While criticizing homeopathy on social platforms, skeptics always quote from a report from UK’s Parliamentary Science and Technology Select Committee published in 2010 for proving their arguments.
SEE THE CONCLUSIINS PROPOSED BY THE REPORT:
—Select Committee report, p. 18:
“There appear to be two main concerns. The first is the principle of like-cures-like and the second is about how ultra-dilutions could retain characteristics of the active ingredient”.
—Select Committee report, p. 20:
“We conclude that the principle of like-cures-like is theoretically weak. It fails to provide a credible physiological mode of action for homeopathic products. We note that this is the settled view of medical science”
MY COMMENTS ON “TWO MAIN CONCERNS” OF THE COMMITTEE:
Their “first concern” was about the principle “similia similibus curentur”. According to their view, the principle like cures like is “theoretically weak”, and “it fails to provide a credible physiological mode of action for homeopathic products”.
According to scientific explanations provided by MIT, ‘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. When pathogenic molecules and drug molecules are conformationally similar, they can compete in binding to the biological targetes, which is a well explained phenomenon explained in modern biochemistry, known as competitive inhibitions and molecular mimicry. 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’. It is not theoretical weakness of homeopathy principle, but knowledge weakness of the committee that led to the wrong conclusions! They could have realized why “like cures like” is real and scientific, if they had perceived it in the light of advanced knowledge of phenomena such as “molecular mimicry” and “competitive inhibitions” available in modern biochemistry.
This explanatiin of MIT provides a scientifically “credible physiological mode of action for similia similibus curentur”.
Second “concern” of the committee was “about how ultra-dilutions could retain characteristics of the active ingredient”.
It is obvious from the study of phenomena such as “molecular mimicry” and “competitive inhibitions”, how CONFORMATIONAL properties of chemical molecules determines their specific roles in biochemical interactions.
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.
Hope I have addressed the two main concerns of the committee regarding the principle of “like-cures-like” and about “how ultra-dilutions could retain characteristics of the active ingredient”. Anybody who is not prejudiced against homeopathy will agree that my above explanations provide a “credible physiological mode of action for homeopathic products”
THE PROBLEM IS, HOMEOPATHIC COMMUNITY FAILED TO PRESENT THIS MIT CONCEPTS BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE. HAD ANYBODY DONE IT, THE OUTCOME AND CONCLUSIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.
REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY 