Comparative Study of ‘Drug Proving’ Using Potencies and Crude Drugs- A Submission to CCRH Authorities and Researchers

Since CCRH has seriously undertaken drug proving as part of their research projects recently, I would like to bring some relevant points to the notice of researchers and authorities there.

Many drugs are proved in molecular forms (mother tinctures and potencies below Avogadro limit), whereas certain other drugs are proved in potencies above 12c.

My doubt is, whether the symptoms produced by same drug in high potencies and molecular forms will be similar? If they are different, how can we decide which symptoms are to be given more importance in the selection of similimum? I request the CCRH authorities to resolve this problem by conducting drug proving of same drug in both ways, and doing a comparative study of symptoms.

According to scientific view, ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ means: ‘diseases caused by specific molecular inhibitions and expressed through specific groups of subjective and objective symptoms can be cured by potentized forms of drugs that could create similar pathologic molecular inhibitions and symptoms in healthy individuals if applied in crude form’. Same can be stated in a different way as: “pathological molecular inhibitions can be rectified using ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules that can create similar molecular inhibitions if applied in molecular form”.

Homeopathy utilizes ‘drug proving’ for studying the pathogenic properties of drug substances by observing their capacity to produce various pathological symptoms in healthy organisms. Homeopathy is based on the principle that a substance becomes a medicinal agent only because it has some disease-producing properties. In other words, if we could know what pathological inhibitions and symptoms a drug can create in healthy organism, we can decide in what disease states that drug could be used as a therapeutic agent in potentized form. Drug proving is unique to homeopathy. Whereas modern medicine studies the disease-curing properties of drugs, homeopathy studies the disease-producing properties of drugs. That makes a great difference.

Drug proving is done by administering small quantities of a particular drug to controlled volunteer groups of apparently healthy individuals. The subjective and objective symptoms, representing the diverse molecular deviations caused in the organism by the drug substance are carefully observed and recorded. These symptoms are systematically arranged compiled as materia medica of the substance used.

Let us examine what actually happens at molecular level during drug proving.

First point we have to note is that most drug substances, especially of vegetable or animal origin, are not ‘simple’ substance. Even if we use them as a ‘single’ substance, actually they consist of diverse types of individual molecules. A substance can interact with biological molecules only as individual molecules. If we really want to understand homeopathy and drug proving scientifically, we should first of all learn to perceive drug substance in terms of its diverse constituent molecules. Once we introduce a sample of drug substance into the living organism for ‘proving’, its constituent molecules are instantly subjected to various processes such as disintegration, ionization, hydration and certain chemical transformations.

Individual constituent molecules are carried and conveyed through blood and other internal transport systems into the cells and body fluids in different parts of the body. They can interact with various enzymes, receptors, and other biological molecules inside the organism. Individual drug molecules, in capacities of their molecular affinities, get themselves bound to various bio-molecules which participate in the essential biochemical activities in the organism. These interactions are decided and directed by the specific properties such as configurations and charges of active groups of individual drug molecules, and their specific affinity towards biological target molecules.

The three dimensional structure of the individual drug molecules, and that of the concerned bio-molecules are the decisive factors in this process of formation of molecular binding between them. This peculiarity is called molecular affinity. It is very important to note that drug substances interact with different biological molecules, not as a singular entity, but as individual constituent molecules and ions. These individual drug molecules and ions are capable of competing with natural ligands and substrates in binding to their biological targets, thereby inhibiting the essential bio-chemical processes which can take place only with their presence and mediation. Such molecular inhibitions in various bio-chemical pathways result in a condition of pathology, expressed in the form of a train of subjective and objective symptoms, due to the involvement of various neuro-mediator, neuro-transmitter and cellular signalling systems.

From this point of view, drug proving has to be done using molecular forms of drugs, since only they can produce real pathological molecular inhibitions in the organism.

To get this point clear, we have to differentiate between natural biochemical interactions and interactions of inhibitory nature.

Ligand- target Interactions such as those happening between ‘receptors and signaling molecules’’, ‘substrates and enzymes’ ‘antibodies and antigens’ etc can be considered typical biochemical interactions that are important for understanding molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics.

A receptor is a molecule found on the surface of a cell, which receives specific chemical signals from neighboring cells or the wider environment within an organism. These signals tell a cell to do something—for example to divide or die, or to allow certain molecules to enter or exit the cell. In biochemistry, a receptor is a protein molecule, embedded in either the plasma membrane or the cytoplasm of a cell, to which one or more specific kinds of signaling molecules may attach. A molecule which binds (attaches) to a receptor is called a ligand, and may be a peptide (short protein) or other small molecule, such as a neurotransmitter, a hormone, a pharmaceutical drug, or a toxin. Each kind of receptor can bind only certain ligand shapes. Each cell typically has many receptors, of many different kinds. Simply put, a receptor functions as a keyhole that opens a neural path when the proper ligand is inserted.

Ligand binding stabilizes a certain receptor conformation (the three-dimensional shape of the receptor protein, with no change in sequence). This is often associated with gain of or loss of protein activity, ordinarily leading to some sort of cellular response. However, some ligands (e.g. antagonists) merely block receptors without inducing any response. Ligand-induced changes in receptors result in cellular changes which constitute the biological activity of the ligands. Many functions of the human body are regulated by these receptors responding uniquely to specific molecules like this.

Studies on the the shapes and actions of receptors have advanced the understanding of drug action at the binding sites of receptors.

Depending on their functions and ligands, several types of receptors may be identified:

1. Some receptor proteins are peripheral membrane proteins.

2. Many hormone and neurotransmitter receptors are transmembrane proteins: transmembrane receptors are embedded in the phospholipid bilayer of cell membranes, that allow the activation of signal transduction pathways in response to the activation by the binding molecule, or ligand.

3. Metabotropic receptors are coupled to G proteins and affect the cell indirectly through enzymes which control ion channels.

4. Ionotropic receptors (also known as ligand-gated ion channels) contain a central pore which opens in response to the binding of ligand.

5. Another major class of receptors are intracellular proteins such as those for steroid and intracrine peptide hormone receptors. These receptors often can enter the cell nucleus and modulate gene expression in response to the activation by the ligand.

One measure of how well a molecule fits a receptor is the binding affinity, which is inversely related to the dissociation constant. A good fit corresponds with high affinity and low dissociation constant. The final biological response (e.g. second messenger cascade, muscle contraction), is only achieved after a significant number of receptors are activated.

The receptor-ligand affinity is greater than enzyme-substrate affinity. Whilst both interactions are specific and reversible, there is no chemical modification of the ligand as seen with the substrate upon binding to its enzyme.

Many pathological molecular errors are caused by inhibitions of these receptors or enzymes by binding of exogenous or endogenous molecules or ions on them. Bacterial toxins, drugs and such pathological agents act this way.

When we prove our drugs in healthy people, the constituent molecules contained in the drug substances may bind to diverse types of ‘receptors’ or ‘enzymes’ due to the similarity of configurations between natural ligands and drug molecules. Molecules having ‘similar’ configuration can bind to similar receptors, causing similar pathological molecular errors expressed through ‘similar’ subjective and objective symptoms. The concept of ‘similarity of symptoms’ can be scientifically understood if we know the dynamics of ‘ligand-receptor’ and ‘substrate-enzyme’ relationships. Without this fundamental understanding one cannot follow the scientific explanations regarding ‘potentization’ and ‘similia similibus curentur’.

On the surface diverse enzyme molecules of characteristic three dimensional organizations, there will be different functional groups suitable for engaging in various types of biochemical bonds. Certain functional groups play a role in establishing contacts with other molecules, and are called ‘binding groups’. Functional groups performing real chemical processes are known as ‘active groups’. There are also ‘allosteric groups’ which facilitate interactions.

Different types of binding groups, active groups and allosteric groups exist on the same complex enzyme molecule. These binding sites, active sites and allosteric sites of bio-molecules interact with their substrates in a peculiar ‘key-lock’ mechanism, where the substrate acts as key. A key will be suitable only to the particular complimenting key- hole with exact three dimensional structure which fits to the shape of the key. In the same manner, various enzyme molecules engaged in biochemical processes identify and interact with their natural ligands or substrates with the help of peculiarities of their configurational and charge affinities.

Biochemical processes involves two aspects:

1.Binding of ligands to targets, which is determined by configurational affinity.

2. Chemical transformation, which is determined by charge affinity of ligands and targets.

Ligands with only configurational affinity to targets but no charge affinity, may bind to the target, but in the absence of charge affinity, no chemical transformations take place. This leads to molecular inhibitions of target molecules. This exactly like a fake key entering a key hole and failing to open the key and obstructing the lock. Molecular mechanism underlying pathological processes may be broadly compared to such an obstruction and inhibition of molecular locks by binding of some foreign molecules, partially similar to but different from original ones mimicking as the natural ligands. Due to such an inhibition, the particular enzymes or receptors become incapable of interacting with its natural molecular keys or ligands, thereby hindering the concerned normal biochemical process. This situation amounts to a pathology at molecular level. We can also visualize a different scenario of molecular inhibition, where the original key or ligand itself becoming structurally deformed, thereby hindering its interaction with its appropriate molecular lock. There may also be such occasions as some dirt getting collected inside the key-hole, or the key or the keyhole itself has some inherent manufacturing defects etc. All such presumed situations are possible in the case of bio-molecules also, and may result in bio-molecular inhibitions of some sort or other.

During drug proving, the constituent drug molecules interact with various biological molecules using this ‘key-lock’molecular mechanism, and create molecular inhibitions amounting to pathology. All the biochemical processes mediated or participated by those bio-molecules are affected, and dependent biological pathways are subsequently blocked. Since different biological pathways are inter-dependant, deviations in one pathway naturally affects the dependent ones also. The cascading of molecular deviations influence the neuromediator-neurotransmitter systems and cellular signaling systems and finally manifest in the form of particular groups of subjective and objective symptoms. This is the real molecular kinetics of drug proving as well as pathology.

Based on this much of understanding regarding the molecular dynamics of pathology and drug action, let us examine the desirability of drug proving using potentized forms of drugs.

Drugs potentized above Avogadro limit never contain original drug molecules. They contain only ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘hydrosomes’ of individual constituent molecules. These molecular imprints can act only upon their original drug molecules, or pathological molecules having configurational similarity to those drug molecules. It is due to this complementary configurational affinity that potentized drugs act as therapeutic agents. Obviously, ‘molecular imprints’ contained in potentized drugs cannot as pathological agents. Then, how can we conduct drug proving using potentized drugs?

If drug molecules and pathogenic molecules are ‘molecular keys’ that can bind to specific biomolecular targets acing as ‘molecular locks’, molecular imprints contained in potentized drugs are ‘artificial key-holes’- not ‘duplicate keys’. Hence, olecular imprints can bind only to the ‘keys’ having configurational affinity.

Let us examine what actually happens when potentized drugs are administered into ‘apparently’ healthy individual individuals for drug proving. First point we need to remember is that ‘apparently’ healthy people will not be totally free from pathological molecular inhibitions. There will be diverse types of hidden molecular errors existing in them, arising from diverse types of factors such as nutritional, environmental, miasmatic, genetic, emotional, metabolic, infectious and others. When potentized drugs are introduced into the body, some or other molecular imprints contained in them may act upon these existing molecular inhibitions, which may be reflected as some transient symptoms. Actually, those symptoms are not indicating the ‘disease producing’ properties, but ‘diseases curing’ properties of concerned drugs. As such, symptoms obtained from drug proving using high potencies may confuse our materia medica.

Potentized drugs may act on ‘healthy’ organism by a different mechanism. Molecular imprints may bind to the natural ligands in the body, if they have any configurational affinity. But, such bindings will not lead to a state of pathology since molecular imprints cannot interfere in the interaction between natural ligands and targets which will have stronger affinity to each other. As such, symptoms appearing from such interactions will be very much temporary, and cannot be considered ‘pathological symptoms’

Based on the above observations, I request the CCRH authorities and scientists to conduct a comparative study of symptoms obtained from drug proving using potentized forms and molecular forms of same drugs.

I would like to mention another very important point in relation with this. Any study regarding high potency drugs should be done only using samples prepared under strict observations and supervision of researchers themselves. Never use commercially available samples, since a lot of malpractices are done in potentization. No commercially available ‘back potencies’ should also be used. Do the whole process of potentization starting from crude substance itself, to ensure we are using genuine samples for our research. Otherwise our whole work becomes unreliable.

A Study On The Molecualar Dynamics Of Homeopathic Therapeutics Of Potentized Sarcodes

Defining ‘sarcodes’  is a very complex task, on which a consensus among homeopaths seems to be almost impossible.

I would go with the definition evolved from discussions on our group: “Sarcodes are homeopathic drugs prepared from healthy animal tissues and secretions that in crude form contain biological molecules having specific physiological functions in the human organism”

According to this definition, an animal product will not be considered a sarcode, if it does not contain some biological molecules that are integral part of vital metabolic processes of human organism. That is the dividing line between ‘animal drugs’ and ‘sarcodes’.

Sarcodes have a very notable peculiarty. They always exist in molecular form in the organism, and participate in various molecular interactions being part of different biochemical pathways. They become homeopathic drugs only when they are not administered  in ‘molecular forms’, but as potentized forms above 12c. In molecular forms below Avogadro limit, they can be considered only as physiological products, not as homeopathic drugs.

Two questions have to be answered here:

1. If sarcodes are natural biological molecules having specific functional roles in human organism, how they become pathogenic agents, requiring the intervention of their own potentized forms or ‘molecular imprints’?

2. If the sarcodes are biological molecules being essential parts of living system, will not their physiological functions get negatively affected by the use of their potentized forms, since it is true that potentized form of a drug substance can antidote the biological effects of same drug in crude form?

Let us consider pituitary hormones. They play a decisive role in the whole metabolism of the organism, and hence called ‘master gland’. Pitutary hormones control many enzyme systems in our body. Then how can they act as pathogenic agents, requiring the use of potentized pituitary extract?

Next question is, when we use potentized pitutrin as a sarcode, will it not act as an antidote towards molecular forms of pituitary hormones and create dangerous consequences, by disrupting the whole endocrine activities mediated by pituitary hormones?

Pepsinum is very important in digestion of proteins. If pepsinum 30 is given to a person, will it create problems in protein digestion by deactivating pepsin molecules? If they cannot antidote pepsin molecules, how can they act as therapeutic agents?

Thyroid hormones play very important roles in metabolic activities in the living organism. Then how it can be pathogenic agents, requiring the intervention of potentized thyroidinum? Will not potentized thyroidinum hinder the biological processes mediated by thyroid hormones?

These are very pertinent questions we have to answer while trying to explain the science behind using of potentized sarcodes.

We can answer these questions only if we know the dynamics of molecular processes involved in biochemical interactions.

Every biological molecules, especially those belonging to hormones, signaling molecules(cytokines), neuro-chemicals, antibodies and enzymes being circulated in the organism enter into two types of chemical interactions: 1. ‘On-target interactions’ and  2. ‘Off-target interactions’.

‘On-target’ interactions are those happening between natural ligands and their genuine targets. Such interactions are essential part of vital processes through which biochemical pathways are carried unhindered. Natural ligands and their genuine targets interact through two stages: a). molecular identification and binding, which is effected by complementary configurational affinity between targets and ligands, b). actual chemical interaction, which is effected through perfect charge affinity between ligands and their genuine targets.

Off-target interactions are those accidentally happening  between ligands and wrong targets having configurational affinity only. In the absence of exact charge affinity, no chemical changes occur. Such interactions are always ‘inhibitory’, temporarily or permanantly deactivating the involved biological molecules. Such ‘inhibitory’ off-target interactions inevitably lead to derangement in associated biochemical pathways resulting in pathological states.

‘Off-target’ inhibitions caused by biological molecules such as hormones, enzymes, antibodies, signaling molecules(cytokines) and neurochemicals are causative factors of a wide range of pathological conditions in human beings. Sarcodes, or potentized preparations of these biological molecules, which contain their ‘molecular imprints’ , can effectively remove these molecular inhibitions and thereby act as therapeutic agents. Here lies the importance of sarcodes in homeopathic therapeutics.

Then comes the issue of selective action of the potentized sarcodes. As any other molecular imprints, molecular imprints in potentized sarcodes also cannot interfere in in the interactions between natural ligands and their genuine targets which involves configurational affinity as well as charge affinity. Since molecular imprints act through configurational affinity only, they can interfere in only inhibitory ‘off-target’ interactions.

It is now obvious that thyroidinum 30 cannot interfere in the essential biochemical processes mediated by thyroid hormones, Piturin 30 cannot interfere in the natural actions of pituitary hormones. This principle is applicable to all potentized sarcodes. We can use potentized sarcodes above 12c without any fear of adverse effects.

Sarcodes can play a very important role in the treatment of diverse types of diseases belonging to metabolic, emotional, psychosomatic, and ontological factors. They can also be part of constitutional prescriptions

Confusions Over Selection of Potency Will Be Resolved Once You Understand The Concepts Of MIT

“Do not worry much about selection of potencies. Always use 12c-30c, until a better and more accurate way of molecular imprinting is evolved. If your prescription does not act properly or stop acting, and if you are sure you have selected correct similimum, use same drug, same potency from another sample obtained from another source. Collect maximum samples of 30c of same drug from different sources and mix them for better therapeutic result. It would be an eye opening experience, that would compel you to look into the whole ‘potency question’ from a different angle.”

This opening statement may seem a bit controversial an unacceptable to most of homeopaths trained and experienced in classical ways of thinking. Kindly read the whole article and think over it logically before making any hasty conclusions.

A lot of confusions, controversies and phobias exist regarding the selection of potencies to be administered, after selecting the similimum. Everything is controversial in this area of applied homeopathy. Each homeopath has his own ways, and believes that only he is right.Young homeopaths get confused due to totally contradicting advices they get from their different teachers.

Once similimum is selected for a case through a process of exhaustive case taking, repertorization and material medica study, the next issue that bothers a young homeopath the most is the selection of potency, dosage and repetitions.

There are many laws, principles, theories and guidelines, given by different masters, most of them contradicting and conflicting with one another, which makes everything complex for a new comer.

Through hard experience, most homeopaths finally settle into a stage where they make their own ‘private’ ‘laws’ regarding potency, dose and repetition, which they will never expose to the homeopathic community, for fear of being ridiculed as deviation from principles. Everybody wants to appear to be belonging to that respectable class of ‘classical homeopaths’, pretending to be strictly following all the ‘immutable’  ‘cardinal principles’ of ‘pure’ homeopathy.

Please remember, all these ‘laws’ are made and practiced without even knowing what are the active principles of medicines we are using. Everything is pure speculation. Nobody knows what exactly happens during potentization. Nobody knows what are exactly the active principles of potentized drugs. Nobody exactly knows the molecular mechanism by which potentized drugs interacts with biological organism and creates a therapeutic effect. Nobody knows how lo potencies are different from high potencies. Everything is based on speculations. Dynamism, vibrational theory, Vitalism- everything explained as phenomena happening ‘beyond science’.

I am trying to resolve the issue of potencies in the light of scientifically viable working hypothesis regarding homeopathic therapeutics and potentization.

The word ‘drug potency’ and ‘drug potentization’ is associated with the concept of ‘dynamic drug energy’. As per this view, every drug substance has its ‘inherent qualities’, which exist as specific ‘energy’ of dynamic in form, and act up on the ‘vital force’ of organism by a dynamic way. This dynamic drug energy can exist free from ‘material drug, substance and transferred into rectified spirit or sugar of milk through a process called ‘potentization’. By this process, the ‘dynamic drug energy’ gettin freed from the drug substance moves to the potentizing medium and ‘energizes’ it. By the process of serial dilution and succussion, this dynamic energy could be ‘raised’ to new energy levels, and as such, it is believed that ‘higher’ dilutions are more ‘potentized’ and more powerful. This ‘dynamic drug energy’ carried by the ‘potentized drugs’ act upon the vital force and induces a ‘healing process’.

According to the MIT concept I propose, I am explaining the process involved in potentization in terms of ‘molecular imprinting’. It is not the ‘dynamic drug energy’ that is transferred into the medium during so-called process of potentization, but the three dimensional configuration of constituent drug molecules getting imprinted into the supra-molecular matrix of potentizing medium in the form of nanocavities, through a process of forming hydration shells. These nanocavities act as artificial binding sites or artificial ‘key holes’ for pathogenic molecules having configurational similarity to imprinted molecules. This concept scientifically explains the molecular dynamics of homeopathic therapeutics involved in ‘similia similibus curentur’ in a way fitting to the concepts of modern biochemistry, molecular pathology and therapeutics.

Obviously, the term ‘potentization’ reflects the vitalistic philosophy behind it. It would be ideal to use the term ‘molecular imprinting’ to explain the exact process in scientific terms.

Once you understand and accept ‘molecular imprinting’ as the real process involved in potentization, and perceive ‘potentized’ drugs in terms of constituent molecular imprints, all confusions regarding selection of potencies will be scientifically resolved.

According to my concept of ‘molecular imprinting’ involved in homeopathic potentization, the active principles of potentized drugs are ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent drug molecules. Since a drug substance constitutes diverse types of independent molecules in it, potentized drugs also would contain different types of ‘molecular imprints’ or hydrosomes representing those different drug molecules. These ‘molecular imprints’ acts in their individual capacity of configurational similarity by binding up on pathogenic molecules, producing a therapeutic effect.

As per this view, molecules of drug substances would be completely removed from the medium when the dilution crosses Avogadro limit. That means, even the smallest sized drug molecules will disappear above 12c potency. Hence, I proposed that 12c will be the ideal potency for therapeutic purpose, and further higher potencies will not be different from 12c in medicinal property. Since drug molecules will be absent above 12c, I presumed that there is no meaning in continuing potentization higher and higher. On that basis, I suggested to use 12C to 30c potency only. Mean time, we have to work up on developing a better scientific way of producing molecular imprints perfectly

According to me, there only two classes of drugs:

1. Molecular Imprints Forms- potentized drugs above avogadro limit, or 12c and above, containing only molecular imprints or hydrosomes.

2. Molecular Forms- low potencies below 12c and crude drugs which contain original drug molecules.

(Here, the specified probability range is calculated for molecules of lowest molecular weight, using Avogadro Number. Obviously, molecules of higher molecular weight may disappear from the medium at much earlier stages of potentization. Probability range of each individual class of molecules can be calculated using their molecular weight, Avogadro Number and proportions of dilutions).

Drug molecules and their derivatives, due to their gross molecular properties, can chemically interact with biological molecules and metabolites. This phenomenon is utilized when drugs are used as allopathic medicines.

When crude drugs and low potencies are applied as ‘similimum’, the ‘drug’ molecules contained in them, if having configurational similarity to the active groups of pathological molecules, may compete with the pathological molecules in binding to the target bio-molecules, and in that process, relieve the bio-molecules from pathological inhibitions. In this case, drug molecules act as ‘competitive molecular factors’  towards pathologic molecules. It should be understood that crude drugs and low potencies act in certain cases as therapeutic agents by this ‘competitive’ mechanism, when selected according to the principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’.

In certain situations, where there is real scarcity of certain molecules necessary for metabolism, crude substances and low potencies or mother tinctures will have to be used by their supplementary or nutritional value. This belongs to Nutritional Therapy, and should not be confused with homeopathy. Various minerals, vitamins, co-factors, micro-nutrients and amino-acid supplements belong to this category.

