ON HOMEOPATHIC ‘DIAGNOSIS’

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

It is wrong to say “homeopathy treats symptoms”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MANAGING METABOLIC SYNDROME USING COMBINATIONS OF MOLECULAR IMPRINTED DRUGS OF HOMEOPATHY

Metabolic Syndrome has become a major lifestyle related health issue of modern man, probably due to stressful life, lack of exercise and changed food habits. 

Metabolic syndrome or MetS is a cluster of common abnormalities arising from persistent high levels of cortisol in the blood. This Syndrome includes hyperglycemia, abdominal obesity, reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and elevated triglyceride and blood pressure. The common characteristics of MetS and hypercortisolemic conditions such as Cushing’s syndrome suggest that the pathogenesis of MetS and central obesity might involve prolonged and excessive exposure to cortisol.

Metabolic Syndrome was originally described as “insulin resistance syndrome”.

 The components of Metabolic Syndrome are associated with endothelial dysfunction and atherosclerosis and increase the risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus as well as vascular morbidity and mortality. It is estimated that about one fourth of the world’s adult population has Metabolic Syndrome.

Metabolic Syndrome is diagnosed when three or more of the following parameters are present: waist circumference greater than 102 cm in men and greater than 88 cm in women, triglycerides of at least 150 mg/dl, HDL cholesterol less than 40 mg/dl in men and less than 50 mg/dl in women, blood pressure of at least 130/85 mm Hg, and fasting glucose of at least 110 mg/dL.

It is unclear whether a single primary abnormality triggers a cascade of diverse events that lead to the manifestation of the components of MetS. Because the diagnostic features of MetS are shared by Cushing’s syndrome (CS), which results from endogenous or exogenous hypercortisolism, it was proposed that cortisol contributes to the pathogenesis of both states although only mild hypercortisolism occurs in MetS in contrast with CS. It was also suggested that inhibiting cortisol action could provide a novel therapeutic approach for MetS. 

Indeed, preliminary data suggest that circulating cortisol concentrations are higher in patients with MetS compared with healthy subjects, both in basal conditions and during dynamic stimulation. This difference is more evident in patients with MetS and hypertension or impaired glucose tolerance. Furthermore, weight loss normalizes cortisol levels and improves insulin resistance. Despite the fact that cortisol levels are within the normal range, there is evidence of increased activity of cortisol in the periphery and dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. 

Differences between CS and MetS also need to be emphasized; in CS, once the tumor is removed, symptoms improve; in the MetS, weight loss reverses both hypercortisolism and phenotypic abnormalities.

Cortisol appears to play a role in adiposity in Metabolic Syndrome. Elevated serum uric acid levels are shared by MetS and CS Syndome. Increased exposure to cortisol contributes to increased fat accumulation in visceral deposits of fat. Increased cortisol serum overnight levels are also associated with insulin resistance.

Some studies showed elevated cortisol levels in situations such as work stress and unemployment. Others reported that chronic life stress results in subtle hyperactivity of HPA axis leading to intraabdominal adiposity and development of Metabolic Syndrome. Patients with Metabolic Syndrome appear to have higher urinary excretion of cortisol metabolites compared with healthy subjects. In vitro, cortisol appears to increase lipoprotein lipase or fat-storing enzyme levels in adipose tissue and particularly in visceral fat.

Cortisol, also known as “stress hormone”, is a very important hormone produced mainly by the zona fasciculata of the adrenal cortex in the adrenal gland. It is produced in other tissues also in smaller quantities. It is released with a diurnal cycle and its release is increased in response to stress and low blood-glucose concentration. It functions to increase blood sugar through gluconeogenesis, to suppress the immune system, and to aid in the metabolism of fat, protein, and carbohydrates. It also decreases bone formation.

In general, cortisol stimulates the synthesis of ‘new’ glucose from non-carbohydrate sources. This is known as gluconeogenesis, mainly in the liver, and also in the kidneys and small intestine under certain circumstances. The net effect of cortisol is an increase in the concentration of glucose in the blood, further complemented by a decrease in the sensitivity of peripheral tissue to insulin, thus preventing this tissue from taking the glucose from the blood. Moreover, cortisol has a permissive effect on the actions of hormones that increase glucose production, such as glucagon and adrenaline.

Cortisol also plays an important, but indirect, role in liver and muscle glycogenolysis, the breaking down of glycogen to glucose.

Elevated levels of cortisol, if prolonged, can lead to proteolysis or breakdown of proteins, and muscle wasting. The reason for proteolysis is to provide the relevant tissue with ‘building blocks’ for gluconeogenesis. The effects of cortisol on lipid metabolism are more complicated since lipogenesis is observed in patients with chronic, raised circulating cortisol levels, although an acute increase in circulating cortisol promotes lipolysis. The usual explanation to account for this apparent discrepancy is that the raised blood glucose concentration through the action of cortisol will stimulate insulin release. Insulin stimulates lipogenesis, so this is an indirect consequence of the raised cortisol concentration in the blood but it will only occur over a longer time scale.

Experimental studies with cortisol inhibitors further support the role cortisol in the pathogenesis of Metabolic Syndrome, and might provide novel therapeutic approaches in patients with metabolic syndrome or obesity.

The components of Metabolic Syndrome are associated with endothelial dysfunction and atherosclerosis, and increase the risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus as well as vascular morbidity and mortality.

It was also suggested that inhibiting cortisol action could provide a novel therapeutic approach for Metabolic Syndrome. Indeed, preliminary data suggest that circulating cortisol concentrations are higher in patients with Metabolic Syndrome compared with healthy subjects, both in basal conditions and during dynamic stimulation. It was also proved that
reduction of body weight normalizes cortisol levels and improves insulin resistance.

Emerging data suggest that patients with MetS show hyperactivity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, which leads to a state of “functional hypercortisolism”. The cause for this activation of the HPA axis remains uncertain but may be associated with chronic stress, which is associated with increased circulating cortisol levels and greater responsiveness of the HPA axis. Increased exposure to cortisol contributes to increased fat accumulation in visceral depots. Increased enzyme activity in adipose tissue and liver might contribute to the development of several features of the MetS.

Central abdominal obesity is one of the main components of the MetS. Cortisol appears to play a role in adiposity in MetS. Increased urinary cortisone/cortisol ratio in women with increased abdominal fat compared with those with peripheral fat distribution was observed by researchers, suggesting an increase in the peripheral metabolism of cortisol. Interestingly, cortisol clearance seems to be inversely correlated with insulin sensitivity, and this correlation is independent of body fat. It is also well documented that glucocorticoids promote the differentiation and proliferation of human adipocytes and that their receptors are more abundant in visceral than in subcutaneous adipose tissue. They also redistribute adiposity from peripheral to central depots, increase the size and number of fat cells, and activate lipolysis and the release of free fatty acids into the circulation.

Increased cortisol levels are also associated with insulin resistance. Higher cortisol concentrations were related to a reduced insulin secretion.

Hypertension is one of the most distinguishing features of Metabolic Syndrome as well as hypercortisolism. Many studies reported an association between cortisol and systolic and diastolic BP levels. This correlation might be attributed to the effect of stress, which is associated with the activation of the HPA axis and sympathetic nervous system. Indeed, patients with Metabolic Syndrome and hypertension appear to have higher urine levels of both cortisol and catecholamine metabolites than healthy individuals. A possible mechanism by which cortisol elevate BP seems to be an increased responsiveness to vasoconstrictors along with a decreased vasodilator production.

Obesity , a common finding in both CS and MetS, is also associated with hypertension. The possible underlying mechanisms include volume expansion, increased cardiac output and systemic vascular resistance, increased sodium reabsorption, increased activity of the sympathetic nervous system and the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, high leptin levels and concurrent leptin resistance.

Patients with Metabolic Syndrome as well as hypercortisolism frequently have elevated blood glucose levels. In patients with MetS, serum cortisol levels are significantly associated with fasting glucose concentration. The relationship between fasting hyperglycemia and cortisol is due to the glucocorticoid effects on hepatic gluconeogenesis and insulin secretion.

Metabolic Syndrome is associated with endothelial dysfunction that significantly predisposes to an increased risk for cardiovascular diseases. Endothelial dysfunction is also observed in patients with hypercortisolism. Hypercoagulability of blood is also present in MetS. Indeed, elevated fibrinogen and homocysteine concentrations have been observed in MetS patients compared with healthy controls. Hyperfibrinogenemia and homocysteinemia seem to be independent risk factors for cardiovascular diseases and venous thrombosis.

Elevated serum uric acid levels are seen both in Metabolic Syndrome and Hypercortisolism. High uric acid levels are regarded as a predictor of cardiac and overall mortality in patients with cardiovascular diseases or stroke. Elevated uric acid is also associated with higher risk of stroke in patients with or without cardiovascular disease. It was demonstrated that statin atorvastatin therapy is associated with a reduction in uric acid levels, along with an increase in estimated glomerular filtration rate in CKD patients with MetS. This effect on renal function is perhaps due to an amelioration of endothelial function and renal blood flow. 

Adipose tissue is recognized as an important endocrine organ that secretes a variety of bioactive peptides, termed adipokines. These adipokines exert multiple effects and play a key role in glucose and lipid metabolism, insulin sensitivity, BP, and angiogenesis. The major components of this family of adipokines are adiponectin and leptin, which are mainly produced by adipose tissue. Both these proteins exert an insulin-sensitizing effect through fatty-acid oxidation and, in addition, adiponectin is associated with antiatherogenic, antidiabetic, and antiinflammatory properties. In obesity, insulin resistance has been linked to leptin resistance, elevated leptin, and low adiponectin levels, which are associated with higher cardiovascular risk. Resistin is expressed in abdominal fat and is also associated with increased risk of central obesity-related diabetes. However, resistin may not be an “adipokine” because in humans it is mainly produced by monocytes, and its link with central obesity is debated. Excess adiposity leads to dysregulation of adipokine production, which in turn promotes a state of low-level systemic chronic inflammation predisposing to atherosclerosis.

According to MIT approach, since molecular imprints of cortisol can act as artificial binding pockets for cortisol, it can antidote the adverse biological effects of excess cortisol circulated in the body. 

Homeopathic drug CORTISOL 30 contains Molecular imprints of the hormone cortisol. CORTISOL 30 is a great remedy for many ailments that are associated with Metabolic Syndrome. As such, cortisol 30 will be a powerful ingredient of Homeopathic Prescriptions in the management of all complaints associated with Metabolic Syndrome. Incorporation of PITUTRINUM 30 as well as common anti-stress homeopathy remedies such as Arg Nit 30, Gesls 30, Adrenalin 30 also produces beneficial effects in reducing the bad effects of stress and increased cortisol levels, and thereby preventing and curing Metabolic Syndrome and the health risks arising from its complications.

HOW THE KNOWLEDGE OF MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY HELPS IN MAKING SCIENTIFIC HOMEOPATHY PRESCRIPTIONS

According to MIT explanations of homeopathy. SIMILIMUM means a drug substance that can provide all the molecular imprints required to remove all the pathological molecular inhibitions underlying a disease existing in a patient. SIMILIA SIMILIBUS is only a practical way of identifying such a drug substance by observing the symptoms in a patient, and comparing them with the symptoms drug substances are known to have produced earlier in healthy idividuals. This therapeutic technique is actually based on the knowledge that chemical molecules having similar conformations can bind to similar molecular targets, produce similar molecular inhibitions, that are expressed through similar symptoms.

This scientific understanding will obviously lead homeopathy to a shift from symptom based prescriptions to molecular pathology based prescritions. The more we understand the molecular pathology of disease conditions as well as the details of ligands and targets involved in each pathological molecular inhibitions, and the more we study the molecular constitution of drug substances we use, the more we will be able to make perfect homeopathy prescriptions on the basis of that knowledge, and the more we can avoid symptom based approach.

The more we know about the molecular pathology of each disease, and the more we know the molecular constitutions of drug substances, the more homeopathy will shift away from “similarity of symptoms” to “conformational similarity of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules”.

Let us try to demonstrate this idea using the knowledge regarding molecular pathology of HYPERTENSION. Renin or angiotensinogenase, is the key enzyme produced in kidneys that modulates body’s renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) that mediates volume of extracellular fluids such as blood plasma, lymph and interstitial fluid, as well as arterial vasoconstriction. Thus, RENIN regulates the body’s mean arterial blood pressure.

The enzyme renin is secreted by the kidneys from specialized cells called granular cells of the juxtaglomerular apparatus in response to stimuli such as decrease in arterial blood pressure or decrease in blood volume detected by pressure-sensitive cells known as baroceptors, a decrease in sodium chloride levels in the ultrafiltrate of the nephrons, or sympathetic nervous system activity, acting through the beta1 adrenergic receptors.

The renin enzyme produced in kidneys circulates in the blood stream and breaks down angiotensinogen secreted from the liver into angiotensin I.

Angiotensin I is further converted in the lungs by angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) into angiotensin II. Angiotensin II is a very potent constrictor of all blood vessels. It acts on the smooth muscle and, therefore, raises the resistance posed by these arteries to the heart. The heart, trying to overcome this increase in its ‘load’, works more vigorously, causing the blood pressure to rise. This is the essential dynamics involved in rise of blood pressure.

Angiotensin II also acts on the adrenal glands and releases Aldosterone, which stimulates the epithelial cells in the nephrotic tubules and collecting ducts of the kidneys to increase re-absorption of sodium and water, leading to raised blood volume and raised blood pressure.

Aldosterone also acts on the CNS to increase water intake by stimulating thirst, as well as conserving blood volume, by reducing urinary loss through the secretion of Vasopressin from the posterior pituitary gland, resulting in increased blood pressure.

In normal physiological conditions, once the reduced blood pressure is raised to the adequate level, production of RENIN in kidneys is stopped by a NEGATIVE FEEDBACK mechanism, where angiotensin II act upon the special ‘angiotensin II receptors’ on the cell membranes of juxtaglomerular apparatus of kidneys. By this process, level of RENIN in blood stream is maintained with in limits, thereby preventing hypertension. 

Same way, production of catecholamines such as adrenalin which also plays a role in inducing production of RENIN and maintaining blood pressure high, is stopped by negative feedback action of adrenalin upon adrenogenic receptors on cells of adrenal cortex.

A pathological state of RENIN-ANGIOTENSIN AXIS happens once the NEGATIVE FEED BACK mechanism controlling the production of RENIN is disturbed by inhibition of angiotensin II receptors and adrenergic receptors involved in FEEDBACK process. Such inhibitions may be caused by binding of some pathogenic molecules of exogenous or endogenous origin, having functional groups similar to angiotensin II or adrenalin, so that they can competitively bind to the receptors. This leads to elevated state of RENIN in the circulation, resulting in ESSENTIAL HYPERTENSION.

Modern allopathic drugs are targeted either to block the conversion of angiotensin I into angiotensin II by inhibiting the angiotensin converting enzymes, or blocking the angiotensin II receptors using potent drug molecules. Since such molecular inhibitions may necessarily lead to molecular errors in different essential biochemical pathways, modern antihypertension drugs are prone to produce harmful side effects.

According to MIT concepts, maintaining the plasma level of RENIN by controlling its production by facilitating unhindered NEGATIVE FEED BACK mechanism is the ideal way of treating hypertension without any harmful side effects. Inhibition of FEEDBACK mechanism should be removed by using MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of angiotensin II, adrenalin, or drug molecules having similar functional groups. Various drug substances such as RAUWOLFIA contains a number of bioactive chemicals like ajmaline, aricine, corynanthine, deserpidine lankanescine rauwolscine, rescinnamine, reserpine, reserpiline, isoreserpine, isoreserpiline, serpentinine, and yohimbine, which can inhibit the angiotensin and adrenogenic receptors. As such, POTENTIZED FORMS of such drugs will contain MOLECULAR IMPRINTS that can act as artificial binding sites for binding to the endogenous and exogenous pathogenic molecules which are the causative factors of HYPERTENSION.

According to MIT approach, potentized or MOLECULAR IMPRINT forms of ANGIOTENSIN II, ADRENALIN, CATECHOLAMINES and various DRUG SUBSTANCES that can produce hypertension in crude form will be ideal drugs for treating hypertension without any side effects.

AN APPEAL TO CCRH FOR EXPLORING THE DESIRABILITY OF USING PROPIONIC ACID-WATER AZEOTROPIC MIXTURE AS AN IDEAL HOMEOPATHIC POTENTIZING MEDIUM

One of the most difficult questions related with scientific understanding of homeopathy was , how the medicinal properties of a drug substance could be transmitted and preserved into a medium without any drug molecule remaining in it. This cardinal question could be rationally answered once it was realised that homeopathic potentization involves a process of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING in water-ethanol azeotropic supramolecular matrix, and that MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of drug molecules are the active principles of post-avogadro diluted homeopathic drugs.

As per this scientific explanation, conformational details of drug molecules or template molecules are imprinted into the water-alcohol medium in the form of three dimensional nanocavities during the pricess of serial dilution and agitation involved in homeopathic potentization. By their conformational properties, these molecular imprints can act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules that are similar to the template molecules, thereby deactivating pathogenic molecules and removing the molecular inhibitions they produced in the living system. Similia Similibus Curentur, the fundamental principle of homeopathy , could be satisfactorily explained by this biological mechanism, which fits very well to the advanced knowledge of biochemistry and pharmacodynamics.

In order to evolve this scientific explanation for potentization as well as similia similibus curentur, we had to delve deep into diverse areas of knowledge such as supramolecular chemistry of water and ethyl alcohol, polymer structure of water, hydrogen bonding, azeotropism, host-guest molecular interactions, cavitation, molecular imprinting in polymers, etc etc.

A mixture of water and ethyl alcohol in an approximate ratio of 10:90 is used as the medium for homeopathic potentization. According to some references, “pure distilled spirit” could also be used for this purpose, but all of us know, what is called “pure distilled spirit” actually contains 5% water and 95% ethanol, since it is impossible to separate water and ethanol beyond that level by fractional distillation, due to a peculiar phenomenon known as AZEOTROPISM. Studying the molecular level mechanism underlying the phenomenon of azeotropism is essential for understanding how molecular imprinting happens during homeopathic potentization.

In chemistry, AZEOTROPE is a mixture of liquids that has a constant boiling point, because the vapour has the same composition as the liquid mixture. The boiling point of an azeotropic mixture may be higher or lower than that of any of its components. The components of azeotropic mixtures of liquids cannot be separated by simple distillation.

An azeotropic mixture is a mixture of substances that has the same concentration at vapour and fluid phases. It is basically a mixture that contains two or more liquids. Azeotropic mixture basically has constant or the same boiling points and the mixtures’ vapour will also have the same composition as the liquid. Normally, we use distillation to isolate materials as the ideal solutions with one part normally more volatile than the other. However, in an azeotropic mixture, since the vapour and fluid concentrations will be the same this approach will prevent their separation.

Boiling a 95% solution of ethanol in water will produce a 95% ethanol vapour. It is not possible to obtain higher ethanol concentrations even by repeated distillations. Alcohol and water are miscible in any ratio, making it possible to combine any quantity of ethanol with any quantity of water to produce a homogeneous solution that could be separated by fractional distillation, but there will finally remain an azeotrope part in it containing 95% ethanol and 5% water that could not be separated by distllation.

I have been searching for a more biofriendly as well as stable substance that could be used as an ideal imprinting medium for preparing molecular imprinted drugs.

In an azeotropic mixture of two liquids, concentration of molecules will be such that each molecule of both compound will be strongly bound to each molecule of other compound, thereby restricting their freedom of movements. This mutual binding of molecules is retained even when they go to vapour phase. This is the reason why two liquids with different boiling points evaporate at a constant boiling point in azeotropic ratio. This unbreakable binding between molecules of constituent liquids in azeotropic mixture imparts peculiar physical and chemical properties to it.

Actually, it is this peculiar AZEOTROPIC properties that make water-ethanol mixture an ideal medium for homeopathic potentization and molecular imprinting. Even though pure water is a dynamic branched polymer, molecular imprints formed in it will be very transient and unstable due to the free movements of water molecules and the protonation-deprotonation process constantly taking place. But when ethanol is added to water in an azeotropic ratio, due to their mutual molecular binding, movements of molecules get restricted and protonation-deprotonation process reduced. Due to this mechanism, molecular imprints formed in an azeotropic mixture of alcohol and water remain stable and long standing. This phenomenon explains the importance of using water-ethanol mixture in a particular ratio as the medium for homeopathic potentization.

It is obvious that molecular imprints are actually formed by formation of hydrogen bonded networks of water molecules aroung drug molecules used as templates. It means, only the 5% water contained in the medium actually undergoes molecular imprining, and the remaining 90% alcohol plays only a preservative effects by stabilizing the molecular imprints formed in water. It means, potentized homeopathic drugs contain only 5% as their active principles. When we take 100 ml of potentized drug, only 5 ml of it actually carries molecular imprints. This is an important draw back of using water-ethanol mixture as potentizing medium, which also indicates the need for developing better alternatives.

Water-ethanol azeotropic mixture boils at 78.2 °C, even though boiling point of water is 100 degrees and that of ethanol is 78.4 degrees. It means potentized homeopathic drugs will evaporate in atmospheric temperature much easier than water or ethanol. It is a major problem encountered in homeopathy pharmacy.

I have been searching for long to find out an alternative imprinting medium for preparing molecular imprinted drugs and homeopathic potentization, that is more stable and more biofriendly than water-ethanol mixture.

After a lot of studies and research on this topic, an AZEOTROPIC mixture of water and propionic acid in the ratio 82.3: 17.7 is finally found to be a comparatively much better candidate as an ideal imprinting medium for preparing MOLECULAR IMPRINTED DRUGS, instead of water-ethanol azeotropic mixture conventionally used in homeopathic POTENTIZATION.

Propionic acid can hold much water than ethanol in an azeotropic mixture, it is a simple native fatty acid being a universal part of metabolic processes in living systems, it is hundred percent non toxic, and far much safer than ethanol.

PROPIONIC ACID is a simple fatty acid with chemical formula CH3CH2CO2H, belonging to the chemical group known as carboxylic acids. It is also known by different names, such as propanoic acid, ethylformic acid, methyacetic acid, carboxyethane, ethanecarboxylic acid, pseudoacetic acid, metacetonic acid etc.

Molecular mass of propionic acid is 74.079. It forms azeotropic mixture with water at a ratio 82.3 % water and 17.7% propionic acid. Boiling point of water-propionic acid azeotrope is 99.98 degree celsius, whereas boiling point of propionic acid is 141.1 degree celsius and boiling point of water is 100 degrees. As such, water-propionic acid azeotropic mixture cannot be separated by fractional distillation. Propionic acid consists of hydrogen bonded pairs of molecules in both the liquid and the vapor.

Propionic acid is a naturally occurring carboxylic acid with chemical formula CH3CH2CO2H. It is a liquid with a pungent and unpleasant smell somewhat resembling body odor.

Propionic acid has physical properties intermediate between those of the smaller carboxylic acids, formic and acetic acids, and the larger fatty acids. It is fairly miscible with water. As with acetic and formic acids, it consists of hydrogen bonded pairs of molecules in both the liquid and the vapor forms.

Propionic acid is a natural part of various biological processes and pathways. Propionic acid is produced biologically as its coenzyme A ester, propionyl-CoA, from the metabolicbreakdown of fatty acids containing odd numbers of carbonatoms, and also from the breakdown of some amino acids. The metabolism of propionic acid begins with its conversion to propionyl coenzyme A, the usual first step in the metabolism of carboxylic acids. Since propionic acid has three carbons, propionyl-CoA cannot directly enter either beta oxidationor the citric acid cycles. In most vertebrates, propionyl-CoA is carboxylated to D-methylmalonyl-CoA, which is isomerisedto L-methylmalonyl-CoA. A vitamin B12-dependent enzyme catalyzes rearrangement of L-methylmalonyl-CoA to succinyl-CoA, which is an intermediate of the citric acid cycle and can be readily incorporated there.
Propionic acid serves as a substrate for hepaticgluconeogenesis via conversion to succinyl-CoA.

Some propionic acid is used widely as a preservative for both animal feed and food for human consumption. Another major application is as a preservative in baked goods. As a food additive, it is approved for use in the EU, USA, Australia and New Zealand.

Designated as generally regarded as safe by the US Food and Drug Administration, propionic acid has shown little toxicity in humans and other organisms.

In the human body, however, propionic acid is generally metabolized with little ill effect and ultimately becomes a chemical intermediate in the citric acid cycle.

Some propionic acid is oxidized to lactic acid during absorption, but most passes to the liver, which removes nearly all of it from the portal blood. Propionic acid represents 20-25% of absorbed volatile fatty acids. Propionic acid is rapidly absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract.

Most absorbed propionic acid is passed to the liver, which removes nearly all of it from the portal blood.

As a compound that is typically found naturally in the body, little to no adverse cumulative health effects have been associated with exposure to propionic acid.

Designated as generally regarded as safe by the US Food and Drug Administration, propionic acid has shown little toxicity in humans and other organisms.

There are no known birth defects associated with the use of propionic acid in animals or humans.

ABOVE ALL, SINCE THE RATIO OF WATER IS VERY HIGH, A GIVEN DOSE OF POTENTIZED DRUG PREPARED USING PROPIONIC ACID-WATER AZEOTROPE WILL PROVIDE SIXTEEN TIMES MORE MOLECULAR IMPRINTS THAN WHAT WE GET FROM SAME MEASURE OF DRUG PREPARED USING WATER-ETHANOL MIXTURE. IT MEANS SIXTEEN TIMES MORE EFFECTIVENESS!

I would request the authorities at CCRH to conduct studies regarding my proposal to use 18% azeotropic solution of propionic acid in water as a better alternative to alcohol water mixture as homeopathic imprinting medium. Since water-propionic acid azeotropic mixture contain 82% water, the resulting homeopathic products will contain very high percentage of active principles or molecular imprints, which is a big advantage over water-ethanol mixture which contain only 5% molecular imprints.

Chandran Nambiar KC
Sci-Homeopathy

DISEASE-SPECIFIC COMBINATIONS OF POST-AVOGADRO DILUTIONS WILL REVOLUTIONIZE HOMEOPATHY PRACTICE!

Homeopathy practice will become more simple, effective and predictable, and homeopaths will become capable of producing better cure rates and gaining more popular acceptance, once the use of disease-specific combinations of post avogadro diluted drugs becomes the norm of applied homeopathy, and taught to students as such. It should be understood and accepted by the homeopathic community as a most scientific and rational method of practice, rather than an unprincipled shortcut of convenience or unwelcome aberration arising from lack of theoretical knowledge as it is presently considered.


Theoretical basis of combining potentized drugs evolves from the understanding that potentization involves a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, and individual constituent molecules of drugs are ‘imprinted’ in their individual capacities during this process.

According to this understanding, even a drug we consider ‘single’ is in fact a mixture of different types of ‘molecular imprints’ of diverse constituent drug molecules, and they exist without interacting with each other. As per this view, even if we mix two or more potentized drugs together, the constituent ‘molecular imprints’ will not interact each other, and will act up on the appropriate molecular targets in their individual capacities.

For the last few years I was experimenting on this idea , and I have found it totally harmless and very effective to combine potentized drugs above 30c, selected on the basis of constitutional as well as particular ‘symptom complexes’.

Hahnemann was talking about SINGLE drug on the basis of scientific knowledge available to him during his period 250 years ago. He had no idea about the molecular level structure of drug substances, or their molecular level interactions with biological molecules. He had no idea about the molecular level pathology and molecular inhibitions undelying diseases. He considered drugs as ‘single’ substance, and diseases as ‘singular’ entities. For him, NUX was a ‘single’ substance, whereas we now know NUX tincture is a mixture of hundreds of types of alkaloids, gycosides and other phytochemicals, which act upon our body on the basis of their molecular structure and chemical properties.

All those noises made by CLASSICAL homeopaths over SINGLE DRUG/ MULTIPLE DRUGS issue actually come from their lack scientific understanding of homeopathy. When a drug substance containing different types of chemical molecules is subjected to potentization, each chemical molecule undergoes molecular imprinting as individual units. As such, any potentized drug will be a combination of diverse types of molecular imprints representing diverse types of constituent chemical molecules, which can act upon the pathogenic molecules as individual units, in capacity of their individual conformational properties.

When we combine two or more potentized drugs together, all the diverse types of individual molecular imprints contained in those different drugs will exist in that combination as individual units, and act up on pathogenic molecules by their individual conformational properties. Obviously, a combination of of different potentized drugs will be no way different from a potentized single drug that contains diverse types of chemical molecules.

Molecular imprints act upon pathogenic molecules as individual units, whether they come from single drug substance or multiple drug substances. All controversies over single drug/ multiple drugs issue become totally irrelevant once you realise this scientific truth. But you can understand this truth only if you have a scientific temper, and you are capable of thinking beyond the lessons you learned from organon and your unscientific teachers!


Once you understand MIT explanations of scientific homeopathy, and start perceiving potentized drugs in terms of diverse types of ‘molecular imprints’ as the ‘active principles’ they contain, you will realize that all controversies over ‘single/multiple’ drug issue become totally irrelevant.

According to MIT view, ‘similimum’ essentially means a drug substance that can provide the specific molecular imprints required to remove the particular molecular errors that caused the particular disease condition in the particular patient. Whatever be the ‘method’ by which the drug is selected, similimum is a similimum if it serves the purpose of curing the patient when administered in potentized form. Since ‘multiple’ molecular errors exist in any patient in a particular point of time, expressed through ‘multiple’ groups of symptoms, he will inevitably need ‘multiple’ molecular imprints to remove them. If potentized form of a ‘single’ medicinal substance can provide all those ‘multiple’ molecular imprints, that ‘single’ drug substance will be enough. If we could not find a ‘single’ drug substance that contain ‘all’ the ‘multiple’ molecular imprints required by the patient as indicated by the ‘symptom groups’, we will have to include ‘multiple’ drug substances in our prescription. It is the constituent molecular imprints contained in our particular prescription that matter.

Important point is, we have to ensure that our prescription supplies all the diverse types of molecular imprints required for deactivating all the diverse types of pathogenic molecules existing in the patient, as indicated by the diverse groups of subjective and objective symptoms expressed by him. If we could find a single drug preparation that could supply all the molecular imprints required by the patient we are dealing with, we can use that single drug preparation only. If we do not find such a single drug, we have to include as many number of drug preparations as required, in order to provide all the molecular imprints needed to remove all the molecular errors in the patient.

‘Single/multiple’ drug controversy never bothers one who understands this scientific approach proposed by MIT, as we start thinking in terms of molecular imprints- not in terms of drug names. Actually, a drug could be called ‘single’, if it contains ‘single’ type of molecular imprints only. IF a drug contains more than one type of molecular imprints, it is a compound drug, even if it is known by a ‘single’ drug name, prepared from a ‘single’ source material, kept in a ‘single’ bottle, consumed as a ‘single’ unit for ‘drug proving’, or considered by ‘masters’ as ‘single’ drug.

When we consume a complex drug substance in crude form, it is absorbed into the blood as various individual chemical molecules contained in it. It is these individual chemical molecules that interact with various biological molecules. Different molecules act up on different biological targets according to the molecular affinities of their functional groups. Biological molecules are inhibited, resulting in errors in the biochemical pathways mediated by those biological molecules. Such molecular level errors in biological processes cascades into a series of molecular errors, which are expressed through various groups of subjective and objective symptoms.

It is obvious that what we consider as the symptoms of that drug substance are actually the sum total of different symptom groups, representing entirely different molecular errors produced in entirely different biological molecules, by the actions of entirely different chemical molecules contained in the crude drug.

We have to remember, there is no such a thing called nux vomica molecule or pulsatilla molecule- only individual chemical molecules contained in nux vomica or pulsatilla tinctures. Each constituent molecule has its own specific chemical structure and properties. They act on different biological targets by their chemical properties. Each individual chemical molecule contained in a complex crude drug substance acts as an individual drug. That means, nux vomica or pulsatilla are not single drugs as we are taught, but compound drugs.


Classical homeopaths may find it difficult to accept this fact, as it contradicts with their beliefs as well as the lessons they are taught. But it is the scientific fact. From scientific point of view of pharmaceutical chemistry, a drug is a biologically active unit contained in a substance used as therapeutic agent. It is the structure and properties of that chemical molecule that decides its medicinal properties and therapeutic actions. if such as substance contains only one type of biologically active unit, it is a single drug. If it contains different types of biologically active units, it is a compound drug. It is obvious that most of the drugs we use in homeopathy – especially drugs of biological origin and complex minerals- contain diverse types of biologically active units, and hence they cannot be considered single drugs.


Molecular imprinting happens as individual molecules, and as such, potentized drugs prepared from a single drug substance will contain diverse types of molecular imprints representing the diverse types of individual constituent molecules contained in the substance. Those molecular imprints also act as individual units when applied in the organism. Hence, potentized drugs prepared by using a complex, seemingly single drug substance is actually a compound drug, containing diverse types of biologically active units, or ‘molecular imprints’.


Once homeopathic community could realize and accept the great truth that disease-specific COMBINATIONS of homeopathic drugs in 30c potencies are many many times more effective and safer than so-called SINGLE drugs, homeopathy will be on the top of all medical systems in this world! There will not be any disease that could not be practically cured by using rationally formulated appropriate combinations.

All homeopaths should be taught the art and science of preparing and using their own formulations. Whether for prophylactic or curative purpose, you cannot expect a so-called SINGLE homeopathic post-avogadro diluted drug to work as a specific for a DISEASE in a community as a whole. To be successful, you need to use a well-formulated disease-specific combination of MULTIPLE drugs in post-avogadro dilutions for that purpose. It is based on this rational idea that I have formulated more than 300 disease-specific post-avogadro MIT FORMULATIONS which are used by homeopaths around the world successfully.

NEED TO INTERPRET THE SPECTROSCOPIC STUDIES OF HOMEOPATHIC DRUGS PROPERLY

It is a great “scientific blunder” happening to energy medicine homeopaths to think that if some “electromagnetic radiations” or “photons” are observed to come out a medicinal substance when it is irradiated and excited, those discharged “photons” are the active principles of those medicinal substances. Then they start constructing all sorts of nonsense psuedoscientific theories about curative process using these “photons”, such as “resonance”, “dynamic energy”, “quantum entanglement”, “biofield vibrations”, “vital force”, etc etc!

They should know, it is natural for any substance to discharge photons when its molecules or atoms are excited by applying external energy and then allowed to return to base level. This happens when the absorbed extra energy is discharged when returning to rest level. By analyzing the patterns of photon emissions, scientists study the structure and arrangement of molecules and atoms in a substance. Various techniques of spectroscopic studies have been developed by scientists for this purpose.

When drugs potentized below 12c or avogadro limit are excited using electromagnetic irradiation and then allowed to return back to rest, the extra photons absorbed by the elemental particles will be naturally emitted. We can study the molecular structure and arrangement of these substances by analyzing the spectra of emitted photons. It is totally absurd to theorize that the medicinal properties of drug substances could be reproduced by these photons, whereas medicinal properties of drug molecues come from the structure and properties of chemical molecules contained in them.

For example, color of a substance is actually the pattern of photons emitting or reflected from the substance once its molecules are excited by electromagnetic irradiations such as sunlight. These colors or emitted photons cannot be utilized to reproduce the chemical or biological properties of the molecules contained in the substance.

Drugs potentized above avogadro limit or 12c will not contain any molecule of original drug substance, but only water and ethanol, along with some natural contaminant particles. When these high dilution drugs are studied using spectroscopic techniques, the patterns of resultant spectra will obviously represent the structure and arrangement of alcohol and water molecules contained in them. We can also utilize these spectra to study the changes happening in their supramolecular arrangements happening during process of potentization. It means, by conducting spectroscopic studies of potentized drugs, and then comparing their spectra with those of unpotentized water-alcohol solutions, we can understand the processes the supramolecular rearrangements happening during potentization. This supramolecular rearrangement actually indicates MOLECULAR IMPRINTING.

YOU CANNOT SCIENTIFICALLY EXPLAIN POTENTIZED DRUGS WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING AVOGADRO NUMBER

A prominent section of homeopaths consider Avogadro as the greatest enemy of homeopathy. They seem to think that it is their duty to ‘prove’ Avogadro number ‘wrong’, in order to prove that ‘homeopathy is not placebo’! They seem to fear that whole homeopathy would collapse if Avogadro is allowed to exist!

Their question is, have you got ‘scientific evidence’ of avogadro’s constant?

The Avogadro constant is named after the early nineteenth-century Italian scientist Amedeo Avogadro, who, in 1811, first proposed that the volume of a gas (at a given pressure and temperature) is proportional to the number of atoms or molecules regardless of the nature of the gas.

Jean Perrin got nobel prize in physics in 1926 for his exhaustive work on avogadro constant. It was this French Physicist who in 1909 proposed naming the constant in honor of Avogadro. Perrin won the Nobel Prize for his monumental works in determining the Avogadro constant by several different methods.

In chemistry and physics, the Avogadro constant is defined as the ratio of the number of constituent particles (usually atoms or molecules) in a sample to the amount of substance n (unit mole) .Thus, it is the proportionality factor that relates the molar mass of an entity, i.e., the mass per amount of substance, to the mass of said entity. The Avogadro constant expresses the number of elementary entities per mole of substance and it has the value 6.02214129(27)×10^23 mol. Changes in the SI units are proposed that will change Avogadro’s constant to to exactly 6.02214X×10^23 when it is expressed in the unit mol. Whole scientific world utilizes this Avogadro constant in all calculations in physics and chemistry, and it is found correct.

But our ‘classical homeopaths’ will not believe in avogadro constant without ‘scientific evidence’! They think the swedish academy was mistaken by wrongly awarding nobel prize to Jean Perrin without enough ‘scientific evidence’ for his works on avogadro constant! I can only pity for these people calling themselves ‘classical homeopaths’, for their ignorance or closed mindedness, whatever it may be.

Most funny thing is, these people are never bothered about the ‘scientific evidences’ for those aphorisms in organon! They never ask for ‘scientific evidence’ for ‘miasms’ or ‘vital force’ or ‘similia similibus curentur’. They never ask for ‘scientific evidence’ for all those nonsense theories preached as part of homeopathy. They never ask for ‘scientific evidence’ for all those occult practices done by so-called homeopaths in the name of CAM!

But they want ‘scientific evidence’ for Avogadro’s Theory! They want ‘scientific evidence’ only when somebody talks about some scientific ideas. They instantly will jump in to prove ‘science is unscientific’, and that ‘homeopathy is ultimate science’! They want ‘scientific evidence’ only to establish the ‘unscientificness of science’!

According to these ‘classical homeopaths’, If something is said in ‘organon’, or uttered by the ‘master’ or ‘stalwarts’, it should be accepted by all homeopaths as ‘ultimate science’- no ‘evidence’ needed! These are the people who represent homeopathy before the world. Most of the influential sections of homeopathy try to propagate homeopathy that way. That is the reason why the scientific community perceive homeopathy as quackery and placebo.

There is another section of homeopaths who claim to be “scientific”, same time trying to disprove avogadro number. They talk about “nanoparticles” of drug substances as active principles of potentized homeopathic drugs. They argue that even minutest fractions or “doses” of potentized drugs diluted thousands of times above avogadro limit will be saturated with nanoparticles of original substances, enough to produce biological effects. Their argument is that avogadro number is not applicable to homeopathic drugs.

These “nanoparticle homeopaths” misuse the statement of IIT mumbai scientists that they could detect some “random particles of original substance floating in the 1% top layer of high dilution drug”. Please note, it was detected only in 1% top layer! Since nanoparticles are conglomerations of stoms or molecules, they are bound to explain wherefrom this unlimited number of nanoparticles are generated in not only “top layer”, but each and every drops of ultra high dilutions used as doses by homeopaths, where as avogadro number is crossed by 12c of dilution. They conveniently ignore this question!

It is a sheer waste of time to discuss science with this class of people. Nobody can convince them anything. But the sad thing is, we cannot ignore these intellectual morons, since they represent homeopathy before the general community and making it a subject of unending mockery.

High dilution biological effects utilized by homeopathy should be explained not by trying to disprove avogadro number, but by proving how the biological properties of drug molecules could be preserved in a medium even without a single drug molecule remaining in it. To understand this phenomenon, we have to study what is “Molecular Imprinting”, a modern technique developed by polymer technology for preserving and applying “conformational properties” of chemical molecules even in the absence of those molecules. To understand the relevance of molecular imprinting in homeopathy, we should also study some supramolecular chemistry as well as modern biochemistry, so that we could understand the decisive role of “conformational properties” of chemical molecules in biomolecular interactions.

