. By this action, insulin receptors are relieved of their inhibitions, thereby facilitating the normal interaction between insulin and insulin receptors. Positive effects of insulin 30 in type 2 diabetes could be rationally explained by this model. That means, insulin 30 will be effective only in cases where insulin production is not completely hindered, where diabetes is caused by inhibition of insulin receptors by some exogenous or endogenous pathogenic molecules.

This observation opens up enormous scope of potentized forms of various biological ligands as powerful therapeutic agents that could be used in different kinds of acute and chronic diseases. Many diseases are caused by blocking of biological receptors by exogenous and endogenous pathogenic molecules. If we could remove those pathological blocks of receptors using appropriate molecular imprints of biological ligands such as hormones, metabolites, signalling molecules, neurotransmitters, cytokines etc, that would herald a great revolution in whole medical science and pharmaceutical research. I hope policy makers and people of authority would listen to this point, for the benefit of humanity.



a) high dilution drugs really work as curative agents when applied according to indications,

b) high dilution drugs works not only in living bodies, but also up on ‘in vitro’ biological samples,

c) high dilution drugs cannot interfere or prevent the normal interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands,

d) high dilution drugs can antidote the biological effects of same drugs used in crude or molecular forms,

e) biological properties of high dilution drugs are different or reverse to those of same drugs in molecular forms,

f) high dilution drugs do not contain original drug molecules,

g) high dilution drugs and unpotentized water-alcohol mixture are similar in their chemical structure and properties,

h) high dilution drugs differ from unpotentized water-alcohol mixture regarding physical properties and various physical parameters,

i) high dilution drugs differ from unpotentized water-alcohol mixture regarding supra-molecular arrangements by formation of nano-clusters as could be observed by difference in spectroscopic studies,

j) Medicinal properties of high dilution drugs could be destroyed by applying strong heat, electric currents or other forms of electromagnetic energy, which will also change the characteristic physical properties of those potentized drugs,



Actually, the biological mechanism of cure proposed by MIT model is not a new idea. It is well-accepted in modern molecular medicine and pharmacology, and is the basis of target-specific drug designing techniques currently very popular in pharmaceutical researches. There remains nothing to be proved on this idea.

Molecular imprinting in polymers (MIP) also is recently a very popular research area, a technique used in developing artificial binding sites in polymer matrices through a process of molecular level ‘host-guest’ interactions. These ‘molecular imprinted polymers’ are currently utilized in various laboratory procedures as molecular binding and filtering agents.

What I have been trying to do by MIT hypothesis is to adapt these well-accepted scientific concepts into the theoretical frame work of homeopathy, so that a scientific model could be developed to explain the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure. MIT hypothesis explains homeopathic potentization in terms of ‘molecular imprinting in water’, and homeopathic cure in terms of removal of molecular inhibitions.

Only thing remaining to be scientifically proved is that potentized homeopathic drugs contain ‘molecular imprints’. It raises the question whether water-ethyl alcohol mixture can act as a medium for molecular imprinting, similar to polymers. Various studies regarding supra molecular properties of water indicate some ‘polymer-like’ properties of water and formations of hydrogen-bonded nanoclusters in a micro-environment, which obviously opens up possibilities of molecular imprinting in water-ethyl alcohol matrix


According to MIT HYPOTHESIS, active principles of post-avogadro potentized drugs are MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of individual chemical molecules contained in the drug substances used for potentization.

As per this hypothesis, ‘molecular imprints’ are hydrogen-bonded supramolecular formations of water-ethyl alcohol molecules, into which the three-dimensional spacial conformations of drug molecules are imprinted or engraved as nanocavities, through a process of host-guest interactions or MOLECULAR IMPRINTING involved in the process of potentization.

These ‘molecular imprints’ can act as artificial binding sites or key holes for binding to the original drug molecules as well as any pathogenic molecule conformationally similar to the drug molecules.