Drugs potentized above ‘Avogadro limit’ act by an entirely different molecular mechanism. ‘Hydrosomes’ or ‘molecular imprints’ formed during potentization are configurational complementaries of original drug molecules used as ‘guest’ for potentization. These ‘molecular imprints’ act as ‘counteractive complementary factors’ and bind to the active groups of pathologic molecules having configurational similarity to the drug molecules used for potentization. Thus the pathologic molecules are prevented from interacting with the bio-molecules, thereby relieving the molecular bocks and pathological inhibitions. The danger of drug molecules acting upon on off-target sites, with unfavorable consequences should be expected while using crude drugs and low potencies. If we want to practice real homeopathy, we should deliberately abstain from using medicinal preparations containing drug molecules.

We should also be aware of the difference between crude drugs and low potencies or triturations. Even though both preparations contain same drug molecules, their therapeutic properties are found to be different. In crude form, drug molecules are packed tightly, with their chemical bonds remaining saturated by  interacting with various other molecules or ions. Hence, they are not at all free to exhibit all their individual interactive potentials. Whereas in triturations and low potencies, the drug molecules are free or ionized, they can exhibit all their properties. Hence, pathogenic and therapeutic capabilities of triturations and low potencies are much higher to crude forms of same drug, whereas drugs of toxic nature are more toxic in crude forms than dilutions, due to their high concentration of molecules. We already know that various drugs which appear  comparatively inert in their crude forms become very potent medicinal agents in triturated forms. Differences between crude Siliciea and Silice 3x, crude Lyco and Lyco 3x etc. are examples for this phenomenon.

But many homeopaths, even those who were not reluctant to accept my ‘molecular imprint’ concept, invited my attention to their experience that when a drug in 12C- 30c potency acted for some time, a stage reaches where no further improvement is obtained. In such situations, they could create curative response by going to higher and higher potencies of same drug. My friends said that their experiences does not corroborate my suggestion that a drug in all potencies above 12c will be similar in medicinal properties.

I decided to take up this question seriously, and started working up on it. There were many instance where NUX 30 failed but NUX 200 acted. It was also correct that in some cases NUX 30 acted for some time and then came to a standstill, where repeating same potency did not succeed in evoking any response. Then NUX 30 or NUX 1m acted favorably.

There were another experience reported by some homeopaths, and verified by me. When NUX 1m failed, NUX 30 or NUX 200 acted. In my experiments on that lines, I noticed that when a case comes to standstill after a certain period of improvement after using NUX 1m, administration of NUX 30 or NUX 200 was also beneficial, instead of moving to still higher potencies.

Then I started experimenting on another lines. When NUX 30 failed to provide further improvement after a certain stage, I used NUX 30 from another sample obtained from another manufacturer. The result was wonderful. It acted!. I repeated this experiment with different cases, different drugs,  different potencies. Finally I came to the conclusion that it was not a question of going higher or lower, but changing of samples, changing of source of potentized drugs. I can now suggest my friends, if you fail with NUX 30, and your are still convinced that the similimum is NUX, use NUX 30 obtained from another manufacturer. It will work. Always keep maximum samples of same drugs in same potencies obtained from different sources, and try all of them before changing your prescription. I have also seen it beneficial to mix all those different samples together and keep as single drug. For example, you can collect NUX 30 from five different manufacturers and mix them together and keep labeled as NUX. And see the difference!

It is not at all realistic to imagine that the same drug sample of Nux Vomica used for proving is always used for preparing its potencies also. It may have been procured and prepared from another location, climate, environment, time and circumstances. All of these factors may necessarily influence their chemical constitution also. Contaminants and pollutants also differ with time, place and persons who handled it. Yet, we are obliged to call all these different samples as Nux Vomica, and use it as same drug.

In reality, samples of potentized Nux Vomica we get now from pharmacies are prepared from samples very much different from the samples used for proving it two hundred years back. It might not necessarily be the same contaminations and foreign molecules which happen to be mixed with the drug during procurement and potentization. Entirely new type of impurities and foreign molecules, different from proven samples, shall definitely get mixed with drugs while potentizing. Naturally, these contaminants and foreign molecules also get subjected to potentization along with original drug molecules. It is evident that the homeopathic potencies of Nux Vomica we get from pharmacies contain the potentized forms of these new contaminant molecules also. In other words, they are mixed with potentized forms of these unknown substances, entirely different from those were subjected to proving. We cannot ignore the fact that we are not using potencies of same drug, that have been proved earlier and recorded in the materia medica, eventhough we call it with same name. It is composed of an entirely different mixture, much more different in molecular structure from the one subjected to original proving. We use the potentized form of this new combination, on the basis of symptoms produced by another combination earlier, using the therapeutic principle ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’. Is not this realization somewhat emberassing? We have to provide convincing solutions to the ethical, theoretical and practical problems raised by this situation.