RESEARCHES THAT PROVIDE STRONG EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF MIT CONCEPTS, EVEN THOUGH THE RESEARCHERS THEMSELVES FAILED TO DECIPHER THE TRUE IMPLICATIONS OF THEIR WORKS

As per MIT, active principles of potentized drugs are MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of drug molecules formed in supramolecular matrix of water and ethyl alcohol. As per this concept, molecular imprints are hydrogen bonded networks of water and ethanol molecules, into which the conforformational properties of drug molecules are imprinted as three dimensional negatives. These molecular imprints work as therapeutic agents by acting by conformational properties as artificial binding pockets for original drug molecules as well as pathogenic molecules having conformations similar to those of original drug molecules. If this idea of MOLECULAR IMPRINTS is correct, potentized drugs should be experimentally proved to be capable of antidoting the biological effects of original drug molecules.

Can potentized drugs antidote or reverse the biological effects of crude forms of same drugs?

This question is of paramount importance when trying to prove the concepts of ‘molecular imprints’ proposed by MIT as part of scientific explanation for the molecular mechanism of homeopathic potentization and therapeutics.

Most homeopaths maintain that medicinal properties of crude drugs are transferred to the medium during potentization. They may call it ‘vibrations’, ‘electromagnetic signals’, ‘medicinal memory’, ‘dynamic power’ or anything like that. But all those theories are based on the concept that potentized medicines can ‘mimic’ the properties of parent drugs.

If potentized medicines were really ‘mimicking’ the medicinal properties of parent drugs, they should be able to produce similar biological effects. But we have before us a monumental work which proves through in vitro experiments that potentized medicines do not act the same way as parent drugs, but as their antidotes on biological molecules.

According to the hypothesis put forward by MIT, potentized medicines contains ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent molecules of parent drugs. As such, these molecular imprints can act as artificial recognition sites for parent molecules, and bind to them, thereby preventing them from interacting with biological targets.

If this concept of ‘molecular imprint’ is correct, potentized medicines should be capable of antidoting or reversing of biological effects of their parent molecules. If we prove this point, it would be a big step in favor of ‘molecular imprinting’ concept put forward by MIT.

Here I am reproducing a report regarding such a successful experiment published in 2001. This historic experiment was conducted by a team consisting of Swapna S Datta, Palash P Mallick and Anisur AR Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh of Cytogenetics Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Kalyani, Kalyani-741 235, West Bengal, India and published online on 23 November 2001. Report may be read at this link: http://www.springerlink.com/content/b2t71744t426j5n4/

They proved through strictly controlled experiments that potentized homeopathic drug, Cadmium Sulphoricum, could reduce the genotoxic effects produced by cadmium chloride in mice. They used potentized Cadmium Sulph because they could not get homeopathic potencies of Cadmium Chloride. Since Cadium Sulph and Cadmium Chlor contains Cadmium, and Cadmium is the real genotoxic factor, such an experimental protocol is acceptable.

Through these experiments, the team could prove that both Cad Sulph-30 and 200 were able to combat cadmium induced genotoxic effects in mice. From the results of the reported investigation it is revealed that both Cad Sulph-30 and Cad Sulph-200 showed remarkable potential to reduce genotoxic effects produced by CdCl2. In the study the homeopathic forms of cadmium could protect the structural integrity of chromosomes and sperm antidoting the destructive ability of CdCl2 in causing DNA damage by preventing cadmium molecules from binding to the enzymes involved. Even in the absence of a single original drug molecule both Cad Sulph-30 and 200 elicited spectacular ability of protection/repair to damaged chromosomes and sperm, a fact which would lead one to speculate that the the potentized of drugs must have acted as antidotes to the biological effects of cadmium molecules. This observation validates the idea of MIT.

We have also another relevant study conducted by a team consisting of Philippe Belon, Pathikrit Banerjee, Sandipan Chaki Choudhury, Antara Banerjee,Surjyo Jyoti Biswas, Susanta Roy Karmakar, Surajit Pathak, Bibhas Guha, Sagar Chatterjee, Nandini Bhattacharjee, Jayanta Kumar Das, and Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh of Boiron Lab, 20 rue de la Libėration, Sainte-Foy-Lės-Lyon, France, and Department of Zoology, University of Kalyani, Kalyani-741235, West Bengal, India , published on December 26, 2005. Complete report is available at this link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1375236/

This team undertook a study to find out whether administration of potentized homeopathic remedy,Arsenicum Album, alter Antinuclear Antibody (ANA) Titer in people living in high-risk arsenic ontaminated areas.

To examine whether elevated antinuclear antibody (ANA) titers reported in random human population of arsenic contaminated villages can be reverted to the normal range by administration of a potentized homeopathic drug, Arsenicum album, randomly selected volunteers in two arsenic contaminated villages and one arsenic-free village in West Bengal (India) were periodically tested for their ANA titer as well as various blood parameters in two types of experiments: ‘placebo-controlled double blind’ experiment for shorter duration and ‘uncontrolled verum fed experiment’ for longer duration. Positive modulation of ANA titer was observed along with changes in certain relevant hematological parameters, namely total count of red blood cells and white blood cells, packed cell volume, hemoglobin content, erythrocyte sedimentation rate and blood sugar level, mostly within 2 months of drug administration.

Thus, potentized Arsenicum album was proved to have great potential for ameliorating arsenic induced elevated ANA titer and other hematological toxicities.

Both these controlled scientific studies have proved beyond doubt that potentized homeopathic medicines can antidote or reverse the biological effects of parent drugs.

In the absence of original drug molecules, how could the homeopathic potencies exhibit such an action? The theory that potentized medicines ‘mimic’ the parent drugs is obviously disproved through these experiments. Only logical explanation we can provide for this phenomenon is the ‘molecular imprints’ of parent drug molecules being the active principles of potentized medicines. ‘Molecular imprints’ can specifically bind to the parent molecules, and thereby antidote or reverse the biological properties of parent molecules.

EVEN THOUGH INDIRECTLY, THESE STUDIES HAVE SUPPLIED ENOUGH DATA WHICH STRONGLY SUPPORT IN PROVING THE “MOLECULAR IMPRINTING” HYPOTHESIS PROPOSED BY MIT REGARDING MOLECULAR MECHANISM OF POTENTIZATION AND HOMEOPATHIC THERAPEUTICS.