HERE IS A SCHOLARLY “RESEARCHER” WHO SEEMS TO HAVE LOST HIS COMMON SENSE DUE TO STRONG HOSTLITY TOWARDS HOMEOPATHY!

An allopathy doctor from kerala, an “eminent hepatologist” attatched to a “center of excellence” of a leading hospital, who is engaged in reasearching about “dangers of homeopathy”, has declared that he has found out the quantity of arsenic present in homeopathic drug Arsenic Alb 30. According to him, 1 kg of Ars Alb 30 globules he purchased from market contains 0.18 mg of crude arsenic, and hence it is a very dangerous drug to be used in human beings!

This poor guy seems to have misunderstood that homeopathic drugs are administered to patients as KILOGRAM DOSES of globules!

1 kg of No: 40 sugar globules commonly used by homeopaths approximately consists of around 32000 globules. That means, 1 medicated globule of Ars Alb 30 may contain 0.18/32000 or 0.00000562 mg of arsenic! We can calculate how much negligible quantity of arsenic will enter our body by taking 3 or 4 hlobules of Ars Alb 30, even if the “invention” of our allopathy scientist is right!

What “danger” such a small quantity of arsenic can cause? Our Resepected scientist is bound to answer. Even if a person takes 4 pills of ars alb 30 bds daily for 360 days, total arsenic entering the body through 2880 pills will be much lesser than 18 microgram, that is much below one days reccommended dietary requirement!

Please do some calculations and tell me sir, how much arsenic will reach into the body by consuming Ars Alb 30, 4 pills bds for 3 days? Is it enough to cause toxicity “leading to liver failure and death”?

Arsenic is a trace element that occurs naturally in very small amounts in the diet. Its exact functions are not known. The estimated adult daily intake of arsenic from a typical diet is 12-50 mcg. A dietary requirement of 12-25 mcg/day has been suggested.

Please look into some quick facts regarding arsenic in environment as well as our food articles:

The arsenic content ranged from 0.001 mg/kg in cabbages to 0.104 mg/kg also in bananas.

Inorganic arsenic that exists in soil is highly attracted to sulfur compounds in brussels sprouts, along with other cruciferous vegetables, including kale, broccoli, and cauliflower.

It has been evidenced that arsenic in garlic is present in the most toxic inorganic species As(III) and As(V).

The amounts of As(III) tended to be higher in non-processed nuts such as cashews, almonds, pine nuts, walnuts etc.

The arsenic content of raw rice varies from 0.1 to 0.4 mg of inorganic arsenic/kg of dry mass. Arsenic is concentrated in rice bran.

The cocoa powder revealed the maximum metal concentrations of 0.303 ± 0.035 mg/kg for cadmium, 1.228 ± 0.146 mg/kg for lead and 0.094 ± 0.013 mg/kg for arsenic.

It has also been reported that honey can be contaminated with heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, mercury and cadmium.

Arsenic contamination of groundwater is a form of groundwater pollution which is often due to naturally occurring high concentrations of arsenic in deeper levels of groundwater. It is a high-profile problem due to the use of deep tube wells for water supply in the Ganges Delta, causing serious arsenic poisoning to large numbers of people.

Tobacco contains arsenic so the cigarette/cigar/cigarillo/hookah smoke you inhale does too. Arsenic is introduced into tobacco through the farming process, and is present in small quantities in cigarette smoke. Inorganic arsenic is present in mainstream tobacco smoke and presumably in sidestream smoke as well. Smoking makes it harder for your body to get rid of arsenic before it damages your cells. Arsenic exposure and smoking can increase your risk of lung, kidney and bladder cancer, and heart disease.

Actually, going though the “research paper” of this “allopathy scientist” is a real fun, making us wonder how these people claiming themselves to be “experts”, “researchers” and “scientists” could stoop so low, proving themselves to be pathetically biased and ignorant of the subject they are dealing with as well as the “scientific method” they boast about!

In this “research paper” our researchers from “center of excellence” have claimed to present “three cases of acute liver injury, leading to death in one patient with underlying non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) cirrhosis, after consumption of the homeopathic remedy Arsenic Alb 30 for COVID-19 prevention.”

A comparative study of arsenic content in banana and arsenic Alb 30 will be usefull to realize the folly of our “researcher” attacking homeopathy.

Wikipedia says that 1 kg of banana contains 0.1mg of arsenic. 1 gm banana contains 0.0001 mg of arsenic It means, 0.015 mg arsenic enters our body when we consume 150 gram of average sized banana.

Arsenic detected in 1 kg of Arsenic Alb 30 is 0.18 mg. Arsenic in 1 gm of Ars Alb 30- 0.00018 mg
Arsenic in 150 gm of Ars Alb 30- 0.027 mg

Arsenic we get by consuming 150 gm of banana is approximately equivalent to that we get from 75 gm of Arsenic Alb globules 75 gm of Arsenic Alb 30 globules will contain 2400 globules.

It means, arsenic our children get by eating 150 gms of banana will be equivalent to arsenic they may get by taking 2400 Ars Alb 30 globules.

Since the dosage of Ars Alb 30 per day is 3 globules, they will have to take it for 800 days to get arsenic equivalent to that they get by eating 150 gms of banana ONE DAY

If a child takes one banana every day for 300 days in a year, he will get arsenic equivalent to that he may get by taking 300 x 75 or 22.5kg of arsenic Alb 30 globules or 720000 globules of arsenic Alb 30.

Respected learned paediatrician, kindly tell us which is more dangerous to our children, 3 globules of homeopathic arsenic Alb 30 per day, or one banana per day?

They know very well that “arsenic, known as the king of poisons is a highly toxic substance with the potential to cause acute as well as chronic injury to multiple organ systems, mainly skin, lung, liver, and kidneys”.