When applied as therapeutic agent, these molecular imprints specifically bind to the pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity, thereby deactivating them and relieving the biological molecules from pathological molecular inhibitions.

This is the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure as proposed by MIT HYPOTHESIS.


Simply using some scientific terms will not make any hypothesis scientific. It is the ‘idea’ proposed by the hypothesis that makes it scientific, unscientific or pseudoscientific.

Please try to understand the ‘idea’ proposed in MIT hypothesis- not the ‘terms’used to explain it. I use some scientific terms, only because it is impossible to explain my idea without using those terms- not to make it “appear” scientific.

I want to make my hypothesis really scientific and correct- not to “appear” scientific. I want to prove it by scientific methods. Whenever I happen to be convinced that my ideas are not scientific, I will surely discard them or modify them.


For the knowledge of late-comers on my page, I shall once again narrate the fundamental ideas that make MIT hypothesis:

1. Potentization involves a process of molecular imprinting.

2. Molecular imprints are the active principles of potentized drugs.

3. Molecular imprints act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules by conformational affinity, there by deactivating the pathogenic molecules and reliving the biological molecules from molecular inhibitions.

This is the essence of MIT HYPOTHESIS. For details, kindly readmy articles and earlier posts.


One learned friend commented on my post about MIT HYPOTHESIS:

“Wow!! homeopaths are very good at generating theories !!! But sad to say these abundant theories have a very little scientific significance without strong scientific experimentation, only after strong scientific experimentation ” witch-craft” label can be removed for homeopathy.”


Did you really understand this “theory”, sir? I fear you are “very good” only at dismissing things you do not understand! First you try to understand the proposed ‘hypothesis’- do not call it “theory”. Then only it can be “strongly experimented”. Nobody can “experiment” without a scientifically viable hypothesis to experiment upon. Please study the proposed hypothesis, and verify whether it could be considered as a ‘candidate’ for experimenting according to scientific method. Kindly do not make sweeping comments on topics you did not understand.


Some friends have complained me that they do not understand the ideas I am talking about, since I use very complex terms from modern biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, supra-molecular chemistry etc etc. They want me to explain everything in a more simple and elaborate way.

I know, I am not a good teacher. Actually, I am not a teacher at all. I am only trying to share what I know and what I think about homeopathy in terms of modern scientific knowledge.

Kindly do not expect me to explain each and every term of modern science I use in my writings. It is practically impossible for me. My request is, whenever a strange scientific term or concept appear in my writings, try to understand them better by searching the net, or preferably wikipedia. For example, when I say ‘ligands’, ‘epigenetics’, ‘genetic expression’, ‘molecular imprinting’, ‘supramolecular chemistry’, ‘enzyme kinetics’, ‘proteinopathies’ or any such terms you have not been so far introduced to, kindly go to wikipedia and search for those topics. That is the best way to ubderstand MIT concepts clearly.


One homeopath commented on my post:

“Sir, i bit disagree what u have said about vithoulkas, but if u can explain the exact mechanism how our medicines work in a way modern medicine explains the remedy action it will be very fruitful for homoeopathic faculty, instead of criticizing any person or its work.”

My answer:

Sir, if you “disagree” with “what I have said about vithoulkas”, kindly explain the ‘specific points’ on which you disagree with me. In my post, I have explained my ‘criticism’ about the ‘ideas’ of vithoulkas point by point. If you disagree with my criticism, you are bound to answer them point by point, and tell me specifically where I have went wrong.

You are asking me to “explain the exact mechanism of how our remedies work”, “instead of criticising any person”.

I have been explaining day in and day out my ideas regarding “how our medicines work”. Hope you would have seen them. If you have not, kindly read my articles or previous posts. If you disagree with my explanations, please tell me on what point you differ. Is it regarding molecular imprinting involved in potentization? Is it regarding my comments on vital force and dynamic drug energy? Is it regarding active principles of potentized drugs? Is it regarding the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure? Tell me, where you differ with my ideas?

It is not a healthy and gentleman way of discussing, to ignore everything I have painstakingly explained so far, and asking me to “explain” “instead of criticising” somebody. My criticism of any idea proposed by anybody is not “instead of”, but part of explaining homeopathy in scientific terms. I criticise not “persons”, but the unscientific ideas promoted by them.

Fundamental difference between the “ideas” of vithoulkas and ideas proposed by me are very obvious: vithoulkas explains homeopathy in terms of ‘subtle energy’ and ‘resonance’, where as I am explaining homeopathy in terms of ‘molecular impinting” and ‘biomolecular interactions’. Discuss them.

Kindly discuss about the “ideas I have proposed”, and the “ideas vithoulkas have proposed”, which are in front of us. Dont make it a “personal” affair. Please….


Similar chemical molecules can bind to similar biological targets, produce similar molecular inhibitions and similar derangements in similar biochemical pathways, which will be expressed through similar symptoms.

If disease symptoms and drug symptoms appear similar, that means, pathogenic agents and drug substance contain similar chemical molecules having similar functional groups, so that they could bind to similar biological targets and produce similar molecular errors.

Molecular imprints of similar molecules will be similar, and they can bind to similar molecules and deactivate them.

Molecular imprints of drug molecules can bind to similar pathogenic molecules and deactivate them, thereby relieving the biological molecules from the pathological molecular inhibitions caused by those pathogenic molecules.

That means, diseases can be cured by ‘molecular imprinted’ or potentized forms of drug molecules, which when applied in crude forms upon healthy individuals could produce symptoms similar to the disease symptoms.



According to MIT, when ‘molecular level’ diagnosis is incorporated into the frame work of homeopathic practice, a whole new range of ‘biological’ drugs will evolve, such as potentized ‘biological ligands’ and other biological functional groups, which could be used as target-specific therapeutic agents in various acute and chronic diseases, especially metabolic diseases, lifestyle diseases, autoimmune diseases, genetic diseases, proteinopathies etc. As you can see, homeopathy will become more and more ‘diagnosis-based’, rather than ‘symptom-based’. Homeopathy evolves into Molecular Imprints Therapeutics- more specific, more knowledge-based and more scientific.


What we call ‘diagnosis’ is actually the sum total of logical conclusions arising from scientific interpretations of OBJECTIVE SYMPTOMS that are observed by the physician with his sense organs, aided by their ‘extensions’ such as laboratory tests and diagnostic equipments. As such, DIAGNOSIS could be considered as ‘objective symptoms’ while working to select a similimum

Diagnosis may be of different levels- symptomatic, pathological or molecular. FEVER is a symptomatic diagnosis. MALARIA is a pathological level diagnosis. Understanding the molecular level errors and inhibitions of biochemical pathways involved in malaria belongs to MOLECULAR level diagnosis. The more deeper and minute the level of diagnosis, the more helpful it will be for making a perfect homeopathic prescription.

According to MIT approach, MOLECULAR level diagnosis of diseases will be of immense help, when utilized in combination with the SYMPTOM-BASED approach of conventional homeopathy. Molecular level diagnosis is the function of modern biochemistry and molecular biology.


SIMILIMUM actually means a drug that when applied in ‘molecular’ form upon healthy individuals could produce ‘molecular errors’ that are exactly similar to those which underlie the disease we are presently dealing with.


Many young homeopaths ask: “Which is the better way of homeopathic prescribing? Symptom-based or diagnosis based?

My answer: ‘Diagnosis+Symptoms’-based.


My friends ask me: “Can’t you avoid criticizing great personalities, who have large numbers of followers? By criticizing such well-respected persons, you will be getting more and more isolated. You are creating new enemies every day”.

I never “criticize” personalities as such. I am commenting only on the ideas they propagate. When I come across any idea that I think is unscientific and harmful to the future advancement of homeopathy as per my level of knowledge, I use to put my opinions on it strongly, without any fear or foreboding. I am concerned only about ‘what is said’- not about ‘who said it’.

If anybody think my opinions are wrong, or my criticisms are baseless, why cant you tell me on which specific point I am wrong, instead of raising the issues of “personalities”, personal “greatness” and the “number” of their “followers”?

I am never concerned about the “bigness or smallness”of individuals, but only about the correctness of their ideas and theories. When I “criticize” certain ideas of great people, that does not mean least measure of personal disrespect to anybody. I am very much conscious that they are much much bigger than me. I also know very well that I am a very small man- very very smaller than those great people whose ideas I am criticizing.

Regarding the threat of “getting isolated” and “creating enemies”- I simply do not bother! I am bothered only whether my ideas about homeopathy are right and scientific.

Wrong is wrong, even if it is spoken by “great personalities”. Right is right, even if it is spoken by a very small man like me.


What ever sophisticated scientific vocabulary he uses, George Vithoulkas, considered by some homeopaths as a ‘living legend of homeopathy’, is basically a staunch proponent of the most unscientific ‘energy medicine’ theories about homeopathy, as demonstrated by his writings.

According to Vithoulkas, what happens during potentization, by which medicinal properties of drug substances are transferred to potentizing medium? Did he ever explain it in scientific terms?

According to Vithoulkas, what are the active principles of potentized drugs? Did he ever explain it in scientific terms?

According to Vithoulkas, what is the biological mechanism of action of potentized drugs? Did he ever explain it in scientific terms?

According to the NEW MODEL of Vithoulkas:

“1. Unless we understand the functioning of the human organism in its subtle levels we cannot hope to unravel the laws and principles governing human intelligence, human emotionality and the human physical body as well as their interconnection and interdependence.

2. Such universal laws should be searched for in an area far beyond the physico-chemical structure of the human body – this area, this realm that can be called a substratum of subtle formulative energies.”

He is trying to explain the ” human intelligence, human emotionality and the human physical body as well as their interconnection and interdependence” using a concept of “subtle formulative energies”! He has all rights to do that, if he stop claiming he is talking SCIENCE! There is nothing scientific in his “subtle energy”. We have been hearing about this “subtle energy” from all sorts of occult practitioners and spiritual healers. Nobody can make homeopathy ‘scientific’, by talking theories of “subtle energy”.

The specific statement “Epigrammatically I could say that the time for an Energy Medicine has arrived”, very clearly shows that George Vithoulkas is least interested in making homeopathy a SCIENTIFIC MEDICINE.

See how the NEW MODEL of Vithoulkas defines DISEASE:

“A disease (process of degeneration) will only take place if the vibrational frequencies of the stimulus (disease producing agent) and the organism (predispositions) coincide. Diseases are nothing else but the activation of the existing predispositions.”

Did you notice? Disease happens only when “vibrational frequency” of “disease producing agent” COINCIDES with the “vibrational frequency” of “predispositions of organism”. For him, DISEASE is all about COINCIDING of “vibrational frequencies”!

In his NEW MODEL, there is no role for biochemistry, molecular biology, immunology, genetics or any such knowledge- only “subtle energy” that is “communicated principally through the smallest particle-energy bodies that have not been defined yet”!

His views about the active principles of potentized drugs as ‘subtle energy’, and his ‘new model’ for disease and cure based on ‘resonance’ are basically contradicting all the modern scientific knowledge system.

It is very frustrating to see that he drags “prana, bioplasma, orgon, etc., etc.” into his NEW MODEL as a “substratum” for the activities of “subtle energy”, thereby alienating homeopathy completely away from the framework and paradigms of modern scientific knowledge system.

Due to his obsession with the ‘resonace model’, he is totally incapable of even thinking about a scientific model for the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure. Biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, molecular pathology and such modern scientific knowledge have no place in his ‘energy medicine’ theories.

I strongly disagree with his ‘energy medicine’ approach to homeopathy, even though personally I have great respects for his comparatively rational approach towards most of the nonsense concepts and methods propagated by modern day ‘gurus’.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: