ESSENTIAL CHANGES REQUIRED IN THEORETICAL SYSTEM OF HOMEOPATHY

ESSENTIAL CHANGES REQUIRED IN THEORETICAL SYSTEM OF HOMEOPATHY TO MAKE IT A GENUINE SCIENTIFIC MEDICAL SYSTEM:

  1. First of all, discard the unscientific superstistious concepts of medieval philosophy such as dynamic energy and immaterial vital force from the theoretical system of homeopathy.
  2. Explain the phenomena of life processes using the knowledge of protein interactions, enzyme kinetics and ligand-target interactions available in modern biochemistry.
  3. Explain the phenomena of disease processes and disease-symptoms using the scientific concepts of biomolecular errors and inhibitions caused by endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules.
  4. Explain the phenomena involved in curative processes using the concepts of removal of molecular inhibitions.
  5. Explain the concept of similimum using the scientific knowledge regarding the phenomena of molecular mimicry, and competitive relationship between chemical molecules in binding to the biological tatgets.
  6. Explain drug substances in terms of their constituent chemical molecules, and their medicinal actions in terms of their interactions with biological molecules as explained in modern pharmacology.
  7. Explain drug proving and drug symptoms in terms of phenomena involved in drug pathogenesis.
  8. Explain potentization using advanced knowledge of molecular imprinting, and potentized drugs in terms of diverse types of molecular imprints that can act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules.
  9. Explain high dilution therapeutics involved in SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR using the concepts of removal of pathological molecular inhibitions by binding and deactivation of pathogenic molecules with molecular imprints that act by conformational affinity.

ONCE THESE THEORETICAL BASICS ARE SET RIGHT, ALL OTHER LAWS AND PRINCIPLES RELATED WITH PRACTICE WILL CHANGE ACCORDINGLY.

IS SIMILIA THEORY UNSCIENTIFIC?

What does it mean if a drug substance is capable of producing a set of subjective and objective “symptoms” when introduced into a healthy individual?

It means the particular drug substance contained some chemical molecules that could bind to some specific molecular targets in the body, and create some molecular inhibitions in biological pathways leading to cascading effects, that are expressed through subjective and objective DRUG symptoms.

What does it mean if a particular set of subjective and objective symptoms are produced in a person sffering from a particular disease condition?

It means, the particular disease-causing substance contained some chemical molecules that could bind to some specific molecular targets in the body, and create some molecular inhibitions in biological pathways leading to cascading effects, that are expressed through subjective and objective DISEASE symptoms.

What does it mean if the DISEASE symptoms expressed in a person affected by a particular disease condition appear SIMILAR to the DRUG symptoms produced by a particular drug substance in healthy individuals?

It means, the particular disease-causing substance contained some chemical molecules that are conformationally SIMILIAR to the molecules contained in particular drug substance, so that both the disease-causing substance as well as the drug substance could act up on SIMILAR molecular targets and produce SIMILAR molecular inhibitions, that are expressed through SIMILAR sets of subjective and objective simptoms.

Potentized homeopathy drugs contain MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of drug molecules. When molecular imprints of drug molecules SIMILAR to the disease-causing molecules are introduced into the body of the particular patient in the form of potentized drug, those molecular imprints can act as artificial binding pockets for the disease-causing molecules due to conformational affinity, bind to and deactivate them, thereby removing the molecular inhibitions caused by the disease-causing molecules. The disease is thus cured! This is the biological mechanism of cure involved in homeopathy principle SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR!

Molecular Imprinting- Azeotropism- Molecular Mimicry- Molecular Competititions- Molecular Inhibitions: New Paradigms in Scientific Homeopathy

Hahnemann explaining homeopathic cure using the concepts of ‘vital force’ and ‘dynamic drug energy’ 230 years back is quite natural and understandable, considering the primitive state of scientific knowledge available during that period.

But when present day “hanemannians” stubbornly hesitate to update the theoretical system of homeopathy in this era of advanced scientific knowledge of modern life sciences, biochemistry and pharmacology, and talking about homeopathy using the same obsolete two century old concepts is simply foolish and ridiculous!

SIMILIMUM is actually a substance that contains certain chemical molecules that are conformationally SIMILAR to the pathogenic molecules that caused the molecular inhibitions existing in the patient we are dealing with. We can find out the similimum by different means depending upon the nature of the disease.

By observing and collecting diverse types of subjective and objective symptoms expressed by a patient, we homeopaths are actually trying to identify minutely the exact molecular targets that are affected, and the diverse types of pathological molecular errors that underlie the disease processes.

By trying to find out a drug substance that covers the totality of the symptoms in the patient, we are actually trying identify the drug molecules that are conformationally similar to the disease-causing molecules, so that that they are capable of competing to bind to same biological targets and produce similar molecular errors.

Molecular imprints of drug molecules that are conformationally similar to pathogenic molecules can bind to and deactivate those pathogenic molecules due to their conformational affinity, removing the pathological molecular inhibitions, and thereby curing the disease. This is the biological mechanism involved in homeopathic cure.

Molecular imprinting is a technique for the preparation of synthetic polymers with specific binding sites for a target molecule. This can be achieved if the target is present during the polymerization process, thus acting as a molecular template. Monomers carrying certain functional groups are arranged around the template through noncovalent or covalent interactions. Following polymerization with a high degree of cross-linking, the functional groups become fixed in defined positions by the polymer network. Subsequent removal of the template by solvent extraction or chemical cleavage leaves cavities that are complementary to the template in terms of size, shape and arrangement of the functional groups. These highly specific receptor sites are capable of rebinding the target molecule with high specificity, sometimes comparable to that of antibodies. Molecularly imprinted polymers have therefore been named “antibody mimics”. It has been shown that they can be substituted for biological receptors in certain formats of immunoassays and biosensors. They are characterized by high stability.

Target molecules for which we want to prepare ‘artificial binding sites’ or ‘molecular imprints’, which are normally large complex protein molecules, are identified and selected as ‘template molecules. These template molecules are added to a mixture of ‘monomers’ and ‘activators’ and thoroughly mixed. This mixture is allowed to undergo a process of ‘self assembling’ and ‘polymerization’, which is actually a ‘guest-host’ molecular complex, in which the template molecules are trapped in a hardened polymer matrix which act as ‘host’. This ‘host-guest’ complex is pulverized, and subjected to a process of ‘solvent extraction’, by which soluble template molecules are removed from insoluble polymer matrix. The resultant preparation consists of polymer matrix carrying empty spaces or ‘cavities’ where the template molecules were originally trapped. These cavities are called ‘molecular imprints’, which actually mimic a negative spacial conformation of template molecules. Due to this complementary conformation, these ‘molecular imprints’ exhibit a special affinity towards original template molecules, and act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for them.