Logical explanation for this phenomenon is very simple. It is associated with the process of molecular imprinting happening in potentization, and the quality of crude drug sample used for potentization. Simply put, each sample of same drug in same potency may differ in their constituent molecular imprints. One sample may miss some ‘molecular imprints’ that may be present in another sample. Each sample provides only partial curative effect, according to the availability of ‘molecular imprints’ present in them. To get a ‘complete’ therapeutic action of a particular drug, we have to use different samples from different sources, one after other, or mixing together.

Then regarding so-called ‘ultra-high’ dilutions. If the process of dilution is done strictly as per directions given by Samuel Hahnemann, 99 ml alcohol/water mixture has to be thrown away to get 1 ml of 1c potency, which is used as the back potency for 2c stage of potentization. That means, to prepare 1ml of DM potency we will have to throw away 999999.999 litres of water/ alcohol mixture. Do you believe one lac litres of ethyl alcohol is thrown away by the manufactures while preparing 1 ml of homeopathic medicine in DM potency? If you claim that this is not thrown away but kept as various potencies, can you imagine the size of storage facilities required for each drug? Please remember, we have around 1000 drugs in homeopathy, which means 1000000000 litres of wastage of ethyl alcohol-water mixture! And also calculate the time, energy utensils, bottles and labor required for handling all this! Do you believe all this happening?

Every manufacturer claim that they use back potencies, and hence no wastage of alcohol happens. But somebody in the line has to do the job of raising 30c into 199c, 200c into 999c, 1m into 9999c and so on. If those people do it genuinely as per Hahnemannian method, they will have to bear all these wastage, and the cost of back potencies will be unimaginably high!

In the present atmosphere of profit-oriented pharmaceutical business managed by professional business administrators, we cannot be so naïve to believe that the manufacturers of homeopathic medicines would be so much dedicated to the philosophy of Hahnemann to bear such huge holes in their money bags. Remember, these same people are flooding the market with all sorts of unethical patented mixtures in the name of homeopathy, and bribing the homeopaths to market them, in their greed to amass wealth. How can we expect them to be so much sincere in the service of homeopathy only while preparing potencies? How much pathetic is the situation since there exist no any scientific mechanism to verify the exact identity and potency of a drug other than to trust the labels on the bottles! If somebody make an error knowingly or unknowingly in sticking a label to a stock bottle of back potency, can you imagine the consequences that will continue to haunt generations of homeopaths to come? We have to be consoled that potentized homeo medicines cannot kill human beings.

Believe it or not,if you closely monitor what is happening behind the walls of commercial homeopathic manufacturing units, you will lose all your trust in our ‘very high’ potencies. I had personally discussed with some retired supervisors and managers of certain famous production units, and they confessed some bitter truth.  After 30c, most units do not carry on potentization strictly as Hahnemann directed. A few additional shakes is given to 30c and marked as 199c, which is used as the back potency for 200c. Again with few additional shakes, and 200c becomes 999c used as back potency  for 1m. Over all, we can see that practically, in most cases, the difference between 30c and DM potency is only a four to ten stage dilution and a few additional shakes!. Finished! And we call it ‘ultra-high’ potencies!. Only consolation is that 30c is enough for optimum molecular imprinting to happen, and our drugs will work if used as similimum, since they contain ‘molecular imprints’, and that is enough. This shows that the difference between 30c and CM or DM is very narrow. Our talk about ‘very high’ dilution is practically meaningless. Most homeopaths and manufacturers will not tolerate my statement, because that may undermine the ‘sand hills’ of fame they have built in the name of ‘high potencies’.

Most homeopaths believe that administration of incorrect remedies and potencies may harm the patients. If that were the case, homeopaths would have been the greatest criminals in human history! They would have already harmed the whole human race by the time being through wrong prescriptions. Even you and me make many many wrong prescriptions everyday, believing that we are making correct prescriptions. Can anybody deny it with a sincere heart?

ALWAYS USE 12C-30C. IF IT DOES NOT ACT, OR STOP ACTING, AND IF YOU ARE SURE YOU HAVE SELECTED CORRECT SIMILIMUM, USE SAME POTENCY FROM ANOTHER SAMPLE OBTAINED FROM ANOTHER SOURCE.

COLLECT MAXIMUM SAMPLES OF 30C OF SAME DRUG FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES AND MIX THEM FOR BETTER THERAPEUTIC RESULT. IT WOULD BE A GREAT EXPERIENCE!

What is the optimum potency, as per MIT? Now I would say ‘ALPHA MOLECULAR IMPRINTS’- I have explained this idea in a separate article

My Stand On The Issues Of ‘Combination Of Drugs’ And ‘Patenting Of Drugs’

1. I totally disagree with all attempts of patenting of existing homeopathic drugs or their combinations by individuals or organizations misusing the intellectual property laws.