But these “researchers” failed pathetically to understand the difference between ARSENIC and ARSENIC ALB 30! They should know, homeopathic ARS ALB 30 will not contain even a single molecule of ARSENIC, since t is diluted to 30c or a ratio “1:1 followed by 60 zeros”, which is very much above avogadro limit.

If their argument is that ARS ALB 30 still contains ARSENIC particles, they should have tested the sample used by the patients they subjected to study, and the test report showing the presence and quantiy of arsenic in the sample attatched to the “research paper”! Instead, they say “analysis of drugs consumed could not be performed in view of inadequate sample availability”. Is it so difficult for anybody to procure a sample of arsenic alb 30 for such a “sample analysis”? Without conducting such a sample analysis, how could they come to the conclusion that ARSENIC ALB 30 contains such a high amount of ARSENIC to cause “acute liver toxicity and death” by using “4 pills” or “three drops”? They are bound to say how much ARSENIC will be present in 4 globules or 3 drops of homeopathic ARS ALB 30, and is that quantity enough to produce the toxic effects of ARSENIC.

And still our “expert hepatologist” builds up stories about “cases of acute liver injury, leading to death in one patient with underlying non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) cirrhosis, after consumption of the homeopathic remedy Arsenic Alb 30 at a dosage of 4 pills bds for 3 days for COVID-19 prevention.”

OUR SCHOLARLY “RESEARCHER” SEEMS TO HAVE LOST HIS COMMON SENSE DUE TO HIS STRONG HOSTLITY TOWARDS HOMEOPATHY!

HOW HAHNEMANNIAN CONCEPT OF ‘MIASMS’ WAS TURNED UPSIDE DOWN BY HIS ‘CLASSICAL’ INTERPRETORS AND TAUGHT IN OUR COLLEGES!

While introducing the concept of MIASMS of ‘infectious diseases’ as the causative factor of CHRONIC DISEASES, HAHNEMANN was actually thinking far ahead of his contemporary science. Both the scientific community, as well as his own followers failed in understanding the real meaning and implications of this epoch making revelation.

Modern science has only just started to realize the role of ANTIBODIES as a major class of disease-producing molecules, which were so far considered only as ‘defense molecules’ of our body.

Recent studies of ‘off target’ inhibitions produced by antibodies as a major causative factor in chronic diseases so far called as ‘auto-immune’ diseases shows that hahnemann was thinking 200 years ahead of his time while introducing the concept of miasms.

Let us bow our heads in memory of that great genius, whose observational and reasoning skills transcended the limitations of not only his time and knowledge available to him, but even coming centuries.

Fundamental error ‘classical miasmatic analysts’ make is, they have turned hahnemann’s concept of miasms upside down. According to those people, ‘gonorrhoea is CAUSED BY sycosis’, itch infection is CAUSED BY psora’, and ‘syphilis disease is CAUSED BY miasm of syphilis’. And these ‘miasms are caused by original sins of humanity’!

They interpret hahnemann in a very wrong way. Kindly read CHRONIC DISEASES once again carefully, avoiding ‘interpreters’. Hahnemann actually said, these three miasms were CAUSED BY these infectious diseases. And, these three miasms in turn CAUSE other diverse types of CHRONIC DISEASES.

According to hahnemann, PSORA is never acquired unless the person is ONCE infected by itch disease, SYCOSIS is never acquired unless the person is ONCE infected by gonoorhoea, SYPHILIS is never acquired unless the the person is ONCE infected with syphilis disease.

All confusions regarding miasms could be resolved only by first resolving the confusion whether hahnemann considered PSORA, SYPHILIS and SYCOSIS are CAUSED by infectious diseases, or those infectious diseases are CAUSED by already existing miasms of ORIGINAL SINS OF HUMANITY.

If anybody has least doubt whether or not hahnemann was talking about the ‘miasm of psora’ as originating from ‘infection of itch disease’, kindly read this part from ‘Chronic Diseases’-Para 37:

“Psora (itch disease), like syphilis, is a miasmatic chronic disease, and its original development is similar. The itch disease is, however, also the most contagious of all chronic miasmata, far more infectious than the other two chronic miasmata, the venereal chancre disease and the figwart disease”.

“But the miasma of the itch needs only to touch the general skin, especially with tender children”.

“No other chronic miasma infects more generally, more surely, more easily and more absolutely than the miasma of itch; as already stated, it is the most contagious of all. It is communicated so easily, that even the physician, hurrying from one patient to another, in feeling the pulse has unconsciously inoculated other patients with it; wash which is washed with wash infected with the itch; new gloves which had been tried on by an itch patient, a strange lodging place, a strange towel used for drying oneself have communicated this tinder of contagion; yea, often a babe, when being born, is infected while passing through the organs of the mother, who may be infected (as is not infrequently the case) with this disease; or the babe receives this unlucky infection through the hand of the midwife, which has been infected by another parturient woman (or previously); or, again, a suckling may be infected by its nurse, or, while on her arm, by her caresses or the caresses of a strange person with unclean hands; not to mention the thousands of other possible ways in which things polluted with this invisible miasma may touch a man in the course of his life, and which often can in no way be anticipated or guarded against, so that men who have never been infected by the psora are the exception. We need not to hunt for the causes of infection in crowded hospitals, factories, prisons, or in orphan houses, or in the filthy huts of paupers; even in active life, in retirement, and in the rich classes, the itch creeps in”.

It is obvious that hahnemann considered human beings aquiring ‘miasm of psora’ only by getting ‘infected’ with ‘itch’ disease.

But our ‘miasmatic experts’ make theories about even ‘genetic inheritance’ of ‘psora’! I would request young homeopaths to carefully read the original works of hahnemann with a logical and scientific mindset, instead of ‘learning miasms’ from modern interpreters.

Listen to hahnemann saying: “not to mention the thousands of other possible ways in which things polluted with this invisible miasma may touch a man in the course of his life, and which often can in no way be anticipated or guarded against, so that men who have never been infected by the psora are the exception”.

Hahnemann explains the diverse ways of getting infected by itch to show why “men who have never been infected by psora are the exception”. But our miasmatic experts would say that it is due to ‘genetic inheritance’!

Kindly read CHRONIC DISEASES carefully once again. You will realize, while introducing the concepts of MIASMS, hahnemann was actually talking about the life long ‘chronic disease dispositions’ resulting from infectious diseases.

He limited his discussions to ‘three’ miasms, since according to him, itch-leprosy, syphilis and figwart-gonorrhoea disease were the most widely distributed infectious diseases during his time.

How an ‘infectious agent’ can produce a ‘chronic disposition’ even after the infectious disease is cured, is the subject of my inquiries. According to me, it can happen only through the antibodies generated in the organism against those infectious substances, which contain protein molecules alien to the organism. These antibodies remain lifelong, and can bind to ‘off-target’ biological molecules, thereby producing diverse types of chronic diseases.

ANTIBODIES are the carriers of miasms- this is what I try to make out. Antibodies and misformed proteins generated in the body against diverse types of infectious agents and other ‘alien’ proteins constitute a major class of pathogenic agents that cause diverse types of CHRONIC DISEASES, including even auto-immune diseases and proteinopathies.

Hahnemann called this pathogenic factors as ‘miasms’, as he was not much aware of antibodies and immunology during his period.

Did Homeopathy Community Actually Do Justice to Samuel Hahnemann?

Samuel Hahnemann was such a wonderful genius that he could introduce a set of ideas and therapeutic tools that were naturally unimaginable and inconceivable to anybody belonging to the scientific community in the contemporary primitive knowlege context he lived in 200+ years ago!

As per modern scientific pardigms, hahnemann’s revolutionary ideas included ‘studying drug pathology’ by observing symptoms drug substances produced when applied in healthy individuals (DRUG PROVING), ‘studying disease pathology’ by observing symptoms produced in disease conditions (TOTALITY OF SYMPTOMS), removal of molecular inhibitions utilizing ‘molecular mimicry’ and ‘molecular competitions’ (SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR), ‘molecular imprinted drug designing’ using azeotropic water-ethanol mixtures (HOMEOPATHIC POTENTIZATION) etc.

Is it not really amazing that during a period when modern biochemistry did not even emerge, hahnemann could observe the phenomenon of “competitive relationship of similar chemical molecules in binding to the biological targets”, and develop it into the foundation of a therapeutic principle he called SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR?

Is it not equally amazing that Hahnemann could utilize the natural phenomenon of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING and develop it into a technology of preparing a new class of therapeutic agents, during a period when modern polymer technology or supra-molecular chemistry did not even emerge?

Did we actually do justice to Samuel Hahnemann?

Did we, his “followers” and “disciples”, actually do anything all these two hundred years to take forward and update his contributions?

Did we do anything seriously to study and scientifically explain his ideas, and present them to the modern scientific community so as to get the due recognition and place he deserved in the human knowledge history?

What his “blind” followers did all these years was to make him an idol of worship, without recognizing the great scientist in him. They converted his words into mere dogmas, to be learned and recited just like religious preachings!

Hahnemann failed to get the due respect and recognition in the history of medical science, only due to his unscientific and shortsighted followers and disciples who made his ideas and its practices more and more superstitious, spiritualistic and irrational.

MIT HELPS TO UNDERSTAND ‘AUTO-IMMUNE DISEASES’ IN TERMS OF ‘MIASMS’

MIT concepts explains MIASMS in terms of chronic disease dispositions caused by ANTIBODIES or DEFORMED PROTEINS. This explanation helps us to approach those so-called AUTO IMMUNE DISEASES from a new angle.

Let us look into the exhaustive list of diseases included in the class of AUTO-IMMUNE DISEASES, which are actually ‘chronic diseases caused by off-target actions of antibodies’. Kindly go through this list to realize the real magnitude of ‘anti-body’ mediated diseases or ‘miasmatic’ diseases in our day today medical practice:

” Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, Acute hemorrhagic leukoencephalitis, Addison’s Disease, Agammaglobulinemia, Alopecia areata, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Ankylosing Spondylitis, Anti-GBM/TBM Nephritis, Antiphospholipid syndrome, Antisynthetase syndrome, Atopic allergy, Atopic allergy, Atopic dermatitis, Autoimmune aplastic anemia, Autoimmune cardiomyopathy, Autoimmune enteropathy, Autoimmune hemolytic anemia, Autoimmune hepatitis, Autoimmune inner ear disease, Autoimmune lymphoproliferative syndrome, Autoimmune peripheral neuropathy, Autoimmune pancreatitis, Autoimmune polyendocrine syndrome, Autoimmune thrombocytopenic purpura, Autoimmune progesterone dermatitis, Autoimmune urticaria, Autoimmune uveitis, Balo disease/Balo concentric sclerosis, Bechets Syndrome, Berger’s disease, Bickerstaff’s encephalitis, Blau syndrome, Bullous pemphigoid, Cancer, Celiac disease, Castleman’s disease, Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, Chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis, Churg-Strauss syndrome, Cicatricial pemphigoid, Cogan syndrome, Cold agglutinin disease, Complement component 2 deficiency, Cranial arteritis, CREST syndrome, Crohns Disease, Cushing’s Syndrome, Cutaneous leukocytoclastic angiitis, Dego’s disease, Dercum’s disease, Dermatitis herpetiformis, Dermatomyositis, Diabetes mellitus type 1, Discoid lupus erythematosus, Eczema, Erythema nodosum, Diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis, Enthesitis-related arthritis, Epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, Eosinophilic gastroenteritis, Eosinophilic fasciitis, Dressler’s syndrome, Diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis, Essential mixed cryoglobulinemia, Evan’s syndrome, Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressive, Fibrosing aveolitis, Gastritis, Gastrointestinal pemphigoid, Giant cell arteritis, Glomerulonephritis, Goodpasture’s syndrome, Graves’ disease, Henoch-Schonlein purpura, Guillain-Barré syndrome, Hashimoto’s encephalitis, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, Haemolytic anaemia, Herpes gestationis, Hypogammaglobulinemia, Idiopathic Inflammatory Demyelinating Diseases, Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, IgA nephropathy, Inclusion body myositis, Inflammatory demyelinating polyneuopathy, Interstitial cystitis, Juvenile idiopathic arthritis, Juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, Kawasaki’s Disease, Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome, Leukocytoclastic vasculitis, Lichen planus, Linear IgA disease, Lichen sclerosus, Lou Gehrig’s disease, Lupoid hepatitis, Lupus erythematosus, Majeed syndrome, Ménière’s disease, Microscopic polyangiitis, Miller-Fisher syndrome, Mixed Connective Tissue Disease, Morphea, Mucha-Habermann disease, Multiple sclerosis, Myasthenia gravis, Myositis, Neuromyelitis optica, Neuromyotonia, Occular cicatricial pemphigoid, Opsoclonus myoclonus syndrome, Ord thyroiditis, Palindromic rheumatism, pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcus, Paraneoplastic cerebellar degeneration, Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, Parry Romberg syndrome, Parsonnage-Turner syndrome, Pars planitis, Pemphigus vulgaris, Pernicious anaemia, Perivenous encephalomyelitis, POEMS syndrome, Polyarteritis nodosa, Rheumatoid fever, Psoriasis, Polymyalgia rheumatica, Polymyositis, Primary biliary cirrhosis, Primary sclerosing cholangitis, Progressive inflammatory neuropathy, Psoriatic arthritis, Pyoderma gangrenosum, Pure red cell aplasia, Rasmussen’s encephalitis, Raynaud phenomenon, Relapsing polychondritis, Reiter’s syndrome, Restless leg syndrome, Retroperitoneal fibrosis, Rheumatoid arthritis, Sarcoidosis, Schmidt syndrome, Schnitzler syndrome, Scleritis, Scleroderma, Sjögren’s syndrome, Spondyloarthropathy, Still’s disease, Undifferentiated spondyloarthropathy, Stiff person syndrome, Subacute bacterial endocarditis, Susac’s syndrome, Sweet’s syndrome, Sydenham chorea, Sympathetic ophthalmia, Takayasu’s arteritis, Temporal arteritis, Tolosa-Hunt syndrome, Transverse myelitis, Ulcerative colitis, Undifferentiated connective tissue disease, Vasculitis, Vitiligo, Wegener’s granulomatosis”

I have been trying to explain concept of ‘miasms’ as ‘chronic disease dispositions’ due to the ‘off-target’ molecular inhibitions caused by ‘antibodies’ formed against ‘infectious agents’ and ‘exogenous’ proteins. As per this view, antibodies are the causative agents of ‘miasms’.MI

All of us know, so-called ‘autoimmune diseases’ are caused by ‘antibodies’. But, those ‘antibodies’ are considered to be formed not against ‘exogenous antigens’, but ‘endogenous or host antigens’. If we explain ‘miasms’ as ‘antibodies’ formed against ‘exogenous’ proteins, should we exclude ‘autoimmune diseases’ from ‘miasms’, since they are considered to be formed against ‘endogenous antigens’, not ‘exogenous proteins’?

Here, we have to undertake a serious study of the phenomena of ‘autoimmunity’ and ‘autoimmune diseases.

According to immunologists, ‘autoimmune diseases’ arise from an overactive immune response of the body against substances and tissues normally present in the body. In other words, the body actually attacks its own cells. The immune system mistakes some part of the body as a pathogen and attacks it. This may be restricted to certain organs (e.g. in autoimmune thyroiditis) or involve a particular tissue in different places (e.g. Goodpasture’s disease which may affect the basement membrane in both the lung and the kidney).

Hundreds of chronic systemic diseases are now classified as ‘autoimmune diseases’. This group include Coeliac disease, diabetes mellitus type 1, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), Sjögren’s syndrome, Churg-Strauss Syndrome, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, Graves’ disease, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), lupus and allergies. This group is expanding every day.

Autoimmune diseases are broadly divided into systemic and organ-specific or localised autoimmune disorders, depending on the principal clinico-pathologic features of each disease.

Systemic autoimmune diseases- include SLE, Sjögren’s syndrome, scleroderma, rheumatoid arthritis, and dermatomyositis. These conditions tend to be associated with antibodies to antigens which are not tissue specific. Thus although polymyositis is more or less tissue specific in presentation, it may be included in this group because the autoantigens are often ubiquitous t-RNA synthetases.

Local syndromes which affect a specific organ or tissue:

Endocrinologic: Diabetes mellitus type 1, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, Addison’s diseaseGastrointestinal: Coeliac disease, Crohn’s Disease, Pernicious anaemia

Dermatologic: Pemphigus vulgaris, Vitiligo

Haematologic: Autoimmune haemolytic anaemia, Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura

Neurological: Myasthenia gravis

Autoimmunity is defined as “the failure of an organism to recognize its own constituent parts as self, which allows an immune response against its own cells and tissues. Any disease that results from such an aberrant immune response is termed an autoimmune disease”.

This definition does not answer the question we are interested. Are the antibodies ‘formed against’ native targets, or ‘antibodies formed against’ exogenous antigens mistaking native targets as the ‘exogenous antigens’?

Actually, are the antibodies considered to be the causative agents of ‘autoimmune diseases’ really formed against ‘host antigens’? Or, are they ‘antibodies’ formed against ‘exogenous proteins’ attacking ‘off-target’ sites in the organism?

This topic is still a controversial subject in immunology. We should remember that ‘immune’ mechanism is basically a defense mechanism of our organism to identify and destroy ‘exogenous proteins’ which are alien to our genetic blueprint. Several mechanisms are thought to be operative in the pathogenesis of autoimmune diseases, against a backdrop of genetic predisposition and environmental modulation. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss each of these mechanisms exhaustively, but a summary of some of the important mechanisms suggested by various hypotheses may be examined.

  1. T-Cell Bypass – A normal immune system requires the activation of B-cells by T-cells before the former can produce antibodies in large quantities. This requirement of a T-cell can be bypassed in rare instances, such as infection by organisms producing super-antigens, which are capable of initiating polyclonal activation of B-cells, or even of T-cells, by directly binding to the β-subunit of T-cell receptors in a non-specific fashion.
  2. Molecular Mimicry – An exogenous antigen may share structural similarities with certain host antigens; thus, any antibody produced against this antigen (which mimics the self-antigens) can also, in theory, bind to the host antigens, and amplify the immune response. The idea of molecular mimicry arose in the context of Rheumatic Fever, which follows infection with Group A beta-haemolytic streptococci. Although rheumatic fever has been attributed to molecular mimicry for half a century no antigen has been formally identified (if anything too many have been proposed). Moreover, the complex tissue distribution of the disease (heart, joint, skin, basal ganglia) argues against a cardiac specific antigen. It remains entirely possible that the disease is due to e.g. an unusual interaction between immune complexes, complement components and endothelium.
  3. Idiotype Cross-Reaction – Idiotypes are antigenic epitopes found in the antigen-binding portion (Fab) of the immunoglobulin molecule. Plotz and Oldstone presented evidence that autoimmunity can arise as a result of a cross-reaction between the idiotype on an antiviral antibody and a host cell receptor for the virus in question. In this case, the host-cell receptor is envisioned as an internal image of the virus, and the anti-idiotype antibodies can react with the host cells.
  4. Epitope spreading or epitope drift – when the immune reaction changes from targeting the primary epitope to also targeting other epitopes. In contrast to molecular mimicry, the other epitopes need not be structurally similar to the primary one.

If we carefully study the above hypotheses proposed by modern immunology, you will find that all these hypotheses indirectly agree with our contention that so called autoimmune diseases are actually caused by ‘off-target’ inhibitions created by ‘antibodies’ formed against ‘exogenous antigens’

A recent observation regarding relationship of autoimmune diseases and infectious diseases is found to be very important from our ‘miasmatic’ angle. Studies revealed strong association of certain microbial organisms with autoimmune diseases. For example, Klebsiella pneumoniae and coxsackievirus B have been strongly correlated with ankylosing spondylitis and diabetes mellitus type 1, respectively. This has been explained by the tendency of the infecting organism to produce ‘super-antigens’ that are capable of polyclonal activation of B-lymphocytes, and production of large amounts of antibodies of varying specificities, some of which may be self-reactive.

This ‘polyclonal’ ‘super-antigen’ theory goes very close to our explanation of ‘miasms’ as antibody-mediated.

There is a recent proposal among immunologist that the spectrum of autoimmunity should be viewed along an “immunological disease continuum,” with classical autoimmune diseases at one extreme and diseases driven by the innate immune system at the other extreme. Within this scheme, the full spectrum of autoimmunity can be included. Many common human autoimmune diseases can be seen to have a substantial innate immune mediated immunopathology using this new scheme.

IS HOMEOPATHY AN “ANCILLARY” OF MODERN MEDICINE?

Thanks to the compulsions of corona epidemic, the term Homeopathic PROPHYLAXIS is now displaced by a new term IMMUNE BOOSTER in the vocabulary of of homeopaths. Homeopaths themselves have already accepted the new term very enthusiastically, as if they consider it gives to a new higher STATUS to homeopathy! They are not much bothered about the meaning of “immune boosting”, what is the biological mechanism of immune boosting, or HOW homeopathic medicines boost immunity. It is a nice and appealing term, that is enough for them to rejoice!

Now comes another term and another STATUS for homeopathy – ANCILLARY MEDICINE. Homeopathy is now raised to a NEW status of ANCILLARY MEDICINE, instead of the erstwhile status of ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE! This new status is the contribution of OUR HOMEOPATHIC CORONA RESEARCHERS.

The title given to a “homeopathic drug trial” conducted by a team of leading homeopaths was
“Effectiveness of Homeopathy as an ancillary mode of treatment and management in combating corona virus infection”.

Going to the details of that “RESEARCH” it is found that homeopathic medicines were used along with “drugs of modern medicine according to standard treatment protocol”!

In modern medicine, the word ANCILLARY is clearly defined.

Ancillary services in modern medicine is classified into three categories:
diagnostic
therapeutic
custodial
Diagnostic services include laboratory tests, radiology, genetic testing, diagnostic imaging, and more.

Therapeutic services range from rehabilitation to physical and occupational therapy, as well as massage, chiropractic services, and speech therapy.

Custodial services include everything from hospice care and long-term acute care to nursing facilities and urgent care.

Ancillary services are medical services or supplies that are not provided by acute care hospitals, doctors or health care professionals. Examples of ancillary services include:
Ambulance services
Ambulatory surgery center (ASC) services
Audiology services
Behavioral health services (inpatient and outpatient)
Cardiac monitoring
Dialysis services
Durable medical equipment (DME)
Hearing services
Home health care services
Home infusion therapy services
Hospice care services
Laboratory services
Medical day care (adult and pediatric)
Mobile diagnostic services
Orthotics and prosthetics
Personal care assistant services
Private duty nursing
Radiology/diagnostic imaging
Rehabilitation services (inpatient and outpatient)
Skilled nursing services
Sleep laboratory services
Speech services
Substance-abuse services (inpatient and outpatient)
Ventilator services
Wound-care services

By earning a status that is ANCILLARY to modern medicine, what advancement we have to expect for homeopathy? By REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, we were trying to establish that homeopathy is actually a scientifically more advanced stage of modern medicine. Using the corona researchers, modern medicine has very successfully pulled down homeopathy to the status of their ANCILLARY system, even from the current status of ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE ! Do homeopaths think ANCILLARY status is more desirable and prestigious that ALTERNATIVE status? Why do you fail to think about at least a PARALLEL status?

Why should homeopaths do research to establish homeopathy as an ANCILLARY of modern medicine? What you are actually trying to prove by giving homeopathy medicines along with “drugs of modern medicine according to standard treatment protocol”! Is it not the real MIXOPATHY or MIXING OF MEDICAL SYSTEMS you are so MUCH abhorrent about? Even if our medicines acted in such cases, do you expect scientific will accept your research as a proof for effectiveness of homeopathy?

Homeopaths are averse to give TWO medicines together in potentized form, as it is against the “words of maser”! But they have no aversion to give homeopathic medicines ALONG WITH allopathic medicines to same patient, if it is given by another doctor! Is it not ridiculous? Where did master permit you to use potentized homeopathic medicines to a patient along with allopathic medicines?

ON HOMEOPATHIC ‘DIAGNOSIS’

One of the accusations we hear against homeopathy from its critics is that homeopathy treat only symptoms, without diagnosing the disease. This criticism comes from the idea that diagnosis means fitting the sufferings of the patient into a ‘disease name’ given in the textbooks.

It is wrong to say “homeopathy treats symptoms”.

Actually, homeopathy uses “totality of symptoms” as an indirect means for identifying the biomolecular errors underlyning the disease conditions, as symptoms are nothing but subjective and objective expressions of underlying molecular level pathology.

Homeopathy uses ‘similarity of disease symptoms and drug symptoms’ as a means to identify the appropriate therapeutic agent, based on the knowledge of biochemistry that molecules with ‘similar’ functional groups can bind to ‘similar’ biological targets and produce ‘similar’ molecular inhibitions that are expressed through ‘similar’ trains of symptoms, and that ‘similar’ molecules will compete each other for binding to same biological targets, leading to the removal of molecular inhibitions. This is the basis of therapeutic principle ‘similia similibus curentur’.

If we could identify the drug molecules that are ‘similar’ to particular disease-causing molecules, molecular imprints of those drug molecules can act as artificial binding pockets for those disease-causing molecules by their conformational affinity and deactivate them, thereby removing the pathological molecular inhibitions they had produced in the organism. This is the molecular mechanism of high dilution therapeutics involved in homeopathy.

When a homeopath selects a particular drug or a combination of drugs as ‘similimum’ for a particular patient on the basis of ‘totality’ of subjective and objective symptoms, he is actually making a ‘diagnosis’- a diagnosis that is more comprehensive, more minute, more deep, more subtle and more specific than what is commonly known as ‘diagnosis’ according to the paradigms of modern medicine.

Homeopathic diagnosis of identifying a ‘similimum’ actually goes much deeper level into the identification of exact ‘molecular level’ errors existing in the individual. These molecular level errors could not be accurately identified with any modern sophisticated techniques or bio-chemical studies with such a perfection, other than by the observation of subjective and objective symptoms expressed by the individual. Disease diagnosis of modern medicine is only a very superfluous part of this molecular level ‘total diagnosis’ done by homeopathy. That is why modern medicine find it difficult to treat without proper ‘disease diagnosis’, where as homeopathy can treat any complex case by it ‘symptom diagnosis’ methodology.

Derangement in a particular biochemical pathway resulting from a molecular level inhibition produces a specific train of subjective and objective symptoms in the organism. In other words, each specific group of symptoms exhibited by the organism indicates a particular error occurred in the molecular level.

Homeopathy actually chases these trains of symptoms to their minutest level, from periphery to interior, in order to identify the exact molecular errors underlying any particular state of pathology.Then, those pathological molecular inhibitions are removed by applying appropriate therapeutic agents, selected on the basis of ‘law of similars’ or ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’.

The subjective and objective symptoms presented by the organism are the only reliable indicators to help us correctly understand the minute molecular deviations underlying a state of pathology. Each group or trains of symptoms represent a specific molecular error that had occurred in a particular biochemical pathway. These symptoms invariably indicate the specific type and character of the endogenous or exogenous foreign molecules or ions responsible for the causation of particular molecular inhibition. By studying the train of symptoms carefully and systematically, homeopaths are actually observing these exact molecular inhibitions.

This symptom-based analytical method of diagnosing done in homeopathy is far more exact and superior to the multitude of expensive complex laboratory chemical tests and imaging technologies we consider to be ‘scientific’. Identifying the exact molecular errors in the organism of the patient by observing the expressed symptoms, and identifying the most appropriate therapeutic agents from the similarity of symptoms those drugs could produce in healthy organism- this is the scientific essence of “similia similibus curentur”.

This fundamental strategy underlying the homeopathic system of therapeutics evidently surpasses even the most ‘scientific’ methods of modern molecular medicine. It is high time that the modern medicine realize and recognize this great truth, and incorporate this wonderful tool of homeopathy into their armamentarium. Obviously, “similia similibus curentur” is the most effective technique of identifying and removing the pathological molecular inhibitions in the organism.

Why Biological Properties of Molecular Forms and Molecular Imprinted Forms of A Drug Substance Appear Mutually Opposite?

