I want to make it clear from the very beginning that I do not have any personal contact with the people working behind ‘Banerji Protocols’, or any kind of business interest in their ‘method’. We are absolute strangers. Whatever information I have about them and their method were collected from their websites as well as interactions with their followers who practice it. Actually, I have my own reservations and disagreements regarding the business strategy adopted by them. I would have been happier, if they made their valuable experience and knowledge freely available to the homeopathic community in the common interests of homeopathy, instead of promoting it merely as a private ‘commodity’ targeted for the market.
In spite of my above mentioned reservations, I hereby declare that I am whole heartedly supporting and recommending ‘banerji protocols’ as a rational and simplified method of practicing ‘using’ homeopathic drugs. My support comes not from any material interest, but from my theoretical convictions that evolved from studying ‘banerji protocols’ in the light of MIT concepts of scientific homeopathy.
The ‘Banerji Protocols’ developed and promoted by Dr. Prasanta Banerji Homoeopathic Research Foundation, Kolkota (PBHRF), is a new method of treatment using homeopathic medicines recently becoming very popular among homeopaths all over the world due to its effectiveness and simplicity . According to this method, ‘specific’ medicines are prescribed for ‘specific’ diseases. Diseases are diagnosed using modern state of the art methods and tools. According to their view, modern diagnostic approaches incorporate and help in the selection of medicines so that ‘specific’ medicines could be easily prescribed for ‘specific’ diseases. This approach differs from classical homeopathy, where prescriptions are expected to be made on the basis of ‘totality of symptoms’, ‘mental symptoms’, ‘physical generals’, ‘constitutions’ and ‘miasmatic analysis’, giving least importance to diagnostic aspects.
This approach of prescribing ‘specific’ homeopathic medicines for a ‘specific’ disease, based on ‘diagnosis as well as symptoms’ is the mainstay of ‘Banerji Protocols’. On the basis of huge clinical experiences of three generations of homeopaths belonging to Banerji family, they have prepared elaborate treatment protocols for all the important diseases by preparing lists of homeopathic ‘specifics’ based on diagnosis. Final selection of medicine for a particular patient is made from these ‘lists of specifics’, after considering the individual ‘symptomatology’ also. As such, ‘banerji protocols’ is a combination of ‘specifcs’ and ‘symptomatology’ approaches. With the passage of time and the availability of new diagnostic tools like ultrasonography, MRIs, cancer markers and other advanced tests, original treatment protocols were streamlined accordingly. PBHRF sources claim that the efficiency of this streamlining is reflected by the encouraging results of The Banerji Protocols.
In The ‘Banerji Protocols’ of treatment, mixtures of potentized remedies as well as frequent repetitions of the remedies are allowed to be freely used when required, which is never allowed or practiced in classical homeopathy. This is a big departure from classical homeopathic approach, where ‘single drug-single dose’ concept is considered as an important ‘fundamental principle’. Banerji claims that the strategy of combination of potentized medicines is based on years of ‘clinical experiments’ and ‘observations’ conducted at PBHRF. According to their view, ‘mixing’ of drugs have special advantages in treatment, so that the “aggravation due to drugs can be checked, side effects of the medicines can be abated, quick and uneventful recovery can be ensured in a much shorter time”.
In Banerji Protocols, specific homeopathic medicines are also used for supportive care. Homeopathic medicines prescribed on constitutional grounds are also used in supportive and palliative treatments for patients with malignant disease. It is obvious that this method is very flexible one, without the burdens of complex ‘principles’, ‘laws’ and ‘theories’. The Banerji Protocols of Treatment is claimed by its proponents to be scientific, logical and based on all modern diagnostic tools and is very realistic.
A very important point to be noted in this regard is that the proponents of ‘banerji protocols’ do not make tall scholarly claims about their ‘method’, or construct speculative ‘theories’ to justify their method. Being a ‘practice-oriented’ method, evolved from ‘practical experience, they do not try to answer the fundamental questions such as ‘what are the active principles of potentized drugs’ or ‘what is the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure’. They frankly admit that their method is “based on years of clinical experiments and observations” only. Their method is practice-oriented and result-oriented. Nothing more, nothing less. There lies the strength and weakness of ‘banerji protocols’.
Viewing from MIT perspective, I am happy to say that ‘banerji protocols’ is fully endorsed by scientific knowledge of homeopathy, even though they are not bothered about such a theoretical endorsement.
Classical homeopaths raise objections against ‘banerji protocols’ on various points, accusing that the ‘protocols’ go against all ‘fundamental laws and principles’ taught by ‘masters’ and ‘stalwarts’. Their main objections are regarding the method of prescribing on the basis of ‘pathology and diagnosis’, defying the classical principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’. Another objection is that by using ‘multiple drugs’ and ‘frequent repetitions’, banerji protocol contravenes the principles of ‘single drug’ and ‘single dose’. ‘Mixing’, ‘combinations’ and ‘alternations’ of remedies are also considered to be contradicting the ‘fundamental laws’ of homeopathy. Other grave accusations are that banerji protocol ignores the concepts of ‘homeopathic aggravations’, ‘drug relationships’, ‘suppressions’, ‘theory of miasms’, ‘constitutions’ and ‘directions of cure’.
Even though the proponents of banerji protocols are least bothered about these accusations leveled against them, concentrating only on ‘results’ and ‘cures’, I think MIT concepts have already answered them in most rational and scientific terms. Understanding the scientific explanations of homeopathy proposed by MIT will enable homeopaths to learn, explain and apply ‘banerji protocols’ more rationally, scientifically and effectively
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 diseaes 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.
‘Single drug/multiple drug’ issue:
When you understand MIT, and start perceiving potentized drugs in terms of diverse types of ‘molecular imprints’ as the ‘active principles’ they contain, you will realize that all controversies over ‘single/multiple’ drug issue leveled against ‘Banerji protocols become totally irrelevant.
According to MIT view, ‘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. Whatever be the ‘method’ by which the drug is selected, similimum is a similimum if it serves the purpose of curing the patient when administered in potentized form.
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 for deactivating all the diverse types of pathogenic molecules existing 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 one who understands this scientific approach proposed by MIT, as we start thinking in terms of molecular imprints- not in terms of drug names. Actually, a drug becomes ‘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 a complex drug substance in crude form, 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 that drug substance 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 the crude drug.
We have to remember, there is no such a thing called nux vomica molecule or pulsatilla molecule- only individual chemical molecules contained in nux vomica or pulsatilla tinctures. Each constituent molecule has its own specific chemical structure and properties. They act on different biological targets by their chemical properties.
Each individual chemical molecule contained in a complex crude drug substance acts as an individual drug. That means, nux vomica or pulsatilla are not single drugs as we are taught, but compound drugs. Classical 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’.
Issue of ‘frequent repetition of doses’:
Another objection raised by classical homeopaths against ‘Banerji protocols’ is regarding frequent repetition of doses. “Single dose and wait” is considered by many homeopaths to be the golden law of homeopathic prescription. According to them, repetition of doses at frequent intervals is said to be harmful.
MIT differs with Classical Homeopathy on this point also. I think many a excellent homeopathic prescriptions are spoiled only due to our ‘theoretical’ hesitation to repeat the doses in adequate intervals, and these failures are wrongly attributed to ‘wrong selection of similimum’ or ‘wrong selection of potency’. We could have avoided such failures by repeating the doses frequently so as to maintain the drug action at optimum levels to produce a complete cure.
My concepts regarding ‘repetitions’ come from the scientific understanding of potentization as ‘molecular imprinting’ and the active principles of potentized medicines as ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent drug molecules used for potentization. You cannot follow me without understanding the concept of ‘molecular imprints’.
‘Molecular imprints’ contained in potentized drugs act by binding to the pathological molecules having ‘complementary’ configuration, thereby relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions. Same time, these ‘molecular imprints’ could be anti-doted or deactivated by molecules or ions having complementary configurations. That means, ‘molecular imprints’ we introduce into the body get deactivated by pathological molecules or other molecules having configurational affinity. Molecules and ions of vegetable alkaloids, enzymes, food additives, environmental toxins, infectious agents, bacterial-viral toxins and a host of other agents may antidote these ‘molecular imprints’. Hence, it is necessary to replenish the supply of ‘molecular imprints’ at frequent intervals to ensure a complete cure. That is my point in favour of frequent repetitions.
Classical homeopaths accuse that ‘banerji protocols’ do not address the issue of homeopathic aggravations properly. MIT has well studied rational explanations about the phenomenon known as ‘homeopathic aggravation’ also. It is true that in many instances we experience such aggravation of symptoms after prescribing homeopathic medicines. Some homeopaths believe that aggravations occur due to wrong prescriptions, whereas some others consider it happening as part of curative process due to ‘exact’ prescriptions. Some homeopaths also try to differentiate between ‘medicinal’ aggravations which are harmful, and ‘homeopathic’ aggravations which are welcome.
As per MIT view, such ‘aggravations’ are not due to ‘prescribing wrong drugs’ or ‘exact drugs’, but due to prescribing drugs that cover only part of the ‘symptom complexes’ present in the patient. To follow what I say, one should be well aware of the concepts of ‘molecular errors’ underlying pathology, as well as ‘molecular imprints’ present in potentized medicines. As per our view, an individual will be having multitudes of ‘molecular errors’ caused by binding of diverse types of pathogenic molecules on different biological molecules. Each individual ‘molecular error’ may be expressed in the form of specific subjective and objective ‘symptom complexes’. If we select a drug as a similimum on the basis of some of the leading symptoms only, ignoring other symptoms, that similimum in fact covers only some of the molecular errors. The ‘molecular imprints’ contained in that similimum may remove those molecular errors only. But other molecular errors remain. The ‘symptom complexes’ representing those remaining molecular errors would become more expressive and come to the fore. In the absence of scientific understanding regarding the molecular processes behind this phenomenon, we happen to interpret these new expressions as ‘homeopathic aggravation’.
Most of us would have experienced some initial aggravations followed by complete relief. We should perceive ‘molecular errors’ not as singular or static events. A particular molecular error caused by a particular pathogenic molecule may result in cascading of new molecular errors. It is like a traffic block in a city. A small traffic block may cause cascading of traffic blocks, ultimately resulting in total failure of traffic system in the city. When a molecular error occurs in a particular biochemical pathway in the organism, it may affect other related pathways also. That is why diseases progress expressing trains of new symptoms. When we start removing these molecular blocks, there may be readjustments happening in all these related biochemical pathways, which may appear as aggravations of symptoms. That is part of normal curative process.
That means, when studying the phenomena of ‘homeopathic aggravations”, both chances will have to be considered; “re-adjustments’ happening in various biochemical pathways as part of curative process, as well as ‘appearing of residual symptoms’ because of prescription being partial.
When we follow the total cure method proposed by MIT, we prescribe a combination of drugs that would contain all the ‘molecular imprints’ required to rectify all the ‘molecular errors’ covering all ‘symptom complexes’ expressed by the individual. Hence, so-called ‘homeopathic aggravations’ are never experienced in total cure prescriptions.
Homeopathic case follow up consists of watching for residual symptoms and emerging symptoms, and re-adjusting prescriptions as indicated by them. After making a homeopathic prescription, whether it be ‘single’ or ‘multiple’, and ensuring that the doses are used in right potencies and repeated in optimum frequencies, the physician should see the patient at reasonable intervals and carefully watch how the case is progressing.
MIT advises to periodically watch for ‘residual’ symptoms that do not subside, as well as newly ’emerging’ symptoms. If a particular ‘group of symptoms’ remain in spite of frequent repetitions of doses for a reasonable period, that means our prescription failed to provide the particular ‘molecular imprints’ required to remove the molecular inhibitions underlying that particular ‘group of symptoms’. Repertorise using those ‘residual’ symptoms, find a similimum for them, and add it to the original prescription.
If new symptoms ’emerge’, and they are not subsiding within a reasonable period, that means some ‘hidden’ molecular inhibitions not covered by the original prescription has come to the forefront during the removal of some other molecular errors. Find a new similimum for these newly emerged symptoms and add it to the original prescription. We will have to continue this constant watch for ‘residual’ symptoms and ’emerging’ symptoms and adjust prescriptions all through the whole course of treatment, in order to ensure a total cure.
Please note, observation of ‘banerji protocols’ that “mixing of drugs have special advantages in treatment, so that the aggravation due to drugs can be checked, side effects of the medicines can be abated, quick and uneventful recovery can be ensured in a much shorter time” fully agree with the theoretical stand taken by MIT concepts on this issue.
Concept of ‘complementary prescriptions’:
According to MIT view, a ‘single drug’ being 100% similimum for a patient is almost like an utopian concept. Nobody can find a drug that is 100% similimum for a given case. We can find only a ‘most appropriate’ similimum. Hence, offering ‘total cure’ for a patient with ‘single’ drug is practically impossible, whatever the claims are.
An individual will be having diverse types of ‘molecular errors’ in him, with diverse types of pathological conditions, expressed through different groups of subjective and objective symptoms. These molecular errors may belong to genetic, miasmatic, environmental, infectious, emotional, nutritional or such diverse causative factors.
When we match the symptom picture of a given patient with symptom picture of drugs in our material medica to determine a similimum, we are actually matching individual molecular errors in the organism with individual drug molecules contained in the drugs. A drug that contains maximum types of ‘molecular imprints’ matching to maximum types of molecular errors in the organism is considered to be ‘most appropriate ‘similimum. No drug would contain ‘all’ the molecular imprints required to rectify ‘all’ the molecular errors existing in a given patient. Hence, any similimum we select would be only a ‘partial’ similimum for the patient. As such, a ‘single’ drug can never ‘cure’ a patient in his ‘totality’. The similimum we selected would remove only the molecular errors matching to the molecular imprints contained in it, and hence, it would offer only partial cure.
For a ‘total’ cure, we will have to select additional drugs that would contain molecular imprints matching to the remaining molecular errors, which could be selected on the basis of symptoms that are not covered by the first similimum.
Here comes the relevance of the concept of ‘complementary’ prescriptions, especially if the physician is averse to using multiple drugs in a ‘single’ prescription. The concept of ‘complementary prescriptions’ should not be confused with the concept of ‘complementary drugs’. Concept of ‘complementary drugs’ is based on the arbitrary theory that such and such drugs are ‘complementary’ to such and such drugs. It is not based on study of similarity of symptoms. But the concept of ‘complementary prescription’ is based on the real study of symptoms in the patient that are not covered by the similimum selected as the first prescription.
In my opinion, the existing concept of ‘complementary drugs’ should be replaced with a new concept of ‘complementary prescriptions’, which seems to be more scientific and logical.
There is no need of any kind of restrictions for the number of ‘complementary prescriptions’. If the first ‘complementary prescription’ is not enough to complete the cure, we can look for a second ‘complementary prescription’ on the basis of remaining symptoms. We can ensure ‘total cure’ for the patient through systematic application of this ‘complementary prescritption’ method. Whether the ‘complementary prescriptions’ are applied along with or after the first prescription, could be decided by the physician according to his perceptions.
‘Banerji protocols’ also utilize the strategy ‘complementary prescriptions’, even though without any theoretical explanation or justification as MIT do. But in this case also, their ‘experience-based’ approach is rational and very close to that of MIT.
‘Combinations’ of potentized drugs:
Another serious objection against ‘banerji protocols’ from the side of classical homeopaths is regarding ‘mixing’ or ‘combinations’ of potentized drugs. On the other hand, MIT says that it is permissible for to use combinations of ‘molecular imprinted’ forms (potencies above Avogadro limit- 12c and onwards) of two or more homeopathic drugs selected on the basis of analysis of totality of symptoms, miasmatic study and biochemical evaluation of the individual patient.
MIT view is that it is effective as palliatives to use ‘disease-specific’ combinations of ‘molecular imprinted’ forms (potencies above Avogadro limit- 12c and onwards) of two or more homeopathic drugs selected on the basis of common symptoms and biochemical evaluations of specific diseases. But such ‘disease-specific’ combinations will not offer ‘total cure’ for patients, without incorporating drugs selected on the basis of symptoms also. This approach also is very close to the method of ‘banerji protocols’ that makes ‘specific’ prescriptions based on ‘disease diagnosis’ as well as symptomatology..
I am talking on the basis of my concepts of ‘molecular imprinting’ involved in potentization. I perceive all crude drugs as combinations of diverse types of constituent drug molecules. I perceive even the so called potentized ‘single’ drug as combinations of diverse types of individual drug molecules contained in the drug substance used for potentization.
My stand on this issue is based on my understanding of diseases as multitudes of pathological derangement in the organism, caused by diverse of types of molecular inhibitions caused by different types of pathogenic agents, and therapeutics involves the removal of those inhibitions using appropriate molecular imprints.
I am talking on the basis of my understanding of ‘similia similibus curentur’ as: “Pathological molecular inhibitions caused by specific pathogenic molecules and expressed through a certain group of subjective and objective symptoms, could be removed by applying ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules that could create similar molecular inhibitions and symptoms in a healthy organism when applied in crude form.
That makes the difference between my views and classical homeopathy. I know, homeopaths trained and experienced in classical homeopathy cannot agree with my views on this topic.
Role of ‘Diagnosis’ in making homeopathic prescriptions:
‘Banerji Protocols’ is based on specifics determined on the basis of ‘diagnosis’, and as such, they give utmost importance to diagnostic techniques and tools. Since homeopathy is practiced on the basis of therapeutic principle of ‘Similia Similibus Curentu’, many homeopaths think that clinical diagnosis has no place in homeopathic practice.They consider these factors only of lesser value, helpful only for ‘patient satisfaction’ or ‘prognosis’.
MIT says that we should perceive the information provided by modern technological advancements and laboratory investigations as part of collecting ‘objective’ symptoms, and learn to utilize them in the search for similimum.
All diagnostic tools provided by ‘modern technology’ are only extensions of physician’s sense organs, which help in making ‘enhanced’ observation of his patient’s symptoms. Similar to the ordinary spectacle that enhances the vision or stethoscope enhances the sounds, laboratory tests and sophisticated equipments ‘enhances’ our observation. As such, information provided by these tests and tools should be considered as ‘Objective Symptoms’ similar to any other objective symptoms, and can be utilized in finding similimum. Only problem is, since our drug provings were not conducted insuch a technologically advanced environment, they do not provide these types of ‘enhanced symptoms’. Due to ill-equipped drug- provings so far conducted, we have no a systematic knowledge of such symptoms now available in our materia medica. But, we can collect such clinical observations from daily practice, and enrich our materia medica.
I hope future drug proving protocols will incorporate modern technology, and collect these ‘enhanced observations’ also and add them to future materia medica compilations. Then, homeopathy will be in a position to utilize these information also in finding appropriate similimum.
I am saying lab investigations should be made part of drug proving protocol, and such information included in materia medica as ‘symptoms’, so that they could be used for finding similimum. That is why I said lab investigations should be part of ‘homeopathic case taking’, not part of ‘homeopathic practice’. I wanted to highlight that difference.
Information obtained from such investigations could be utilized as ‘Objective Symptoms’, I mean. That means, we can make ‘homeopathic prescriptions’ based on lab investigations also, along with other symptoms
‘Similimum means ‘Similarity of Functional groups’:
To understand the real science behind the phenomena of ‘similia similibus curentur’, ‘drug proving’ and ‘potentization’, we should study drug substances in terms of not only their ‘constituent molecules’, but in terms of ‘functional groups’ and ‘moieties’ of those drug molecules. A drug substance is composed of diverse types of drug molecules. A drug molecule interacts with ‘active groups’ of biological target molecules such as enzymes and receptors using their ‘functional groups’ or ‘moieties’. It is the ‘functional groups’ and ‘moieties’ on the individual drug molecules that decide to which biological molecules they can bind to and produce molecular inhibitions. Different drug molecules with different size and structures, but having same ‘functional group’ or ‘moiety’ can bind to same biological molecules and produce similar molecular errors and similar groups of symptoms. A drug molecule become similimum to a disease when the drug molecule and disease-producing molecule have same functional groups, so that they could bind to same biological targets producing same molecular errors and same symptom groups.
Drug molecules act upon the biological molecules in the organism by binding their ‘functional groups’ to the active groups on the complex biological molecules such as receptors and enzymes. These molecular interactions are determined by the affinity between functional groups or moieties of drug molecules and active sites of biological molecules. Here, the functional groups of drug molecules are called ‘ligands’, and the biological molecules are called ‘targets’. Ligand-target interaction is determined by a peculiar ‘key-lock’ relationship due to complementary configurational affinities.
It is to be specifically noted that same functional group will undergo the same or similar chemical reactions regardless of the size or configuration of of the molecule it is a part of. However, its relative reactivity can be modified by nearby functional groups known as facilitating groups. That means, different types of drug molecules or pathogenic molecules having same functional groups and facilitating groups can bind to same biological molecules, and produce similar molecular inhibitions and symptoms. Homeopathic principle of ‘similimum’ is well explained by this understanding. If a drug molecule can produce symptoms similar to symptoms of a particular disease, it means that the drug molecules and disease-causing molecules have same functional groups on them, by which they bind to same biological molecules. Obviously, similarity of symptoms means similarity of functional groups of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules. To be similimum, the whole molecules need not be similar, but similarity of functional groups is enough.
Potentized drugs would contain the molecular imprints of drug molecules, along with molecular imprints of their functional groups. These molecular imprints will have specific configurational affinity towards any molecule having same functional groups, and can bind and deactivate them.
To be ‘similar’ does not mean pathological molecule and drug molecules should be similar in their ‘whole’ molecular structure. To bind to same targets, similarity of ‘functional groups’ or even a ‘moeity’ is enough. If the adjacent groups that facilitate binding with targets are also same, similarity becomes more perfect. If a drug molecule could produce symptoms similar to a disease, that means the drug molecules contains some functional groups simialr to those of pathogenic molecules that caused the disease. By virtue of these similar functional groups, both pathogenic molecules and drug molecules could bind to same biological targets, producing similar molecular errors and symptoms in the organism.
Molecular imprints of similar functional groups will also be similar. As such, potentized forms of a drug substance can bind and deactivate the pathogenic molecules having similar functional groups. This is the real molecular mechanism of ‘similia similibus curentur’.
Issue of ‘Directions of Cure’:
Some simple observations of Hahnemann and Hering regarding the process of cure were later named by Kent as hering’s laws, and raised to the status of ‘fundamental laws’ of homeopathy. Our teachers, who were mostly kentians, promoted these ‘laws’ as an ‘essential’ aspect of cure, and propagated the idea that every genuine homeopathic cures should ‘obey’ these rules- if not, it will not be considered a ‘genuine’ cure!
The four ‘laws’ now known as ‘herings laws’ are actually some casual observations made by herinh regarding ‘order of cure’ while explaining the demonstrate the homeopathic curative process. No where he said these are ‘fundamental laws’ or ‘essential’ laws. According to available documents and historical evidences, heringr his great contemporaries never mentioned or considered ‘direction of cure’ as a ‘fundamental law’ of homeopathy.
It was ‘KENT’ who later actually called these observations as ‘Herings laws’ and converted these four observations into ‘fundamental laws’ of homeopathic cure. He taught to understand and apply these ‘laws’ in a mechanical way. He taught homeopaths to ‘follow ‘hering laws’ regarding ‘directions of cure’ as one of the ‘fundamental laws’ of homeopathy, similar to ‘similia similibus curentur’.
Kent made homeopaths believe that drug effects that do not agree with these ‘laws’ cannot be considered ‘curative’, and are ‘suppressive’. There are some modern streams of homeopathic practice which rely more upon ‘hering laws’ than ‘similia similibu curentur’ in their methods of therapeutic applications.
Actually, Hahnemann did not seriously work upon those aspects of curative processes which we call ‘directions of cure’, or considered it a decisive factor in homeopathic therapeutics. He made some observations regarding ‘order of cure’. He was more concerned about ‘miasms’ in the management of ‘chronic diseases’, where as Hering did not consider ‘miasms’ at all.
Some modern ‘theoreticians’ have come with new theories by combining ‘hering laws’ and theory of miasms, also mixing up with terms of ‘genetics’ and ‘embryology’ which they propagate as the ‘only’ correct understanding of homeopathy.
Following are the four observations hering used to demonstrate that ‘curative processes happen in a direction just reverse to disease processes’, and later considered by KENT as ‘Hering laws of direction of cure’:
In curative process,
- Symptoms should disappear in the reverse chronological order of their appearance in disease.
- Symptoms should travel from internal parts of body to external parts
- Symptoms should travel from more vital organs to less vital organs.
- Symptoms should travel from ‘upper’ parts of the body to ‘lower’ parts.
According to those who consider these as the ‘fundamental laws of cure’, any drug effect that happen not in accordance with above laws are ‘suppressive’, and hence not ‘curative’.
‘Curative processes happen in a direction just reverse to disease processes’- that is the sum total of Hering’s observations regarding ‘directions of cure’.The four ‘laws’ now known as ‘herings laws’ are actually the working examples he used to demonstrate this fundamental observation.
It was the later ‘interpreters’ who actually converted these four ‘working’ examples into ‘fundamental laws’ of homeopathic cure. They understood and applied these ‘laws’ in a mechanical way. They taught homeopaths to consider ‘hering laws’ regarding ‘directions of cure’ as one of the ‘fundamental laws’ of homeopathy, similar to ‘similia similibus curentur’. They made homeopaths believe that drug effects that do not agree with these ‘laws’ cannot be considered ‘curative’, and are ‘suppressive’. There are some modern streams of homeopathic practice which rely more upon ‘hering laws’ than ‘similia similibu curentur’ in their methods of therapeutic applications.
According to hering’s observation, natural disease processes always advances from lower parts of the body to upper parts, from less vital to more vital organs and from external to internal organs. More over, all these disease processes advance in a chronological order.
Logically, Hering’s observations only mean that “all genuine ‘curative processes’ should happen in a direction just reverse to disease processes”.
Over-extending and mechanical application of ‘herings laws’ without understanding their exact premises and scientific meaning may lead to grave errors regarding interpretation of curative processes and drug effects.
This phenomenon could be explained in the light of modern scientific understanding of ‘cascading of pathological molecular inhibitions’ and complex dynamics of ‘bio-molecular feed back mechanisms’.
To understand this explanation, one has to equip himself with at least a working knowledge regarding the concepts of modern biochemistry regarding the bio-molecular inhibitions involved in pathology and therapeutics.
Except those diseases which are purely due to errors in genetic substances, and those diseases which are due to genuine deficiency of building materials of biological molecules, all other diseases are considered to be caused by ‘molecular inhibitions’. Pathogenic molecules of endogenous or exogenous origin bind to some biological molecules in the organism, causing ‘molecular inhibitions’ which lead to pathological derangement in associated biochemical pathways. These pathogenic molecules may be of infectious, environmental, nutritional, metabolic, drug-induced, miasmatic or any other origin. Derangements in biochemical pathways are expressed through diverse groups of subjective and objective symptoms. This is the fundamental biochemistry of pathology.
Molecular inhibitions happening in a biological molecule due to the binding of a pathogenic molecule initiates a complex process of ‘cascading of molecular errors’ and ‘bio-feedback mechanisms’ in the organism. Errors happening in a particular biochemical pathway leads to errors in another pathway which is dependant on the first pathway for regular supply of metabolites, which further lead to errors in another pathway. This ‘cascading of molecular errors’ happens through successive stages, which is expressed through new subjective and objective symptoms. This ‘cascading’ is behind what we call ‘advancing of disease’ into new systems and organs, exhibiting ever new groups of associated symptoms. For an observer, this cascading appears in the form of ‘traveling of disease’ from one system into another. Along with these ‘cascading’ of molecular errors, there happens a series of activation and shutting down of complex ‘bio-molecular feedback’ mechanisms also. The phenomenon of ‘advancing of diseases’ should be studied in this scientific perspective of modern biochemistry.
When a molecular inhibition happens in some biological molecule ‘A’ due to binding of a pathogenic molecule ‘a’, it actually stops or decreases some essential molecular conversions that are essential part of a complex biochemical pathway P. If ‘G’ is the normal ligand of ‘A’, and ‘g’ is the product of biochemical interaction involving ‘A’, the result of this molecular inhibition is that ‘G’ accumulates on one side, and ‘g’ is not available for the next stage of molecular processes. Accumulating ‘P’ may induce a feedback mechanism leading to reduction or stoppage its production itself, or may move to other parts of organism and bind to unwanted molecular targets, initiation a new stream of pathological derangement.
Obviously, ‘travelling’ of disease or ‘advancing’ of disease happens through cascading of molecular errors in various biochemical pathways. Some disease processes may ‘travel’ from ‘external’ to internal organs, some from ‘lower parts’ to upper parts, some from ‘less vital’ parts to ‘more vital’ parts. All this ‘travelling’ is basically decided by the involved biochemical pathways. It would be wrong to generalize these observations in such a way that ‘all diseases travel from exterior to interior, lower parts to higher parts, and less vital to more vital parts’. It is also wrong to generalize in such a way that ‘curative process always travel from interior to exterior, above downwards, and from vital to less vital parts’. This is mechanical understanding and application of hering’s observations.
Actually, curative processes happen in a direction opposite to the direction of disease process. That depends upon the biochemical pathways involved and the exact dynamics of cascading of molecular inhibitions. Its dynamics is very complex, and should not be interpreted and applied in a mechanistic way. When ‘molecular inhibitions’ underlying the disease processes are systematically removed using molecular imprints, the curative process also would take place in the reverse direction of disease processes.
To sum up, Hering’s observations regarding a ‘directions of disease and cure’ is a valuable one, but it should be studied in the light of modern biochemistry.
Classical homeopaths totally failed to comprehend the biochemistry involved in homeopathic therapeutics, and hence could not interpret the ‘directions of disease and cure’ in relation with the interactions of biochemical pathways.
Fear of ‘Suppressions’:
Fear of ‘suppression of disease’ that may happen from ‘improper’ use of homeopathic drugs is the most prominent symptom of any ‘classical homeopath’, which indicates severe deficiency of scientific knowledge regarding the biochemistry of life, disease and cure. This ‘phobia’ is ‘inherited’ through generations of homeopaths, from ‘teachers’ to ‘students’, and ‘gurus’ to ‘disciples’. Modern ‘Gurus’ spin fanciful ‘theories of suppressions’, write and sell heavy books on their ‘theories’, and fly around the globe to conduct ‘expensive’ seminars to ‘educate’ the homeopathic community for the sole purpose of saving humanity from grave dangers imposed by homeopathic ‘suppressions’.
Those who are severely afflicted with this ‘deficiency syndrome’ will hesitate to prescribe even a single dose of potentized drug to their patient, fearing it may ‘drive in’ the disease from ‘external parts’ to ‘vital’ internal organs if the prescription somehow happens not to be the ‘most appropriate similimum’. They would shudder with fear of dangers of ‘suppression’ if somebody says they have applied some external ointments on eczematous lesion on the skin. According to them, homeopathic drugs are so ‘powerful’ and ‘dangerous’ that an inappropriate or untimely dose of a potentized drug may even kill the patient, or create irreversible disabilities. ‘Better not to prescribe, than prescribing wrongly and causing suppressions’.
In ‘chronic diseases’, hahnemann was talking about the chronic constitutional effects of infectious diseases such as itch, syphilis and gonorrhoea. He thought that these chronic disease dispositions caused by infectious diseases were due to their ‘suppression’ through faulty allopathic medications and external applications. He called these ‘chronic dispositions’ as ‘miasms’. Actually, these chronic dispositions after infectious diseases were not due to any suppression, but the ‘off-target’ effects of antibodies formed against infections. Hahnemann could not understand this ‘antibody factor’ of chronic miasms. That is due to the historical limitations of scientific knowledge available during his period. ‘Historical limitations’ is different from being ‘wrong’.
Modern theories of suppressions are different. They are theorizing about suppressions caused by ‘improper’ application of homeopathic drugs. Those theories are different from what hahnemann considered suppressions.
Theories of suppression as ‘driving in’ of diseases to ‘inner vital organs’ by application of ‘wrong’ drugs is based on an exaggerated application of hering laws and a total misinterpretation of embryology. I was examining thse theoreticalfoundations of modern ‘theory of suppression’. Hering law is over extended, and ’embryological layers’ is mis-interpreted. Logical scrutiny shows that both these theoretical foundations of ‘theory of suppression’ are wrong. That is my point here.
Concept of ‘suppressions’ is based on unscientific understanding of disease, cure, potentization and ‘similia similibus curentur. Scientific awareness is the only way to free homeopaths from the persistent fear of ‘suppressions’, and enable them to make logical prescriptions without any hesitations and forebodings. Understanding the biochemistry of life, disease and cure is essential for this. Homeopaths should realize the exact process of molecular imprinting involved in potentization, and perceive potentized drugs in terms of constituent molecular imprints. They should also learn the molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics as removal of pathological molecular inhibitions by the action of molecular imprints. Homeopaths would then realize that no potentized homeopathic drugs can make any ‘suppression’ or ‘dangerous consequences’. If the selection of similimum was wrong, it will not act. If the selected drug is ‘partial similimum’, it would give partial cure. In that case, cure can be completed by using additional drugs, which are indicated by totality of remaining symptoms.
Are those ‘Laws’ and ‘Principles’ ‘fundamental’ and immutable?
‘Homeopathy is taught as a closed system of eternally immutable ‘laws’, ‘rules’, ‘principles’ and ‘methods’ every ‘true’ homeopath is bound to ‘obey’. We hear ‘seven cardinal principles of hahnemann’, ‘hering laws’, ‘kents observations’ and many other ‘theories’ that rule the practice of homeopathy. Anybody violating or thinking beyond these ‘fundamental laws’ are considered to be ‘wrong homeopaths’. And they ask science to explain “every aspect” of homeopathy without “distorting” its “fundamentals”!
We should remember, no ‘masters’ so far knew what really happens during potentization. Nobody so far knew what are the exact active principles of potentized drugs. Nobody so far knew the exact molecular level mechanism by which the active principles of potentized drugs interact with the biological organism and produce a therapeutic effect. Only things our masters actually knew was the objective natural phenomena of ‘likes curing likes’ and ‘high dilution effects’.
Everything else were mere speculations. Speculations based on unscientific philosophy of ‘dynamism’ and ‘vitalism’. All ‘laws’, ‘rules’, ‘methods’ and ‘doctrines’ we consider as ‘cardinal principles of homeopathy evolved from these speculative theories. All ‘directions’ regarding ‘doses’, repetitions’, ‘single drugs’, ‘follow ups’ and everything else were formulated without clearly knowing the substances we are actually dealing with or how they actually work. They were based on misinterpreted ‘experiences’ of ‘stalwarts’ with historically limited scientific knowledge.
Once we acquire scientific knowledge regarding the exact processes involved in potentization, active principles of potentized drugs and the molecular mechanism of their therapeutic action, all the existing ‘methods’, ‘laws’, ‘rules’ and ‘principles’ are bound to change. New ‘principles’ and ‘methods’ will evolve. That means, we will have to discard, change or ‘distort’ many things so far considered as ‘fundamentals’ of homeopathy.
I am talking about ‘principles’ and ‘methods’ of homeopathic practice such as ‘dose’ and ‘repetitions’ on the basis of my scientific understanding of potentization as ‘molecular imprinting’, active principles of potentized drugs as ‘molecular imprints’, and homeopathic therapeutics as removal of biochemical inhibitions. My explanations cannot be expected to be strictly in accordance with what you consider inevitable ‘laws’ of homeopathy.
Acquiring a scientific understanding of the phenomena involved in ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’, and applying that knowledge judiciously for curing the sick- that should be the only ‘fundamental rule’ that guide a homeopath.
‘Likes cures likes’ and ‘high dilution effects’ represent the objective part of homepathy, which are concerned with truthful observations of natural phenomena involved in the process of ‘cure’. This is the strong and rational aspect of homeopathy that have to be preserved, explored and advanced into more and more perfection.
The theoretical explanatory part of homeopathy, which is based on totally unscientific and irrational philosophy of ‘dynamism’ and ‘vitalism’ of eighteenth century europe, as well as the ‘rules’, ‘laws’ and ‘methods’ formulated accordingly, is the real stumbling block that prevents this wonderful therapeutic art from advancing into a scientific medical system.
We have to preserve and strengthen the rational objective aspect of homeopathy, and explain it in terms of modern scientific knowledge. We should show the audacity to discard its irrational and unscientific theoretical parts. Once we understand the real science involved in the phenomena of ‘likes cure likes’ and ‘potentization’, a whole new set of practical ‘rules’ and ‘laws’ would spontaneously evolve.
In the preface to the third edition of ORGANON, Dr Hahnemann made the following statement:
“In this third edition I have not refrained from making any alterations and emendations suggested by increased knowledge and necessitated by further experience.”
This statement is a fitting answer to those ‘dogmatic’ homeopaths who argue nothing could be changed or updated in homeopathy.
Hahenemann advises us not to “refrain” from making “alterations and emendations”, if “suggested by increased knowledge and necessitated by further experience.”
Many homeopaths talk about ‘seven cardinal principles of hahnemann’, and believe that without following these ‘cardinal’ principles one cannot be a ‘true’ homeopath.
Did hahnemann ever say there are ‘seven’ cardinal principles in homeopathy? Kindly verify for references from hahnemann’s original works. When we say homeopaths should ‘follow’ certain ‘cardinal principles of hahnemann’, we should inquire about the original reference where hahnemann said these are the cardinal principles.
Actually hahnemann did not make a ‘list’ of principles. He made some objective observations regarding the phenomenon of ‘cure’, and inferred that an objective ‘law’ is working under this phenomenon. He called it ‘similia similibus curentur’.
While experimenting with smaller and smaller doses of drug substances to avoid the bad effects of crude drugging prevalent in conventional medicine during that period, he noticed that even highly diluted drugs have medicinal effects, even though there existed least chance for medicinal substance to be present in them
Then he took up the task of explaining these two phenomena ( similia similibus curentur and high dilution effects) using the existing scientific knowledge available to him, thereby trying to build up a simple, safe and effective therapeutic system.
Since the scientific knowledge system was in its primitive stage of evolution during that time, it was difficult to explain these observed phenomena using existing tool-kit of science. In the absence of necessary scientific knowledge available for accomplishing this task, he was compelled to speculate using philosophical concepts such as ‘dynamism’ or ‘vitalism’. Actually, ORGANON represents his highly intellectual attempts to explain his fundamental observations regarding phenomena of cure.
In organon, he discussed many things, from ‘vital force theory’ to ‘mesmerism’. That does not mean everything he discussed are ‘cardinal’ principles of homeopathy. If you want to identify such ‘cardinal’ or ‘basic’ things of homeopathy, they are ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’. They are the ‘fundamental objective observations’ of natural phenomena. Everything else is philosophical speculations, which are bound to change as our scientific knowledge advances.
Actually, the ‘seven cardinal principles’ were the invention of some later interpreters- not of hahnemann. Somebody understood homeopathy that way- that is all. You can ‘filter’ any number of ‘cardinal’ principles from hahnemann’s works, according to your perspectives and understandings. If you want to see ‘vital force’ as cardinal principle of homeopathy, somebody else could say ‘mesmerism’ is also a cardinal principle of homeopathy. You can list ‘seven’ or ‘seventy’.
Somebody involved in the making of homeopathic curriculum for Indian universities happened to be influenced by this ‘seven cardinal principles’ and included it in the syllabus. Indian students were taught that to be a ‘true’ homeopath, they should ‘follow’ these ‘seven’ principles. If it was part of your syllabus, somebody should have asked the teachers for original references from hahnemann and verify whether hahnemann did say these ‘seven’ are ‘cardinal principles’ of homeopathy. That is the way inquisitive minds should work and learn more and more deep.
According to my analysis, the only ‘cardinal’ or ‘basic’ things in homeopathy are ‘two’ fundamental observations hahnemann made regarding the objective phenomena of ‘cure’. They are ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’. Everything else is totally unscientific speculations and theorizations made in an attempt to explain these ‘basic’ observations. There is nothing ‘cardinal’ in those observations. It is our duty to explain hahnemann’s ‘fundamental observations’ in terms of modern scientific knowledge system.
I would like to call ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ and ‘Potentization’ as fundamental ‘observations’ of homeopathy, rather than using the term ‘fundamental principles’. That would be more close to truth.
Hahnemann made two important observations regarding therapeutics 250 years ago:
- Diseases with specific symptoms can be cured by drugs that can produce similar symptoms in healthy individuals. He called it ‘similia similibus curentur’.
- When used according to ‘similia similibus curentur’, dug substances can act as powerful therapeutic agents even in high dilutions through a process of serial ‘dilution and succussion’. He called this process as ‘potentization’.
These two are the main ‘observations’ made by Hahnemann, which are known as fundamental principles of Homeopathy.
Hahnemann tried to explain these observations in terms of scientific and philosophical knowledge available to him in that point of time. Organon consists of these theoretical explanations and speculations. Since scientific knowledge was in its primitive stage at that time, Hahnemann’s explanations were bound to bear that limitations. ORGANON contains a lot of theorizations and speculations that do not agree with, or go against modern scientific understanding.
Equipped with modern scientific knowledge and its tools, we are now in a far better position than Samuel Hahnemann to explain the phenomena he observed 250 years ago. Now we can explain ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’ more scientifically, rationally and logically. With full respect the great genius of our master, we should be truthful and bold enough to discard those evidently unscientific theoretical speculations of ORGANON.
These two fundamental observations were based on experiences, experiments and logical evaluations of objective phenomena of nature done by a great intellectual person. but the ‘principles’ he used to explain these objective phenomena were unscientific, obviously due to the limitations of scientific knowledge available to him at that time. We should accept his observations, but judiciously discard or modify his unscientific principles.
Some people consider each and every word uttered by our ‘master’ as ‘fundamental principles’ of homeopathy. Some others would even include the words of other ‘stalwarts’ like Kent, Herring and the like also in the category of ‘fundamental’ principles.
All these ‘theories’ are only philosophical explanations, conjectures, interpretations, opinions and empirical conclusion based on personal experiences of ‘stalwarts’ and ‘masters’. They are not ‘fundamental principles’ of homeopathy.
If you understand the scientific meaning of ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’, and judiciously apply them for curing the patients, you are a ‘true homeopath’, even if you do not ‘follow’ the ‘seven cardinal principles’ invented by unscientific interpreters of hahnemann.
A ‘true’ homeopath is one who understands and applies homeopathy ‘scientifically- not one who learns homeopathy dogmatically and applies it blindly.
The main point I raise here is whether the concept of “seven cardinal principles” originally belongs to hahnemann or his later interpreters. Hahnemann said many things in his books, from ‘similia’ to ‘mesmerism’. Who decided only these ‘seven’ are ‘cardinal’ and others are not? What is the logic behind such a slection? Who did it?
Issue of ‘Drug Relationship’:
Drug relationship is a subject about which most homeo practitioners are very much worried and confused. Some practitioners very much rely upon ‘drug relationships’ even in deciding their treatment protocols. Concepts such as ‘complementary’, ‘inimical’, ‘antidotal’ etc. are frequently utilized in everyday practice. Some doctors even deviate from the theory of similimum, due to their over indulgence with ‘drug relationship’ protocols. When prescribing a drug based on its so-called complementary relationship to the earlier prescriptions, we forget to consider whether it is a similimum by totality of symptoms. Yet, we call it ‘classical’ homeopathy. When searching through the literature and authorities regarding drug relationships, it will be seen that no serious scientific studies have been done on this subject. Most of the drug relationships are proposed by empirical clinical observations of practitioners, and not corroborated by scientific studies or evidences. More over, practitioners who are not much bothered over this relationships between drugs swear that their experiences prove otherwise. Some homeopaths prescribe so-called inimical drugs even simultaneously or alternatingly, and get expected clinical results.
We have already seen during our previous deliberations that in homoeopathic potencies above 12C, there is no chance of drug molecules to exist. These preparations contain only hydrosomes or molecular imprints of constituent molecules of the drug substance subjected to potentization. Molecular imprints are only nanocavities formed by supra-molecular clustering of water and ethyl alcohol. Chemically, they contain only water and ethyl alcohol molecules. Even a given sample of homeopathic potency contains hundreds of types of individual imprints, representing the diverse types of molecules contained in the original drug substance. It is clear that they co-exist without disturbing or influencing each other in anyway, same time preserving their individual properties as molecular imprints of specific drug molecules.
- This clearly indicates that highly potentized homoeopathic preparations cannot chemically interact with each other, since they contain no drug molecules. Obviously, they are not likely to engage in any mutual interaction within or outside the organism. They can never antidote or destroy each other.
- Same time, the case of mother tinctures and preparations below 12c potencies may be totally different. They contain crude drug molecules, which can interact with each other due to their chemical properties. The concept of ‘drug relationships’ may be valid in the case of these low potencies. Low potencies may be more active than crude drugs, since they contain free molecules and ions.
- Low potencies and mother tincture of a drug may antidote higher potencies of same drug, due to the interaction with the hydrosomes which act as counteractive complementary factors to each other.
- Same way, low potencies and mother tinctures of a drug may antidote higher potencies of another drug that may contain similar constituent molecules, due to the interaction with the hydrosomes having counteractive complementary factors relationship. Obviously, drugs containing similar molecules may have more or less similar symptomatology during drug proving.
- Higher potencies of a drug may antidote the physiological effects of low potencies and mother tinctures of same drug, due to the interaction with the hydrosomes acting as counteractive complementary factors.
- Same way, higher potencies of a drug may antidote low potencies and mother tincture of another drug, that may contain similar constituent molecules, due to the interaction with the counteractive complementary factors contained in the higher potencies.
If there is similarity only between certain types of constituent molecules of two drugs, partial antodoting is possible. That means, molecules having configurational similarity only are subjected to antidoting by this way. Such drugs will have partially similar symptomatologies.
We should be aware of the possibility of dangerous chemical interactions that might result between the constituent drug molecules of different drugs, when we mix or administer two or more mother tinctures and low potency preparations together.
Role of ‘key-note symptoms’ in making homeopathic prescriptions:
A keynote symptom is a specific ‘symptom complex’ of ‘accessory symptoms’ that when appears associated with an abnormal basic symptom in a patient, specifically indicates a particular remedy. these keynote ‘symptom complexes’ are constituted by two or more very characteristic ‘accessory symptoms’ belonging to categories such as causations, locations, presentations, sensations, modalities and concomitants.
A Keynote ‘symptom complex’ becomes more useful in practice, when it contains minimum number of ‘accessory symptoms’ and it indicates minimum number of drugs- preferably SINGLE drug. In such cases, that drug could be prescribed very easily, and with full confidence.
Keynote symptom is a symptom, which if present in a patient, will directly lead us to a specific remedy. That symptom will work as a keynote in deciding a prescription for that case.
Most probably, a ‘keynote’ symptom is a ‘symptom complex’ that represents a specific molecular error produced in the organism by a specific pathogenic molecule. When same ‘keynote’ ‘symptom complex’ is also present in a drug, that shows the drug also contains a constituent molecule similar to that pathogenic molecule, which produced similar molecular errors during drug proving. Due to that similarity, molecular imprints of that particular drug molecules can bind specifically to those pathogenic molecules, there by removing the molecular inhibitions they produced in biological molecules.
‘Totality of symptoms’ in a patient means totality of all the diverse types of ‘symptom complexes’ expressed by the patient, representing all the diverse types of molecular errors produced by all the diverse types of pathogenic molecules.
‘Keynote symptom’ in a patient means a particular ‘symptom complex’ expressed by the patient, representing a particular type of molecular error produced by a particular type of pathogenic molecule.
When finding similimum by ‘totality of symptoms’, we are trying to find a drug that contains maximum number of diverse chemical molecules matching to maximum number of diverse pathogenic molecules that produced the diverse types of molecular errors as well as ‘symptom complexes’ in that particular patient.
When finding similimum by keynote method, we are trying to find a particular drug that contains a particular constituent molecule that is similar to a particular pathogenic molecule that produced a particular molecular in the organism and expressed through a particular ‘symptom complex’.
Keynote prescription tries to address a case by identifying a specific molecular error in the patient, where as totality of symptoms tries to address the case by considering maximum number of diverse molecular errors existing in the patient.
In keynote prescriptions, we select a similimum by considering only specific symptom complex representing a specific molecular error in the patient as a standard single unit, and identifying a drug that could produce symptom complex similar to it during drug proving.
Actually, a keynote symptom is a symptom, which if present in a patient, will directly lead us to a specific remedy. That symptom will work as a keynote in deciding a prescription for that case.
Use of Mother Tinctures:
I am not sure regarding the stand of ‘banerji protocols’ regarding the use of mother tinctures. MIT is of the strong conviction that using mother tinctures cannot be considered as genuine homeopathy, for obvious reasons.
We know that many homeopathic practitioners prescribe plenty of mother tinctures and low potency preparations. They do very successful ‘practice’ also. But, I am a bit suspicious regarding the desirability of using mother tinctures and low potencies, especially in a routine way for long terms.
It may relieve some of the symptoms, of course. But such relief is allopathic- not homeopathic. Chances of emerging new pathological conditions really exist in such a treatment protocol.
We must not forget that the symptomatologies provided in our materia medica give the list of symptoms that can be generated in healthy persons by the use of these drugs in crude form. Indiscriminate long-term use of mother tinctures containing plant enzymes, poisonous alkaloids, glycosides and various other phyto-chemical ingredients is an unpardonable crime even if it is done in the name of homeopathy. The drug molecules and ions contained in these tinctures might give temporary relief by nutritional supplementation, or competitive relationship to pathological molecules due to configurational similarity. But it is evident from their symptomatologies that those molecules and ions are capable of creating dangerous pathological molecular inhibitions in various bio-chemic channels in the organism. We should never forget that the subjective and objective symptoms provided in our material medica were created by the molecular deviations happened in healthy individuals during drug proving. Hence in my opinion, it is ideal to treat patients using potencies above 12c, which do not contain any trace of the drug molecules of the original drug. If our selection of drug is correct, there is no any chance of failure in such a protocol. Other wise, it will have to be considered as identical to Ayurveda, Allopathy or Herbal treatment. Those who indulge in excessive use of mother tinctures, without bothering about the constituent drug molecules and their adverse long term impacts on the organism, are more hazardous to human health than our allopathic counterparts. I humbly request them to think over.
From our materia medica works, it may be understoodthat most of those people who had participated in proving of Hydrastis Canadensis developed symptoms of gastric ulcer and hyperacidity along with many other deep seated pathological conditions. Doctors who administer large doses of Hydrastis Tincture to relive gastric symptoms as part of homeopathic treatment should note this point . Of course, we may get temporary relief, by the way of competitive relationships with pathological molecules, due to configurational similarity of drug molecules and pathological molecules. The prolonged use of Hydrastis Tincture not only produce the symptoms mentioned in the materia medica, but may even induce very serious genetic errors to happen. If hydrastis is the similimum forthe patient, it will be effective in high potencies. This is real homeopathy.
Please do not be provoked when I say that who give Passiflora for inducing sleep, Rauwolfia for lowering blood pressure and Syzijium for high blood sugar in their tincture form, are not practicing ideal Homeopathy even if they may be wellk nown Homeopaths, producing results. No homeopath with some common sense, who had carefully read the material medica of Alfalfa will dare to prescribe it as tonics to improve the appetite and general health of innocent children. It is evident from its symptomatology that Alfalfa is capable of producing diabetes, bulimia, and upsetting the normal functioning of kidneys.
Please read the provings of calc fluor and calc phos. They were the symptoms produced in healthy individuals by the action of those substances in molecular form. Symptoms cannot be produced without some molecular level changes in the organism. That means, molecular forms of those substances were capable of producing some harmful changes in biological processes. How can you think those drugs will not produce harmful effects in molecular forms. Fact is fact, what ever people think about them, or what are practiced so far.
We should remember that there was no exact knowledge regarding the long term evil effects of many drugs, when many of them were proved and their materia medica prepared. There was least knowledge about the genetic disorders they were likely to produce. It is found in Boecricke Materiamedica that Arsenic Bromide Mother Tincture is indicated for Diebetes. No physician with scientific awareness will even think of prescribing it today.Who will now dare to prescribe Ars iod 3x, Iodum 3x, Sulphur Q, or various compounds of Mercury and Lead only because they are found in our text books of Materia Medica?
We know of homeopaths who make their patients consume for prolonged periods, the mother tinctures of several drugs, including various patented combinations flooding the market in the name of Homeopathy. How can Homeopaths prescribe them without any prick of conscience? Those who love homoeopathy should take urgent initiative to prevent such tendencies either through awareness programs and campaigns, or through stringent legislational procedures.
How the mother tinctures differ from potentized drugs in their mechanism of therapeutic action, and why potentized drugs are more safe and effective than mother tinctures?
Not only potentized drugs, but mother tinctures and crude drugs also can act as ‘similimum’. But the molecular mechanisms of their therapeutic actions and ultimate outcome are fundamentally different from each other.
Drug molecules contained in mother tinctures and crude drugs ‘compete’ with pathogenic molecules having similar molecular configuration in binding to biological molecules and displace them, thereby relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions. By this ‘competitive’ relationship to pathogenic molecules, mother tinctures and crude drugs can act as similimum and produce therapeutic results.
‘Molecular imprints’ contained in potentized drugs act by an entirely different molecular mechanism. Molecular imprints binds directly to the pathogenic molecules having configurational affinity and deactivate them, thereby relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions. This is the molecular mechanism involved in the therapeutic action of potentized drugs.
Most notable difference is, drug molecules act as similimum by ‘competitive’ relationship toward pathogenic molecules, whereas ‘molecular imprints’ act by ‘complementary’ relationship.
Since crude drugs and mother tinctures contain drug molecules that can act upon biological molecules, they can also bind to various biological targets in the organism. Obviously, there is always chance for creation of new molecular inhibitions and drug-induced pathologies when we use crude drugs and mother tinctures. That is the draw back of using mother tinctures even if they are similimum.
Advantage of potentized drugs is that they do not contain any drug molecules, but only molecular imprints, which are only supra-molecular clusters of water and alcohol molecules. They can act upon pathogenic molecules only, not upon biological molecules. As such, potentized drugs cannot do any further harm to organism.
What will happen when ‘similimum’ is used in crude or ‘molecular’ forms? How their action will be different from that of potentized forms?
A drug is said to be similimum to a case when the symptoms produced by the disease in the patient is similar to the symptoms that drug could produce in a person without any disease. That means, the drug and the ‘disease-causing agents’ contain some ‘chemical molecules’ or ‘functional groups’ that are similar in conformations so that they could bind to similar molecular targets in the organism and produce similar molecular inhibitions that are expressed through similar subjective and objective symptoms.
When we apply ‘molecular forms’ of similimum in the patient, drug molecules compete with pathogenic molecules for binding to the same biological target molecules. According to the dynamics of biochemistry, such a competitive relationship of drug molecules and pathogenic molecules may result in the removal of inhibitions, if the affinity of drug molecules toward biological targets is higher than the affinity of pathogenic molecules. That means, crude forms of similimum may in certain instances cure the disease by competitive molecular mechanism.
It should be noted that the drug molecules cannot remove the molecular inhibitions if the they are overpowered by pathogenic molecules regarding their affinity towards biological targets so that the competition is not effective. This fact explains why crude forms of similimum fail in curing the disease in most occasions.
Another point to be noted that the crude drug substance contain diverse types of chemical molecules that can bind to various unexpected molecular targets in the organism and produce new molecular inhibitions in them. This fact explains the phenomena known as side effects and bad effects of drugs commonly experienced when using molecular forms of drug substances. That is why I keep on saying that using of mother tinctures and low potencies are undesirable and dangerous.
Similimum potentized above 12c contain no drug molecules, but only molecular imprints of drug molecules. When used as similimum, these molecular imprints act as artificial binding sites or artificial locks for the pathogenic molecules having similar functional groups. Due to this conformational affinity, they can selectively bind to the specific pathogenic molecules, and relieve the biological molecules from pathological inhibitions. This is the molecular mechanism involved in the therapeutic action of similimum in potentized forms. Since they do not contain any chemical molecules other than water and ethyl alcohol, they cannot produce any unwanted molecular inhibitions or side effects. That is why potentized drugs are said to be safe.
That is why we say only potentized drugs are genuine homeopathy, and safer than mother tinctures and molecular forms of drugs.
MIT approach makes homeopathic practice more rational and more scientific:
Once you understand and accept the scientific approach towards homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, instantly you start experiencing the self-confidence it provides, the great empowerment and transformation it brings to your over-all outlook and practice as a homeopath.
Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, and practice it accordingly, you will realize that your whole erstwhile perceptions of homeopathy is undergoing a wonderful change- your methods, targets and approaches changing radically. You will realize that you are no more a ‘healer’ practicing a ‘belief healing system’, but a proud scientific medical professional, capable of understanding and scientifically explaining your tools and principles to anybody. Your language becomes scientific, your thoughts become rational and your explanations becomes logical and convincing. You will no more have to talk about miracles, wonders, riddles and mysteries of homeopathy. Experience this change yourselves!
Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you would realize that any individual patient coming to you will have diverse types of molecular errors in him, caused by diverse types of endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules, and as such, diverse types of molecular imprints will be required to remove all these multitudes of molecular inhibitions to effect a complete cure. In most cases, all these diverse molecular imprints required for the patient will not be available in a ‘single’ drug, and hence, we will have to select more than one drug according to similarity of symptom groups, and apply them simultaneously, alternatingly or serially as decided by the physician. In my opinion, there is no harm even if they are applied together.
Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, all your confusions over ‘miasms’ could be resolved by perceiving miasms as chronic disease dispositions caused by the off-target actions of antibodies generated against exogenous or endogenous proteins including infectious agents. It would help you in scientifically understanding and treating various types of chronic diseases including auto immune diseases
Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that concepts such as ‘internal essence of drug substance’, ‘dynamic drug energy’, ‘drug personality’ etc are all scientifically baseless, and that the medicinal property of drug substance is decided by the structure and properties of constituent molecules, where as the medicinal properties of potentized drugs are decided by the 3-d configuration of molecular imprints they contain.
Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that when applied as similimum, potentized drug does not act as a ‘whole’ unit, but it is the individual constituent ‘molecular imprints’ that independently bind to the pathogenic molecules having configurational affinity, remove pathological molecular inhibitions and cure the disease. You will realize that you need not worry over single/multiple drugs issue any more.
Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that during ‘drug proving’, drug substance does not act as a ‘whole’ unit, but it is the individual constituent drug molecules that independently act up on the biological molecules, cause molecular inhibitions and produce symptoms.
Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that since molecular imprints do not interact each other, and since they act as individual units when applied as therapeutic agents, there cannot by any harm even if we mix two or more potentized drugs together, or prescribe them simultaneously- they will work.
Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that even so-called ‘single drugs’ are not really single, but combinations of diverse types of independent ‘molecular imprints’, representing diverse types of drug molecules, acting as independent units upon pathogenic molecules having configurational affinity and removing molecular inhibitions
Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that ‘molecular imprints’ forms of drugs cannot interact each other, and as such, one cannot antidote another, or act inimical to each other.
Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that there is no chance of so-called aggravations, suppressions, provings or any other harm even if ‘wrong’ drug, ‘wrong’ potency or ‘untimely repetitions are used, if you are using only ‘molecular imprints’ forms of drugs.
Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you realize that selecting drug, potency, dose and follow up and getting cure are not a so much complex thing as we are made to believe.
Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics,you realize no more ‘riddles and mysteries’ remain in homeopathy that could not be explained.
Only Molecular Imprints Therapeutics provides a sound explanation of homeopathy, fitting well to modern science and our every day experiences.
Once the scientific knowledge provided by MIT is incorporated into BANERJI PROTOCOLS as its theoretical foundation and its practical tools further streamlined accordingly, it will become more perfect as a most scientific and rational method of homeopathic practice ever evolved during the whole history of homeopathic practice. Actually, I feel that MIT has its closest practical counterpart in BANERJI PROTOCOLS, and BANERJI PROTOCOLS has its closest theoretical counterpart in MIT.