2. I totally disagree with the use of ‘molecular forms of drugs’(crude drugs, potencies below Avogadro limit and mother tinctures) as single drugs or as combinations. I do not consider therapeutic application of ‘molecular’ forms of drugs as genuine homeopathy.

3. I think it permissible  for ‘total cure’, 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.

4. I think 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.

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.

‘Molecular Imprints’ Or ‘MIALBs’ – The Active Principles of Potentized Homeopathic Drugs

What are exactly the active principles of potentized drugs? What is the molecular mechanism by which these active principles interact with organism and produce a therapeutic effect?

I think these are the fundamental question to be addressed while trying to make homeopathy a scientific medical system. The answer we provide should be capable of explaining the time-proven experiences of  homeopathic practice, same time fitting to the existing scientific knowledge system. Most importantly, it should be provable with scientific methods.

I was trying to explain homeopathic potentization on the basis of modern technology of  ‘molecular imprinting’, and ‘similia similibus curentur’ on the basis scientific understanding regarding molecular mechanism of resolving pathologic molecular inhibitions involved in therapeutics.

According to my concept, potentization involves a process of molecular imprinting in water, exactly similar to ‘molecular imprinting in polymers’. During this process, constituent drug molecules contained in drug substances are ‘imprinted’ into the supra-molecular matrix of water-ethyl alcohol mixture, generating three-dimensional nanocavities that can act as artificial ‘targets’ for pathological ligands that have configurations similar to the drug molecules used for imprinting. These ‘molecular imprints’, when introduced into the organism can selectively bid to the pathological molecules having complementary conformational affinity, thereby relieving the biological molecules from pathological molecular inhibitions. This is the most rational and logical explanation of molecular dynamics of homeopathic therapeutics.

I use the term ‘molecular imprints’ in its most scientific meaning. But those who are not familiar with the technology of ‘molecular imprinted polymers’, fail to conceive this concept in its real meaning. The real problem is that people talking about pseudo-scientific theories regarding homeopathy misuse this term. They say ‘molecular imprints’ in the meaning of ‘water memory’. Some people even talk about ‘molecular imprints’ of drug energy, molecular imprints of ‘vibrations’ etc. I read an article on net where the author was discussing about transferring of ‘molecular imprints’ of ‘medicinal vibrations’ into mp3 files!

All this has created confusions about the real meaning of ‘molecular imprints’. Many people misunderstand my concepts with the pseudoscientific theories going around. Actually, in its scientific sense, molecular imprints are three-dimensional nanocavities in a polymer matrix generated through the process of ‘molecular imprinting’. Once it is misunderstood, all my explanations on the basis of this concept get misunderstood.

Hence, I think I have to use a more specific and meaningful term while explaining ‘molecular imprints’ in my explanations of homeopathy. I have coined a term ‘MIALBs’ or Molecular Imprinted Artificial Ligand Binds, which seems to be more specific.

According to my concept, ‘MIALBs’ are defined as ‘supra-molecular clusters of water and ethyl alcohol, into which the three-dimensional configuration of drug molecules are imprinted as nanocavities, which can act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules having configuration similar to the drug molecules used for imprinting.

Put in a different way,  ‘molecular imprints’ or MIALBs are what remains when  ‘guest’ molecules are removed from a ‘guest-host’ complex or ‘clathrate-like’ supra-molecular formation of water. Potentization involves a process of formation of ‘guest-host’ complexes followed by removal of ‘guest’ molecules, thereby preparing hollow ‘host’ formations.

Actually, ‘molecular imprints’ are ‘inter-molecular spaces’ in water-alcohol matrix, into which the 3-dimensional configuration of drug molecules are imprinted as negative spacial images.

Hereafter I propose to use the term ‘MIALBs’ to describe molecular imprints. It should be understood as ‘nanovaities of water’. I hope this would resolve the confusions.

‘MIALBs’ are actually ‘hydration shells’ formed around drug molecules used as ‘guest’ molecules in imprinting protocol. Water already exists as a ‘supra-molecular net work’ by peculiar type of ‘hydrogen bonding’ between hydrogen atom being part of one water molecule and oxygen atom being part of another water molecule. As such, there are ‘nanocavities’ in between water molecules. When a foreign molecule is introduced into water, the water molecules re-arranges around the foreign molecules and forms a ‘hydration shell’ through hydrogen bonding. Even though these hydration bonds and hydration shells are very much temporary in ordinary conditions, by the process of potentization serial dilution and shaking, these hydration shells are freed from foreing molecules and preserved as ‘MIALBs’. Presence comparatively heavier ethyl alcohol molecules in the medium play a role in strengthening the hydrogen bonds.

Without understanding ‘MIALBs’ or ‘molecular imprints’ in its scientific meaning of ‘nanovaities of supra-molecular clusters’, one cannot follow my explanations of homeopathy.