Homeopathy or Similia Similibus Curentur is actually a therapeutic method that utilise the mutually OPPOSITE actions of crude forms and potentized forms of drug substances. It is the fundamental of homeopathy. If a drug substance can produce a group of symptoms in a healthy individual that are similar to the symptoms of a disease, that disease can be cured by applying the potentized forms of that drug substance. Producing symptoms actually means producing certain molecular errors in the body. Similarity of symptoms indicates similarity of molecular errors. If a drug substance in its crude forms can produce certain molecular errors in the body, its potentized forms can remove that molecular errors.

In our everyday clinical practice, we have a lot of experiences with this OPPOSITE actions of crude drugs and their potentized forms. Many times we apply this knowledge also. Using APIS MEL 30 for bee stings, anacardium 30 for antidoting anacardium poisoning, tabaccum 30 for removing bad effects of tobacco, cannabis 30 for cannabis addiction – there are actually hundreds of such empirical uses which very successful.

Tautopathy is the use of potentized forms of allopathic drugs to remove the short-term or long-term bad effects of allopathic drugging. Potentized forms of almost all allopathic drugs are available in market. Many nosodes are successfully used by homeopaths on the basis of this knowledge of OPPOSITE actions of crude forms and potentized forms. The researches referred above regarding the use of Arsenic Alb 30 in arsenic toxicity, cadmium sulph 30 in cadmium toxicity etc also ratify the correctness of this observation.

When trying to find an answer to the question “what are the active principles of post-avogadro potentized drugs, it is very important that these ACTIVE PRINCIPLES should be something that can remove the molecular inhibitions caused by the molecular forms of that drug.

We have already found in earlier discussions that post-avogadro dilutions do not contain any molecule of original drug substance, and that they contain nothing but alcohol and water, along with some particles coming through contaminations. We have also found that chemical properties of post-avogadro dilutions and unpotentized water-alcohol mixture are similar. But all of us know, and it is well established that these post-avogadro dilutions without any drug molecule contained in them have specific biological actions and disease curing properties. It was also observed and proved through spectroscopic studies mentioned earlier that post-avogadro dilutions have some supra-molecular arrangements that make them different from the plain water-alcohol mixture. It is now obvious that the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES should be some supra-molecular water-ethyl alcohol structures formed during the process of potentization. And it is very much evident that these supra-molecular structures are not MIMICS of drug molecules, but something that can produce biological effects that are exactly OPPOSITE to those produced by original drug molecules.

Our inquiry for ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of post-avogadro diluted homeopathic drugs has now arrived at a very decisive point. Now we are very much sure that these active principles are some sort of supramolecular structures formed by water and alcohol, and these structures have retained the medicinal properties of original drug molecules in a REVERSE order.

It is already known to us that chemical molecules produce errors in biological processes by binding to and inhibiting biological molecules such as enzymes, receptors, transport molecules etc. Chemical molecules having some functional groups or moieties SIMILAR to those of natural ligands can compete with the natural ligands in binding to the biological targets. When a chemical molecule succeed in this competition, the biological molecules get inhibited, and the interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands are blocked. This is the molecular mechanism involved in disease processes. Drug molecules as well as various pathogenic molecules can inhibit the actions of biological molecules by this mechanism, which result in diverse kinds of pathological conditions.

CURE involves removal of pathological inhibitions happened in biological molecules. If the post-avogadro diluted drugs can cure disease conditions produced by their molecular forms , it means, they contain some supra-molecular structures that can bind to those molecules, deactivate them, and remove the molecular inhibitions they produced. In order to bind to the chemical molecules, these supra-molecular structures should have some conformational properties that are just opposite to the concerned chemical molecules.

Now our answer for the question “what are ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of post-avogadro potentized drugs” is very much near to us. We can say, the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES are some “supra-molecular structures formed in water-ethyl alcohol medium during the process of potentization, which can act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules having some sort of opposite conformations”.

Next question we have to answer is, HOW these “supra-molecular structures” are formed during the process of potentization. This question could be answered only if we study the supramolecular properties of water-ethyl alcohol mixture, phenomena of hydrogen bonding, formation of host-guest complexes, cavitation and a lot of such things, and also the molecular processes involved in the technology of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING.

”ശാസ്ത്രീയ ഹോമിയോപ്പതിയുടെ ശക്തി സ്വയം അനുഭവിച്ചറിയുക”- ഹാനിമാൻ ജന്മവാർഷിക കാംപൈൻ