Due to this special affinity, they could be used as substitutes for biological receptors in certain formats of immunoassays and bio-sensors. Even though molecular imprinting concept is subjected to studies related with modern drug designing, ‘molecular imprinted polymers’ prepared by this process is difficult to be used as drugs in living organisms, as they are synthetic polymers,

Drug potentization in homeopathy has to be studied from molecular imprinting. Since it is totally improbable for even a single drug molecule to remain in a dilution above avogadro limit, only way the medicinal properties of drug substances could be transferred to and preserved in such a medium is by molecular imprinting. Homeopathy uses water-ethyl alcohol azeotropic mixture as ‘host’ in place of polymers, and drug molecules as ‘templates’ or ‘guests’ for preparing molecular imprints that could be used as drugs. Since molecular imprints prepared by this process consist of only water and ethyl alcohol molecules, imprinted with three dimensional properties of drug molecules, they could be safely used as therapeutic agents. According to my view, homeopathic potentization is actually a biofriendly adaptation of molecular imprinting technology, originally done in polymers.

Most important objection raised against this concept is, how water can work as a medium for molecular imprinting, whereas water is not a polymer in its classical understanding. But all of us know, water has a lot of anomalous behaviors related with its physical properties such anomalous expansion, viscosity, diffusion, surface tension, melting and boiling points, crystallization, and role in solvation of molecules, ions, membranes, and proteins, which demonstrate water has some polymer-like properties, which were not so far sufficiently explained. A recently published research article throws some light into explaing this polymer-like properties of water.

This article, titled “Liquid water is a dynamic polydisperse branched polymer” is written by Saber Naserifar , William A. Goddard III , two scientists working at Materials and Process Simulation Center, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125. (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1817383116).

Authors developed a RexPoN force field for water based entirely on quantum mechanics. It predicts the properties of water extremely accurately. They observed that strong hydrogen bonds in water connect to form multibranched polymer chains of 151 H2O per chain at 24.85 celsius, where branch points have 3 strong hydrogen bonds and termination points have 1 strong hydrogen bond. This dynamic fluctuating branched polymer view of water provides a dramatically modified paradigm for understanding the properties of water. It may explain the angular correlation lengths at 24.85 celsius, and the critical point at 227 K in supercooled water. This new paradigm for water could have a significant impact on the properties for protein, DNA, and other materials in aqueous media.

In supramolecular chemistry, hyperbranched polymers represent highly branched, polydisperse macromolecules with a treelike topology and a large number of functional groups. During the last ten years, the rapidly growing interdisciplinary interest in the globular, highly uniform, and monodisperse dendrimers promoted the rediscovery of hyperbranched polymers. The tedious and complex multistep synthesis of dendrimers results in expensive products with limited use for large- scale industrial applications.
In contrast to ice, in which each water makes strong hydrogen bonds to four neighbors, researchers showed that upon melting the ice, the number of strong hydrogen bonds drops quickly to two in liquid water.

These two strong hydrogen bonds couple into chains containing around 150 H2O molecules resembling a branched polymer. Authors expect this dynamics-branched polymer paradigm may explain many long-standing puzzles of water.

Since each H2O on the average makes 2 strong hydrogen bonds, authors next traced out the connections between the strong hydrogen bonds.. They found that connecting just the strong hydrogen bonds leads to branched polymer chains with a largest cluster of 151 H2O molecules at 24.85 celsius containing a main chain of 39 H2O and 15 side chains ranging from 1 to 22 H2Os long. For lower temperatures the largest cluster size increases to 168 at 3.85 celsius, 177 at 0.35 celsius, and to 216 at -123.15 celsius. At a temperature of 24.85 celsius and below, these clusters may bond to their images in adjacent cells, leading to infinite sizes according to simulations.

According to the authors, they have proved that liquid water is a polydisperse dynamic multibranched polymer in which most H2Os form strong hydrogen bonds to just two others, with occasional branch points at waters bonded to 3 H2Os terminating at H2Os. The molecules that are not part of the largest cluster are mainly in small clusters with sizes ranging from 1 to 10 H2Os. At 76.85 celsius the big polymer chains split into smaller ones, with the number of H2Os bonded to two other molecules decreasing. At temperature -123.5 celsius the connected polymer includes all water molecules, which forms a highly branched polymer. This revelation concerning the polymeric nature of liquid water may have a dramatic impact on our perceptions about water, with possible implications on such physical properties as viscosity, diffusion, and solvation of molecules, ions, membranes, and proteins.

To prove that RexPoN fully explains the critical-point behavior of water requires far more extensive simulations, but these results suggests the potential impact of the paradigm that water is a dynamic polydisperse branched polymer might have on physical and chemical phenomena involving water.

We have to explore the dynamics of homeopathic potentization keeping this new paradigm of water in mind. It is not pure water that is used for homeopathic potentization, but an azeotropic mixture of ethanol and water. An azeotropic mixture is a mixture of substances that has the same concentration of vapour and fluid phases. It is basically a mixture that contains two or more liquids. A zeotropic mixture basically has constant or the same boiling points and the mixtures’ vapor will also have the same composition as the liquid. The azeotrope or constant boiling point mixture is a mixture of two or more liquids whose proportions cannot be altered or changed by simple distillation. This happens because when an azeotrope is boiled, the vapor has same portion of constituents as un-boiled mixture. The azeotropic composition of ethanol and water is 95.635 of ethanol and 4.375 of water by volume. Ethanol boils at 78.4°C and water boils at 100°C, but the azeotrope boils at 78.2°C which is lower than either of its constituents.

Perhaps the most important benefit of an azeotrope is the unexpected ability to mix flammable and nonflammable ingredients to produce a stable nonflammable mixture. This is an amazing chemical phenomenon. Azeotropes occur when fraction of the liquids cannot be altered by distillation. Typically when dealing with mixtures, components can be extracted out of solutions by means of Fractional Distillation, or essentially repeated distillation in stages. Ethanol and water form an azeotropic mixture at an ethanol molecular percentage of 91% by weight or 96% by volume, which prohibits ethanol from being further purified via distillation.

Aqueous solutions at different concentrations in ethanol have been studied both experimentally and theoretically. Azeotropic behaviour results from an unexpected concentration-dependence of the surface composition. While ethanol strongly dominates the surface and water is almost completely depleted from the surface for most mixing ratios, the different intermolecular bonding patterns of the two components cause water to penetrate to the surface region at high ethanol concentrations in azeotropic ratio. The addition of surface water increases its relative vapour pressure, giving rise to the azeotropic behaviour.

In water-ethanol azeotrope, the water is able to increase the amount of hydrogen bonding between ethanol molecules by increasing the density of hydrogen bond donors and acceptors per unit volume. At a low water concentration, the water also does not interfere greatly with the hydrophobic interactions between the ethyl ends of the molecules. As a result, the average intermolecular interaction for the ethanol molecules is stronger than in pure ethanol, and we have the necessary decrease in the vapor pressure of ethanol. For the water, when it is at low concentration in mixture, each water molecule is surrounded by ethanol molecules, so it has fewer hydrogen bonding interactions than in pure water. As a result, its average intermolecular interactions are weaker than in pure water. When the water concentration gets below what is required for the azeotrope, enough of the alcohol molecules interact only with other alcohol molecules that the deviation from ideality decreases. Considering the polydisperse branched polymer structure of water as well as the peculiar properties of water-ethanol azeotropic mixture, it is not at all irrational or unrealistic to approach the dynamics of homeopathic potentization in terms of molecular imprinting. A lot of studies remain to be conducted on these lines in future. At least, scientific community has to consider homeopathic potentization as a subject of serious further explorations in the field of modern drug designing.

Most important primary observation that initiated my logical thought process regarding molecular imprinting involvef in homeopathic potentization was that potentized drugs works therapeutically! And the obviously unscientific and spiritualistic explanations given in homeopathy texts for this phenomenon, such as vital force and dynamic energy was not acceptable for me at all. I wanted a rational explanation for homeopathy that is fitting to the modern scientific knowledge system and its methods.

My second observation was that potentized drugs do not work therapeutically, if they are not ‘similimum’ to the given case. More over, there are a lot of scientific studies which prove unpotentized ethanol-water mixture in the same ratio of potentized drugs do not have any therapeutic actions. There are scientific studies of eminent researchers showing that potentized forms of a drug can antidote or reverse the biological effects of same drug in their molecular forms, which could be possible only if the potentized forms contained some entities that can act as artificial binding pockets for their molecular forms, which clearly pointed to the possibility of molecular imprints. In vitro and in vivo experiments proved that potentized drugs can antidote the biological effects of their crude forms. This convinced me that the potentized drugs contained some active principles that can act upon biological molecules in a way just opposite to the action of crude drug molecules, which is posssible only if molecular imprinting happens during potentization.

Then I observed through calculations based on Avogadro constant that there is no chance for any drug molecule to be present in a drug potentized above 12c. Many studies have already proved that potentized drugs and unpotentized ethanol-water mixture have similar chemical constitution and chemical properties. This observation indicates that no chemical changes of any sorts happen to ethyl ethanol-water mixture due to the process of potentization. It is a common knowledge that potentized drugs when heated, or subjected to strong electrical or magnetic fields lose their therapeutic properties. This observation indicates that potentization may be involved with some physical changes happening in the ethanol-water mixture, that are liable to be reversed by physical forces such as heat, magnetism and electricity.

Evaporation rates and Freezing points of potentized drugs and control solutions have been found to differ, indicating a change in hydrogen bond patterns and supra-molecular rearrangements. A lot of published spectroscopic studies using different technologies are available, indicating supramolecular rearrangement happening during the process of potentization. Spectra were found to be different in potentized drugs and ethanol-water control solutions, which shows ethanol-water mixture have undergone some sort of supra-molecular clustering and re-organization during potentization.

Study of supra-molecular structure of water, hydrogen bonding, hydration shells, and supra-molecular clusters will convince us that water can exhibit some polymer-like properties at supra-molecular level. Scientific studies discussed in the first part of this presentation has proved water to be a dynamic polydisperse branched polymer, which provides a new paradigm of water entirely different from classical perspective. Ethanol- water mixture used in homeopathic potentization is in azeotropic ratios, which leads us into a deeper study of azeotropism, and its role in enhancing the polymer- like properties of water. Study of supramolecular properties of ethyl alcohol/water azeotropic mixtures shows that the hydrogen bond strength of water can be enhanced by the presence of ethyl alcohol molecules in azeotropic proportions, and can restrict the free movements of water molecules, thereby helping in the stabilization of hydration shells. New advancements in the field of the technology of ‘molecular imprinted polymers’ achieved by polymer scientists points to the possibility of using of ‘molecular imprints’ as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules in biological systems. This requires a deeper study of molecular imprinting, in search of a scientific solution for the riddles involved in homeopathic potentization.

A critical study of works done by Benveniste as well as Luc Montaigner regarding what they called ‘memory of water’ indicated some structural changes happening in water during successive dilution and succussion. Benveniste and Montaigner might have failed to comprehend the real mechanism involved in the phenomenon of so-called ‘water memory’ they observed, which led them to irrational and wrong conclusions. Some Russian scientists have earlier observed a phenomenon they called ‘shape memory property of water’, which they could not explain scientifically, since they also did not understand the real process of ‘molecular imprinting’ involved in it. Study of the phenomenon known as ‘hormesis’, which remains still eluding and unexplained scientifically, also led me to relate it with some sort of ‘supra-molecular’ re-arrangements happening in water in ultra dilutions.

Observation that potentized drugs act upon biological systems in a way exactly opposite to the original drugs indicated a process of generating three-dimensional nanocavities or intermolecular voids that can act as artificial binding sites for drug molecules and similar pathogenic molecules, which can happen only though ‘molecular imprinting’.

Then I took up a serious re-study of biochemistry and molecular biology. Study of ‘key-lock mechanism’ involved in the dynamics of enzyme inhibitions, ‘ligand-receptor’ interactions and ‘antibody-antigen’ interactions were found to be fitting well to the concept of ‘molecular imprints’ in potentized drugs. Through these studies, it became more and more clear to me that ‘similia similibus curentur’ could be explained in terms of competitive relationships between similar molecules and also phenomenon of molecular mimicry well explained by modern biochemistry.

RESPONDING TO CRITICS OF HOMEOPATHY

We hear critics of homeopathy often declaring that homeopathy “cannot work” as its theories are unscientific. Those friends should understand, such an approach is totally against the spirit of “scienetific method” you always boast about.