“ശാസ്ത്രീയമായ ഗവേഷണ പഠനങ്ങൾവഴി നവീകരിക്കപ്പെട്ട ആധുനിക ഹോമിയോ ചികിത്സാരീതിയുടെ ഗുണഫലങ്ങൾ ജനങ്ങളെ പരിചയപ്പെടുത്തുന്നതിനായി ഹാനിമാൻ ജന്മവാർഷികത്തോടനുബന്ധിച്ച് Center for Research in Redefining Homeopathy (CRRH) “ശാസ്ത്രീയഹോമിയോപ്പതി അനുഭവിച്ചറിയുക” എന്ന 6 മാസം നീണ്ടുനിൽക്കുന്ന ഒരു സൗജന്യ ചികിത്സാ പദ്ധതി ആവിഷ്കരിച്ചിരിക്കുകയാണ്. ശ്രീകണ്ഠപുരം എം എം കോംപ്ലക്സിൽ പ്രവർത്തിക്കുന്ന MIT SCIENTIFIC HOMEOPATHY CHAMBER എന്ന സ്ഥാപനം വഴിയാണ് ഈ പദ്ധതി നടപ്പിലാക്കുന്നത്. പഴകിയതോ താൽക്കാലികമോ ആയ എല്ലാവിധ ശാരീരിക-മാനസിക രോഗങ്ങൾക്കും, ജീവിതശൈലീരോഗങ്ങൾക്കും, ലൈംഗിക-വന്ധ്യതാ പ്രശ്നങ്ങൾക്കും, മദ്യ-മയക്കുമരുന്ന്-ലഹരി അടിമത്തത്തിനും പ്രത്യേകം തയാർചെയ്യപ്പെട്ട ഹോമിയോ ഔഷധങ്ങൾ ഉപയോഗിച്ച് വിദഗ്ധ ഡോക്ടർമാർ MIT PROTOCOL അനുസരിച്ചുള്ള ശാസ്ത്രീയ ഹോമിയോപ്പതി ചികിത്സ നൽകുന്നതാണ്. ഈ പദ്ധതി അനുസരിച്ച് കൺസൾട്ടേഷനും ഔഷധങ്ങളും പൂർണമായും സൗജന്യമായിരിക്കും. താൽപര്യമുള്ളവർ ഈ നോട്ടീസോ വാട്ട്സപ്പ് വഴി ലഭിച്ച ഈ മെസേജോ സഹിതം ശ്രീകണ്oപുരം എം എം കോപ്ലക്സിലുള്ള ഞങ്ങളുടെ സ്ഥാപനത്തിന്റെ കൗണ്ടറിൽ വന്ന് പേരും വ്യക്തിവിവരങ്ങളും നൽകിയാൽ സൌജന്യ ചികിത്സക്കായി രജിസ്റ്റർചെയ്ത് കാർഡ് വാങ്ങിക്കാവുന്നതാണ്. നേരിട്ടു വരാതെതന്നെ 9747320252 എന്ന ഫോൺ നമ്പറിൽ വിളിച്ച് പേർ രജിസ്റ്റർ ചെയ്യാവുന്നതുമാണ്.”

I AM TRYING TO EXPLAIN AND PROVE FUNDAMENTALS OF HOMEOPATHY SCIENTIFICALLY – NOT TO DENY OR DEFEAT HOMEOPATHY!

I am not “trying to change fundamental laws of homeopathy” as some of our homeopath friends accuse. I am only trying to “explain fundamentals” of homeopathy in terms of modern science , and to prove them using scientific method. If you take some time to go through my articles on this topic, you would realize that I have “explained” ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’ “as per ‘already proved’ modern science”. I am not proposing any “new theory” or trying to “change fundamental laws”.

Please note, so far there is no any ‘fundamental law’ or any hypothesis in homeopathy which anybody proved or could be proved “as per modern science”. Not even “explained” as per modern science”. But we teach, learn and practice those “unproved” ideas as “fundamental  laws” without any hesitation. You never asked anybody to “prove” those theories before accepting them. 

One friend even asked me to “show molecular imprints present in potentized drugs”, as if he understands molecular imprints as something that could be picked by a forceps and shown to him! Can anybody ‘show’ him supra-molecular formations of water? It should be by indirect methods and ‘understood’, not ‘seen’. Either they did not read what I have written, or failed to follow the concepts due to poor back ground knowledge in the scientific topics I have discussed to ‘prove’ molecular imprints concept. Or, it may be that they do not want to understand on reasons known only to them!

How can I convince you something, if you hesitate to read anything? I regularly post at least one article everyday explaining my concept of ‘molecular imprints’ and their implication in homeopathy. Without reading what I write, you ask me to “prove”! I once again request you to take some time to read at least some of those articles.

How can I prove my scientific concepts of homeopathy to somebody who does not know or is not willing to learn supra-molecular properties of water? How can I prove my concepts to somebody who does not know or is not willing to learn the subject matter of molecular imprinting technology? How can I prove my concepts to somebody who does not know or is not willing to learn the modern biochemistry and molecular biology? How can I prove my concepts to somebody who does not know or is not willing to learn advanced concepts of enzyme kinetics and molecular level pathology?

My request to those who ask for ‘proof for my concepts’ is, kindly update your basic knowledge in the topics I discuss. Then only you can follow these concepts. Then only I can ‘prove’ molecular imprints concepts to you. Once you acquire the background knowledge and then read my articles, you will see that everything I say is simple ‘proved’ science, and only very little remains to be ‘proved’.

If you go through my articles and try to understand the ideas I am proposing, you will realize that I have successfully explained   SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR and POTENTIZATION in a way fitting very well to modern biochemistry, molecular pathology,  pharmacodynamics and supramolecular chemistry. Nobody even from scientific community can question my explanation of SIMILIA concept in terms of competitive relationship between similar molecules in binding to biological targets, and the phenomenon of “molecular mimicry” well explained in modern biochemistry. You should understand, my studies of POTENTIZATION as a tecnique of preparing molecular imprints has paved the way for hectic research activities in modern medicine to produce a whole range of target-specific MOLECULAR IMPRINTED DRUGS. It is undeniable that my explanations of MIASMS as “chronic disease dispositions produced by off-target inhibitions of biological molecules caused by antibodies generated against alien proteins and infectious agents” has raised the status of homeopathy to a new level. 

I would like to make it clear that I did not produce any ‘theories’ artificially. All my proposals on various aspects homeopathic practice are logical extensions evolved naturally from the fundamental concept of ‘molecular imprinting’ as the process involved in potentization. Once we accept ‘molecular imprints’ as the active principles of potentizaed drugs, and that they act therapeutically upon the organism by selectively binding to the pathogenic molecules, we cannot perceive or resolve these practical issues from another angle.

How can I ‘modify’ or distort logical and obvious scientific truths to satisfy your erstwhile habits, deep-rooted beliefs and long continued comfortable ways of practicing?

I can understand the discomfort brewing among ‘settled’ homeopaths when hearing my concepts that they fear would ‘change their ‘fundamentals’. “Coming out of comfort zones” is not an easy task, especially for ‘seniors’. It is very difficult to get exposed to a new knowledge environment, which would demand a fundamental re-thinking and modifying of many things they ‘believed’, learned, taught and practiced in their whole life. That would be a very uneasy situation, very hard to cope with.