In any objective natural phenomenon, it is not the theories that actually work. Theories are subjective human explainations of the phenomena formulated on the basis of our existing knowledge. Natural phenomena are objective, and they work independant of our understanding about it. For example,gravitation was existing here since the origin of universe, and what Newton did was only to explain it in the form of a set of laws, based on the scientific knowledge available to him. It is wrong to think that its is newtons laws that work in gravitation. Gravitation would have worked even if newton did not study about it. Gravitation will continue to work even if newtons laws ever happen to be proved wrong. This truth is applicable to all natural phenomena as well as scientific theories and laws we formulate about them.

If currently existing theories of homeopathy are any way unscientific, or incompatible with modern scientific knowledge system, if you follow the principles of scientific method, what you have to do is to try to explain the objective phenomena involved in homeopathy using modern scientific knowledge, and propose a modified or new theory accordingly. It is against scientific method to declare outrightly that “homeopathy cannot work as its theories are unscientific”!

It was about 230 years ago that a german physician called samuel hahnemann observed a peculiar natural phenomenon regarding relationship between drug substances and cure of diseases. He found that if symptoms expressed by a person in certain disease conditions are found to be similar to the symptoms that could be produced by a drug substance in healthy individuals, that particular drug substance could work as a curative agent in that particular disease condition. After a lot of experiments with different drug substances and different diseases, he formulated a theory known as “similia similibus curentur”. Obviously, “similia similibus curentur” is a therapeutic law derived from hahnemann’s observations of objective phenomenon involved in disease and cure.

Hahnemann tried to explain “similia similibus curentur” further, and develop it into a theoretical system, utilizing the philosophical concepts of “dynamic energy and vital force”. Beyond any doubt, this theoretical system is bound to be unscientific as it is based on the primitive state of scientific knowledge that was availble at that time. But it is wrong to think that the objective natural phenomenon involved in “similia similibus curentur” will not work or exist, only because the theoretical explanation hahnemann provided for it is wrong or inaccurate. What scientific people have to do is to study the phenomenon once again and to propose a new theoretical explanation that is more scientific and accurate.

Actually what hahnemann observed was that if symptoms expressed in a person in certain disease conditions are found to be similar to the symptoms that could be produced by a drug substance in healthy individuals, that particular drug substance could work as a curative agent in that disease condition. It is an objective onservation of a phenomenon that exist in nature. Whether we interpret or explain it rightly or wrongly, it will continue to work independant of our subjective understanding or theories formulated there from.

In the present knowledge environment, what does it mean if symptoms expressed in a disease as well as symptoms produced by drug substance in a healthy individual appear similar? It simply means, the disease- producing substance as well as the particular drug substance contain some chemical molecules that are similar, so that they could bind to same biological targets, and produce similar inhibitions and molecular errors, that are expressed through similar subjective and objective symptoms. Our knowledge of modern biochemistry will help us understand the phenomenon known as molecular mimicry, and how similar chemical molecules can compete each other in binding to similar biological targets, and how this comptetitive relationship could be utilized for the removal of certain pathological molecular inhibitions.

If you could understand the above discussion correctly, and if you have no special bias against homeopathy, now you will have to agree that “similia similibus curentur” is not that much unscientific or irrational as those skeptics try to make it out!

PROBABLE CAUSES OF CLINICAL FAILURES IN HOMEOPATHIC PRESCRIBING

What are the probable causes of failures in homeopathic treatment using drugs potentized above 12c? Physician should always keep vigilant over following possibilities, and take remedial actions to avoid failures.

  1. How much effort you took before making a prescription, your selection of similimum may be wrong or partial in most of the cases, and the medicine you prescribed might have failed to provide all the the diverse types of molecular imprints required to remove the diverse types of molecular inhibitions existing in the patient. We can overcome this problem by using rationally worked out combinations of homeopathy drugs in potency above 12c.
  2. Dosage you prescribed might have been insufficient, so that it failed to supply optimum quantity of molecular imprints required for the specific condition.
  3. Frequency of repetition might have been insufficient.
  4. Mode of administration might have been wrong.
  5. Patient might have been taking some aurvedic or other herbal drugs along with homeopathy treatment. They may contain certain chemical molecules that could bind to, antidote and deactivate the molecular imprints contained in potentized drugs.
  6. Patient might have been taking some food articles that may contain chemical molecules, spices, essential oils, and aromatic compunds that are capable of antidoting the particular homeopathy drugs you used.
  7. Patient did not ensure his mouth is clean and odor free while taking medicines, which may refuce the efficacy of potentized drugs.
  8. Patient did not give enough interval in between taling medicines and taking food.
  9. Patient might not have hold medicines in mouth for some time without swalloing, which is essential for facilitating proper absorption from buccal cavity.
  10. Medicines you used might have been exposed to ectreme temperatures, sunlight or magnetic radiations during storage, transportation or dispensing.
  11. Errors happening during manufacturing, such as using wrong back potencies, faulty potentizayion or faulty labelling.
  12. Human errors that might happen during dispensing.
  13. Using mother tinctures, low potencies or boochemic salts along with potentized homeopathic drugs will reduce their efficacy by getting antidoted by the drug molecules.

SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY SHOULD APPROACH HOMEOPATHY IN A SCIENTIFIC WAY

“Science is a systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.”

Observing an unexplained, wrongly explained, or inappropriately explained phenomenon, making a tentative explanation or hypothesis about it that is fitting to the existing scientific knowledge system, formulating predictions that could be proved or disproved for verifying the correctness of the hypothesis, conducting repeatable experiments on the basis of these predictions, drawing rational interpretations and conclusions, and finally formulating scientific theories from these conclusions regarding the phenomenon, are what makes what is called SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Since HOMEOPATHIC CURE is an “unexplained, wrongly explained, or inappropriately explained OBJECTIVE phenomenon”, what actually scientific community has to do is to apply the tools of this SCIENTIFIC METHOD upon it without any bias or prjudice, and reach a final conclusion- not to reject it abruptly as a whole and humiliate it by declaring as “fake” and “implausible”!

WITHOUT A SCIENTIFICALLY VIABLE WORKING HYPOTHESIS AS A SPRINGBOARD OF FURTHER ACTIONS, YOU CANNOT CONDUCT A GENUINE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. OUR ‘NANO-PARTICLE RESEARCHERS’ OF HOMEOPATHY TRIED TO DO IT WITHOUT SUCH A HYPOTHESIS, WHICH INEVITABLY LED THEM TO POORLY CONCEIVED EXPERIMENTS, INACCURATE OBSERVATIONS, WRONG INTERPRETATIONS, FOOLISH CONCLUSIONS AND TOTALLY ABSURD THEORIES.

Any scientific research starts as a scientific hypothesis. Those who know scientific method are well aware how to evaluate a hypothesis, and decide whether it is a SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS that could be used as the starting point of further research.

Scientific method involves making hypothetical explanations about phenomena using existing knowledge, deriving predictions from the hypotheses as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions, so as to prove or disprove the hypotheses.

Eventhough I have already succeeded in proposing the concept of Molecular Imprints Therapeutics as a perfect and scientifically viable hypothesis regarding molecular imprinting involved in homeopathic potentization, as well as the explaining “similia similibus curentur” in terms of competitive relationship of chemical molecules in participating in bio-molecular interactions, it is only the first step in the task of establishing homeopathy as a genuine scientific medical system.. This hypothesis and explanations have to be proved and validated by scientific method for getting it finally accepted as a scientific theory.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. It is ‘a method or procedure consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of a proposed HYPOTHESIS.

The chief characteristic which distinguishes a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself. Hypothesis is raised to the status of THEORY when the predictions based on hypothesis are confirmed. Hypothesis is discarded or modified when its predictions prove false.

Scientific researchers proposes a HYPOTHESIS as explanations for an unexplained but known phenomenon, and design experimental studies to test this hypothesis via PREDICTIONS which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Certain researches may encompass wider domains of inquiry that may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure.

A hypothesis is derived as a tentative answer to a naturally arising question regarding a known phenomenon. It is a conjecture based on the knowledge obtained while formulating the question.

To be considered scientifically viable, a hypothesis must be FALSIFIABLE, meaning that one can identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis through a NULL HYPOTHESIS; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested.

According to scientific method, PREDICTIONS, TESTING and ANALYSIS are the essential steps in the validation of a scientific hypothesis.

MIT proposes the following HYPOTHESIS as an answer to the question HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS. We have to PROVE it or DISPROVE it.

“Homeopathy is a therapeutic method of curing diseases by using ‘molecular imprints’ of drug substances, which in ‘molecular forms’ could produce ‘symptoms’ similar to those presented by the patient. ‘Similarity’ of drug symptoms and disease symptoms indicate that the drug molecules and pathogenic molecules have ‘similar’ functional groups, by which they could bind to ‘similar’ biological molecules, produce ‘similar’ molecular inhibitions that caused ‘similar’ molecular pathology which are expressed through ‘similar’ subjective and objective ‘symptoms’. Molecular imprints of ‘similar’ drug molecules can act as artificial binding sites for ‘similar’ pathogenic molecules due to complementary conformational affinity, thereby deactivating them and relieving the biological molecules from pathological inhibitions, which amounts to ‘cure’. This the scientific meaning of Similia Similibus Curentur.”

Essential part of this HYPOTHESIS that has to be proved or disproved first is that homeopathic potentization is a process of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING, and the active principles of potentized drugs are MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of drug molecules. This has to be proved or disproved according to scientific methods, to make homeopathy a legitimate medical science.

PREDICTIONS formulated for proving MIT HYPOTHESIS are:

  1. If ‘molecular imprinting’ concept is right, there will not any single ‘molecule’ of original drug substance remaining in potencies above avogadro limit, if they are genuinely potentized.
  2. If ‘molecular imprinting’ concept is right, chemical analysis of high potency drugs and plain water-alcohol mixture will prove they have same chemical constitution.
  3. If ‘molecular imprinting’ concept is right, potentized drugs have therapeutic effects if used as per indications, but plain water-alcohol mixture will not exhibit any therapeutic effect.
  4. If ‘molecular imprinting’ concept is right, spectrometric studies will show that high potency drugs and plain water-alcohol mixtures are entirely different in their supra-molecular organizations.
  5. If ‘molecular imprinting’ concept is right, in vitro and in vivo studies will prove that high potency drugs have biological properties that are reverse to those of their molecular forms (below 12c)
  6. If ‘molecular imprinting’ concept is right, high potency drugs should be capable of antidoting or neutralizing the biological effects of molecular forms of same drugs.

THESE PREDICTIONS HAVE TO BE PROVED OR DISPROVED THROUGH SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS.

MISPRESENTATION, MISINTERPRETATION AND UNREALISTIC CONCLUSIONS DAMAGING THE CREADIBILITY OF HOMEOPATHY RESEARCH!

For the last few days, homeopaths have been enthusiastically sharing a picture of a newspaper report that appeared in Times of India titled as “new study sheds light on effectiveness of homeopathic medicines”. Newspaper report covers a research paper titled “unravelling the low-frequency triggered electromagnetic signatures in potentized homeopathic medicine” published in the journal “Material Science and Engineering 2023” ” by Hari N Bhargava and co-workers belonging to Advanced Materials and Processes Research Institute, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462026, India, and Government Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462003, India.

I just downloaded the research paper and went through the whole article eagerly, to know what is this wonderful “new study shedding light on effectiveness of homeopathic medicines”, but was utterly disappointed to see that the work was nothing about “effectiveness of homeopathic medicines” as the journalist depicted in his report. According to researchers themselves, their work was actually about a “novel experimental tool” or device they developed to detect the responses of certain low potency METALLIC elemental and compound drugs when subjected to low-frequency generated electromagnetic fields. According to them, “the work presents a novel experimental tool for classifying various homeopathic medicines under a low-frequency generated electromagnetic (EM) fields”.

Study was conducted using various metallic elemental and compound drugs in very low homeopathic potencies ranging from 1x to 6x. Obviously due to their failure in scientifically differentiating pre-avogadro or molecular forms of drugs and post-avogadro or non-molecular forms of drugs, our researchers jumped into the conclusion that the result they got by studying very low potencies of simple metallic elemental and compound drugs could be applicable to ultra-high diluted drugs as well, and to all vegetable, animal and mineral drugs having highly complex molecular structures and properties, using the blanket term ‘homeopathic drugs”.

See what the researchers say what their work actually was: “In the present work, a simplified custom-built primary copper wire-based excitation coil was designed and developed to generate electromagnetic fields by the controlled input excitation current and voltage. The electromagnetic fields were generated at 300 Hz and 4.8 kHz excitation frequencies. Homeopathic medicines of various potencies were investigated under generated electromagnetic fields, and secondary sensing coil was used to capture induced electromagnetic fields from the test samples. The captured response signal from the sensing coil was analysed and processed by the spectrum analyser to characterize homeopathic test medicines. Significant changes in the response signal were detected to classify the lower and higher potencies of the same medicine.”

Please note, by “higher potencies”, they mean 6x potency only, as they are much “higher” than 1x potency! Anybody having minimum scientific understanding can easily realise that these “response signals” they could produce in the samples they used were actually due to the metallic particles naturally remaining in those low potency preparations, and it has nothing to do with “homeopathy” at all! It is a common basic knowledge of physics that any metallic substance will respond to electromagnetic fields!

“The potentized test samples were prepared at decimal dilution scale of Ferrum with α lactose monohydrate and exhibited significant and distinct induced EM responses in the second sensing coil. The measured responses decrease logarithmically due to reducing Ferrum concentration.”

Observation that “measured responses decrease logarithmatically due to reducing FERRUM concentration” obviously means that the “responses” was actually due to the presence of elemental ‘ferrum’ in the sample, and not due to any ‘dynamic energy’ produced by potentization.

Researchers say, “quite substantial changes were also measured from the different homeopathic medicines (Plumbum, Zincum, Argentum, etc.) of 3X potency, as in the case of Ferrum 3X.” “Homeopathic test medicines were prepared using insoluble original metallic substances such as calcium sulphate, potassium hydroxide, and metals like Ferrum Metallicum (Fe), Zincum Metallicum (ZM), Argentum Metallicum (AM), Alumina, Antim-Tart, and Plumbum Metallicum (PM).”

Kindly note, all samples they used were low potencies of metallic elemental and compound drugs, which will surely contain those particles, that will respond to electromagnetic fields. They did not use post-avogadro diluted drugs, complex vegetable or animal drugs, since they obviously knew their “new tool” will work only if metallic particles are present in the test samples!

Author’s claim that “present work proposes a system developed in-house capable of characterizing different potencies of homeopathic medicines” has to be rightfully modified as “present work proposes a system developed in-house capable of detecting the presence of elemental particles in different low potencies of homeopathic metallic medicines below avogadro limit”.

Do not miss to read this very truthful statement by researchers: “due to the highly diluted nature of homeopathic potency, the probability of finding even a single molecule of the starting source material in the final homeopathic solution (dilution ratio ~ 10-30) tends to zero, so it isn’t easy to detect electromagnetic wave or magnetic photon in such solutions. Therefore, the transfer phenomena of the medicinal information to the solution and the living organism are still unclear.”

Here the researchers agree that it is not possible to “detect electromagnetic wave or magnetic photons” in high dilution drugs which do not contain original drug particles. More over, they confess that in the case of highly diluted drugs, “transfer phenomena of the medicinal information to the solution and the living organism are still unclear!”

My greatest wonder is, how a homeopathy research team of such a respectable academic stature could claim their study has “shed light on effectiveness of homeopathic medicines” by studying the “induced responses” of “metallic elements and compounds” in 1x to 6x potencies in generated electromagnetic fields!

What I have to say humbly to the respected authors of this research is, you may be successful in fooling the science-starved homeopathy community with this kind of gimmicks and media-sponsored hypes, but it will not take homeopathy a single step forward in making it scientific, whereas, it will make homeopathy a little more vulnerable to humiliation and alienation from scientific community! Kindly try to avoid this kind of situations!

Chandran Nambiar KC
REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY

WATER-ETHANOL AZEOTROPIC MIXTURE AS A MEDIUM FOR MOLECULAR IMPRINTING

Molecular imprinting is a technique for the preparation of synthetic polymers with specific binding sites for a target molecule. This can be achieved if the target is present during the polymerization process, thus acting as a molecular template. Monomers carrying certain functional groups are arranged around the template through noncovalent or covalent interactions. Following polymerization with a high degree of cross-linking, the functional groups become fixed in defined positions by the polymer network. Subsequent removal of the template by solvent extraction or chemical cleavage leaves cavities that are complementary to the template in terms of size, shape and arrangement of the functional groups. These highly specific receptor sites are capable of rebinding the target molecule with high specificity, sometimes comparable to that of antibodies. Molecularly imprinted polymers have therefore been named “antibody mimics”. It has been shown that they can be substituted for biological receptors in certain formats of immunoassays and biosensors. They are characterized by high stability.

Target molecules for which we want to prepare ‘artificial binding sites’ or ‘molecular imprints’, which are normally large complex protein molecules, are identified and selected as ‘template molecules. These template molecules are added to a mixture of ‘monomers’ and ‘activators’ and thoroughly mixed. This mixture is allowed to undergo a process of ‘self assembling’ and ‘polymerization’, which is actually a ‘guest-host’ molecular complex, in which the template molecules are trapped in a hardened polymer matrix which act as ‘host’. This ‘host-guest’ complex is pulverized, and subjected to a process of ‘solvent extraction’, by which soluble template molecules are removed from insoluble polymer matrix. The resultant preparation consists of polymer matrix carrying empty spaces or ‘cavities’ where the template molecules were originally trapped. These cavities are called ‘molecular imprints’, which actually mimic a negative spacial conformation of template molecules. Due to this complementary conformation, these ‘molecular imprints’ exhibit a special affinity towards original template molecules, and act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for them.

Due to this special affinity, they could be used as substitutes for biological receptors in certain formats of immunoassays and bio-sensors. Even though molecular imprinting concept is subjected to studies related with modern drug designing, ‘molecular imprinted polymers’ prepared by this process is difficult to be used as drugs in living organisms, as they are synthetic polymers,

Drug potentization in homeopathy has to be studied from molecular imprinting. Since it is totally improbable for even a single drug molecule to remain in a dilution above avogadro limit, only way the medicinal properties of drug substances could be transferred to and preserved in such a medium is by molecular imprinting. Homeopathy uses water-ethyl alcohol azeotropic mixture as ‘host’ in place of polymers, and drug molecules as ‘templates’ or ‘guests’ for preparing molecular imprints that could be used as drugs. Since molecular imprints prepared by this process consist of only water and ethyl alcohol molecules, imprinted with three dimensional properties of drug molecules, they could be safely used as therapeutic agents. According to my view, homeopathic potentization is actually a biofriendly adaptation of molecular imprinting technology, originally done in polymers.

Most important objection raised against this concept is, how water can work as a medium for molecular imprinting, whereas water is not a polymer in its classical understanding. But all of us know, water has a lot of anomalous behaviors related with its physical properties such anomalous expansion, viscosity, diffusion, surface tension, melting and boiling points, crystallization, and role in solvation of molecules, ions, membranes, and proteins, which demonstrate water has some polymer-like properties, which were not so far sufficiently explained. A recently published research article throws some light into explaing this polymer-like properties of water.

This article, titled “Liquid water is a dynamic polydisperse branched polymer” is written by Saber Naserifar , William A. Goddard III , two scientists working at Materials and Process Simulation Center, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125. (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1817383116).

Authors developed a RexPoN force field for water based entirely on quantum mechanics. It predicts the properties of water extremely accurately. They observed that strong hydrogen bonds in water connect to form multibranched polymer chains of 151 H2O per chain at 24.85 celsius, where branch points have 3 strong hydrogen bonds and termination points have 1 strong hydrogen bond. This dynamic fluctuating branched polymer view of water provides a dramatically modified paradigm for understanding the properties of water. It may explain the angular correlation lengths at 24.85 celsius, and the critical point at 227 K in supercooled water. This new paradigm for water could have a significant impact on the properties for protein, DNA, and other materials in aqueous media.

In supramolecular chemistry, hyperbranched polymers represent highly branched, polydisperse macromolecules with a treelike topology and a large number of functional groups. During the last ten years, the rapidly growing interdisciplinary interest in the globular, highly uniform, and monodisperse dendrimers promoted the rediscovery of hyperbranched polymers. The tedious and complex multistep synthesis of dendrimers results in expensive products with limited use for large- scale industrial applications.
In contrast to ice, in which each water makes strong hydrogen bonds to four neighbors, researchers showed that upon melting the ice, the number of strong hydrogen bonds drops quickly to two in liquid water.

These two strong hydrogen bonds couple into chains containing around 150 H2O molecules resembling a branched polymer. Authors expect this dynamics-branched polymer paradigm may explain many long-standing puzzles of water.

Since each H2O on the average makes 2 strong hydrogen bonds, authors next traced out the connections between the strong hydrogen bonds.. They found that connecting just the strong hydrogen bonds leads to branched polymer chains with a largest cluster of 151 H2O molecules at 24.85 celsius containing a main chain of 39 H2O and 15 side chains ranging from 1 to 22 H2Os long. For lower temperatures the largest cluster size increases to 168 at 3.85 celsius, 177 at 0.35 celsius, and to 216 at -123.15 celsius. At a temperature of 24.85 celsius and below, these clusters may bond to their images in adjacent cells, leading to infinite sizes according to simulations.

According to the authors, they have proved that liquid water is a polydisperse dynamic multibranched polymer in which most H2Os form strong hydrogen bonds to just two others, with occasional branch points at waters bonded to 3 H2Os terminating at H2Os. The molecules that are not part of the largest cluster are mainly in small clusters with sizes ranging from 1 to 10 H2Os. At 76.85 celsius the big polymer chains split into smaller ones, with the number of H2Os bonded to two other molecules decreasing. At temperature -123.5 celsius the connected polymer includes all water molecules, which forms a highly branched polymer. This revelation concerning the polymeric nature of liquid water may have a dramatic impact on our perceptions about water, with possible implications on such physical properties as viscosity, diffusion, and solvation of molecules, ions, membranes, and proteins.

To prove that RexPoN fully explains the critical-point behavior of water requires far more extensive simulations, but these results suggests the potential impact of the paradigm that water is a dynamic polydisperse branched polymer might have on physical and chemical phenomena involving water.

We have to explore the dynamics of homeopathic potentization keeping this new paradigm of water in mind. It is not pure water that is used for homeopathic potentization, but an azeotropic mixture of ethanol and water. An azeotropic mixture is a mixture of substances that has the same concentration of vapour and fluid phases. It is basically a mixture that contains two or more liquids. A zeotropic mixture basically has constant or the same boiling points and the mixtures’ vapor will also have the same composition as the liquid. The azeotrope or constant boiling point mixture is a mixture of two or more liquids whose proportions cannot be altered or changed by simple distillation. This happens because when an azeotrope is boiled, the vapor has same portion of constituents as un-boiled mixture. The azeotropic composition of ethanol and water is 95.635 of ethanol and 4.375 of water by volume. Ethanol boils at 78.4°C and water boils at 100°C, but the azeotrope boils at 78.2°C which is lower than either of its constituents.

Perhaps the most important benefit of an azeotrope is the unexpected ability to mix flammable and nonflammable ingredients to produce a stable nonflammable mixture. This is an amazing chemical phenomenon. Azeotropes occur when fraction of the liquids cannot be altered by distillation. Typically when dealing with mixtures, components can be extracted out of solutions by means of Fractional Distillation, or essentially repeated distillation in stages. Ethanol and water form an azeotropic mixture at an ethanol molecular percentage of 91% by weight or 96% by volume, which prohibits ethanol from being further purified via distillation.

Aqueous solutions at different concentrations in ethanol have been studied both experimentally and theoretically. Azeotropic behaviour results from an unexpected concentration-dependence of the surface composition. While ethanol strongly dominates the surface and water is almost completely depleted from the surface for most mixing ratios, the different intermolecular bonding patterns of the two components cause water to penetrate to the surface region at high ethanol concentrations in azeotropic ratio. The addition of surface water increases its relative vapour pressure, giving rise to the azeotropic behaviour.

In water-ethanol azeotrope, the water is able to increase the amount of hydrogen bonding between ethanol molecules by increasing the density of hydrogen bond donors and acceptors per unit volume. At a low water concentration, the water also does not interfere greatly with the hydrophobic interactions between the ethyl ends of the molecules. As a result, the average intermolecular interaction for the ethanol molecules is stronger than in pure ethanol, and we have the necessary decrease in the vapor pressure of ethanol. For the water, when it is at low concentration in mixture, each water molecule is surrounded by ethanol molecules, so it has fewer hydrogen bonding interactions than in pure water. As a result, its average intermolecular interactions are weaker than in pure water. When the water concentration gets below what is required for the azeotrope, enough of the alcohol molecules interact only with other alcohol molecules that the deviation from ideality decreases. Considering the polydisperse branched polymer structure of water as well as the peculiar properties of water-ethanol azeotropic mixture, it is not at all irrational or unrealistic to approach the dynamics of homeopathic potentization in terms of molecular imprinting. A lot of studies remain to be conducted on these lines in future. At least, scientific community has to consider homeopathic potentization as a subject of serious further explorations in the field of modern drug designing.

Most important primary observation that initiated my logical thought process regarding molecular imprinting involvef in homeopathic potentization was that potentized drugs works therapeutically! And the obviously unscientific and spiritualistic explanations given in homeopathy texts for this phenomenon, such as vital force and dynamic energy was not acceptable for me at all. I wanted a rational explanation for homeopathy that is fitting to the modern scientific knowledge system and its methods.

My second observation was that potentized drugs do not work therapeutically, if they are not ‘similimum’ to the given case. More over, there are a lot of scientific studies which prove unpotentized ethanol-water mixture in the same ratio of potentized drugs do not have any therapeutic actions. There are scientific studies of eminent researchers showing that potentized forms of a drug can antidote or reverse the biological effects of same drug in their molecular forms, which could be possible only if the potentized forms contained some entities that can act as artificial binding pockets for their molecular forms, which clearly pointed to the possibility of molecular imprints. In vitro and in vivo experiments proved that potentized drugs can antidote the biological effects of their crude forms. This convinced me that the potentized drugs contained some active principles that can act upon biological molecules in a way just opposite to the action of crude drug molecules, which is posssible only if molecular imprinting happens during potentization.

Then I observed through calculations based on Avogadro constant that there is no chance for any drug molecule to be present in a drug potentized above 12c. Many studies have already proved that potentized drugs and unpotentized ethanol-water mixture have similar chemical constitution and chemical properties. This observation indicates that no chemical changes of any sorts happen to ethyl ethanol-water mixture due to the process of potentization. It is a common knowledge that potentized drugs when heated, or subjected to strong electrical or magnetic fields lose their therapeutic properties. This observation indicates that potentization may be involved with some physical changes happening in the ethanol-water mixture, that are liable to be reversed by physical forces such as heat, magnetism and electricity.

Evaporation rates and Freezing points of potentized drugs and control solutions have been found to differ, indicating a change in hydrogen bond patterns and supra-molecular rearrangements. A lot of published spectroscopic studies using different technologies are available, indicating supramolecular rearrangement happening during the process of potentization. Spectra were found to be different in potentized drugs and ethanol-water control solutions, which shows ethanol-water mixture have undergone some sort of supra-molecular clustering and re-organization during potentization.

Study of supra-molecular structure of water, hydrogen bonding, hydration shells, and supra-molecular clusters will convince us that water can exhibit some polymer-like properties at supra-molecular level. Scientific studies discussed in the first part of this presentation has proved water to be a dynamic polydisperse branched polymer, which provides a new paradigm of water entirely different from classical perspective. Ethanol- water mixture used in homeopathic potentization is in azeotropic ratios, which leads us into a deeper study of azeotropism, and its role in enhancing the polymer- like properties of water. Study of supramolecular properties of ethyl alcohol/water azeotropic mixtures shows that the hydrogen bond strength of water can be enhanced by the presence of ethyl alcohol molecules in azeotropic proportions, and can restrict the free movements of water molecules, thereby helping in the stabilization of hydration shells. New advancements in the field of the technology of ‘molecular imprinted polymers’ achieved by polymer scientists points to the possibility of using of ‘molecular imprints’ as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules in biological systems. This requires a deeper study of molecular imprinting, in search of a scientific solution for the riddles involved in homeopathic potentization.

A critical study of works done by Benveniste as well as Luc Montaigner regarding what they called ‘memory of water’ indicated some structural changes happening in water during successive dilution and succussion. Benveniste and Montaigner might have failed to comprehend the real mechanism involved in the phenomenon of so-called ‘water memory’ they observed, which led them to irrational and wrong conclusions. Some Russian scientists have earlier observed a phenomenon they called ‘shape memory property of water’, which they could not explain scientifically, since they also did not understand the real process of ‘molecular imprinting’ involved in it. Study of the phenomenon known as ‘hormesis’, which remains still eluding and unexplained scientifically, also led me to relate it with some sort of ‘supra-molecular’ re-arrangements happening in water in ultra dilutions.

Observation that potentized drugs act upon biological systems in a way exactly opposite to the original drugs indicated a process of generating three-dimensional nanocavities or intermolecular voids that can act as artificial binding sites for drug molecules and similar pathogenic molecules, which can happen only though ‘molecular imprinting’.

Then I took up a serious re-study of biochemistry and molecular biology. Study of ‘key-lock mechanism’ involved in the dynamics of enzyme inhibitions, ‘ligand-receptor’ interactions and ‘antibody-antigen’ interactions were found to be fitting well to the concept of ‘molecular imprints’ in potentized drugs. Through these studies, it became more and more clear to me that ‘similia similibus curentur’ could be explained in terms of competitive relationships between similar molecules and also phenomenon of molecular mimicry well explained by modern biochemistry.

HOMEOPATHY WILL HAVE TO FACE A HARD AND RUTHLESS TRIAL BEFORE THE COURT OF SCIENCE!

Leaders of homeopathic community as well as authorities of homeopathic institutions in the country please understand, our government is spending a lot of public money every year for running our R&D and administrative systems.

One day or other, we will be made accountable before the people as well as the scientific community for this huge public expenditure, and subjected to a hard and ruthless scrutiny. We will be compelled to justify our right for existence rationally and scientifically. Tons of anecdotes and claims we produce will not be enough for that. They will ask for scientifically valid explanations and scientific proofs.

Dear homeopaths, playing with the obsolete phrases of your belief system and quotes from our holy book “ORGANON” that preach about “immaterial dynamic energy” and “vital force” will be of no use at that juncture. We will have to talk the language and methods of modern scientific knowledge system, of which most of us are pathetically ignorant about.

We will have to explain them plainly what are the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of post-avogadro diluted drugs we use.

We will have to explain them in scientific language what actually happens during potentization, by which the medicinal properties of drug substances are transferred to and preserved in a potentizing medium without transferring even a single drug molecule into it. Lectures on “release of immaterial dynamic medicinal energy” will not suffice.

We will have to explain them what is the real difference between crude drugs and potentized drugs.

We will have to tell explain them what is the exact BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM by which post avogadro diluted drugs produce therapeutic effects, in a way fitting the advanced knowledge provided by modern biochemistry and pharmacodynamics. Our “vital force theory” will be usefull only as a piece for joke!

We will have to tell them what is the scientific meaning of SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR, in a way fitting to modern scientific knowledge molecular level processes involved in diasease and cure.

Above all, we will have to talk using the language of science, and explain our CARDINAL PRINCIPLES in a way fitting to the modern scientific knowledge system.

Get ready for the final judgement day!

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.