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.

SCIENCE BEHIND HOMEOPATHY

HOMEOPATHY will become a real medical science only when we are capable of scientifically explaining and proving the biological mechanism involved in SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR, as well as the exact molecular level process happening during POTENTIZATION, by which the medicinal properties of drug substances are transmitted to a medium without any drug molecule remaining in it.

So far as we do not know what actually happens during potentization, what are the active principles of highly diluted homeopathic drugs we use, and what is the exact biological mechanism by which they work, everything we talk about mode of application, dosage, repetitions, durations of actions, side effects, single-multiple drugs, medicinal aggravations, suppressions, high potency proving, drug relationships, antidoting and so on are mere speculations without any scientific validity. Only thing we are really sure about is that it works!

A knowledge could be considered SCIENTIFIC if it is in the form of explanations and predictions about any phenomenon of the universe that is testable using SCIENTIFIC METHOD. 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.

For homeopathy to survive in this new era of scientific awareness and advancement, it is inevitable that modern biochemistry should be made the foundation of homeopathy education. But our respected decision makers cannot understand its importance, as they are still immersed themselves in the two centuries old superstitious beliefs of “immaterial vital force” and “dynamic medicinal energy”!

SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR

If symptoms expressed in a particular disease condition as well as symptoms produced in a healthy individual by a particular drug substance were similar, it means the disease-causing molecules and the drug molecules could bind to same biological targets and produce similar molecular errors, which in turn means both of them have similar functional groups or molecular conformations. This phenomenon of competitive relationship between similar chemical molecules in binding to similar biological targets scientifically explains the fundamental homeopathic principle SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR.

DISEASE AND CURE

Normal biomolecular interactions essential for vital processes happen through selective binding between biological target molecules and their natural ligands. A state of disease emerges when some endogenous or exogenous molecules having conformational similarity to natural ligands prevent this binding between biological targets and their legitimate ligands by competing with natural ligands by a sort of molecular mimicry and binding themselves to the target molecules. Molecular imprints of ligands, or of any drug molecule having conformations similar to them, can bind to the exogenous or endogenous pathogenic molecules, deactivate them, and facilitate the normal interactions between biological ligands and their natural targets. THIS IS THE BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM OF HOMEOPATHIC CURE.

MOLECULAR IMPRINTING INVOLVED IN HOMEOPATHIC POTENTIZATION

Only way the medicinal properties of a drug substance could be transmitted to a medium during homeopathic POTENTIZATION without any single drug molecule remaining in it is by preserving its conformational details by a process of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING, since conformational properties of molecules play a decisive role in biomolecular interactions.

During trituration, substances are converted into fine nano particles, their intermolecular bonds get broken and made free, molecules become more reactive and soluble, so that even insoluble substances can form colloidal solutions in water.

When added to water-ethanol mixture, these drug molecules get surrounded by water-ethanol molecules, leading to the formation of hydrogen bonded host-guest complexes, in which drug molecules act as guests and water-ethanol hydration shells as hosts.

During the process of succussion, due to the high mechanical energy involved, the solution is subjected to a process of cavitation and nanobubble formation, whereby the drug molecules are detatched from host-guest complexes, adsorbed to the fine membranes of nanobubbles, and raised to the top layers of the solution, leaving the empty hydration shells free, which are actually supra-molecular nanocavities formed in water-ethanol matrix into which the conformational details of drug molecules are imprinted. We call these empty supramolecular cavities formed of water and ethanol molecules as MOLECULAR IMPRINTS.

Even though hydrogen bonds in water are normally known to be very weak and transient, due to the strong and unbreakable hydrogen bonding between water and ethanol molecules characteristic of their peculiar AZEOTROPIC mixtures used in homeopathic potentization, molecular imprints formed in homeopathic potentized drugs remain highly stable and active for very long periods.

“SIMILIMUM” IS NOT THAT MUCH “UNSCIENTIFIC” AS OUR LEARNED SKEPTICS WRONGLY THINK!

When a homeopath searches for a SIMILIMUM for a patient by matching his totality of symptoms with the DRUG symptoms given in the materia medica, he is actually trying to identify a drug substance that contains some chemical molecules that have conformations similar to those of the particular chemical molecules that are involved in the disease process, so that the drug molecules and disease-causing molecules will have a COMPETITIVE relationship in binding to SIMILAR biological targets.

Since MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of drug molecules contained in potentized forms of drug substance can act as ARTIFICIAL LIGAND BINDS (MIALBS) for the disease-causing molecules having competitive relationship due to the CONFORMATIONAL affinity in between them, and can remove the pathological molecular inhibitions, post-avogadro dilutions of SIMILIMUM drug could be used as a therapeutic agent as per the principle SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR.

If you are not yet convinced regarding what I said about SIMILIMUM above, kindly find some time to read your old biochemistry texts, and try to understand the molecular mechanism involved in the phenomenon known as COMPETITIVE RELATIONSHIP of similar chemical molecules in binding to biological targets, also known as MOLECULAR MIMICRY!

“SINGLE DRUG” Fanaticism of Homeopaths is A Symptom of Severe Deficiency of Scientific Knowledge

THE MORE A HOMEOPATH TALKS ABOUT “SINGLE DRUGS”, THE MORE HE DEMONSTRATES HIS UTTER LACK OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE!

From scientific point of view of pharmaceutical chemistry, a DRUG is a biologically active chemical 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 a medicinal 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.

During DRUG PROVING, it is not the whole substance as a SINGLE unit that works upon the biological molecules in our body and produce symptoms. After entering the body, individual chemical molecules contained in the medicinal substance travels through our blood circulation to
different parts, bind to different biological targets according to their molecular affinity, and produce molecular ihibitions in assiciated biochemical pathways, which are expressed through diverse trains of subjective objective symptoms. Each separate groups of symptoms represent the molecular inhibitions produced by individual constituent molecules of the drug substance.

During the process of potentization, it is the individual constituent molecules that undergo
MOLECULAR IMPRINTIMG. As such, potentized drugs prepared from a SINGLE medicinal
substance will contain diverse types of molecular imprints representing the diverse types of individual constituent molecules contained in that substance. It means, most of the potentized drugs we use in homeopathy are not SINGLE drugs as homeopaths falsely believe, COMPOUND drugs that contain diverse types of MOLECULAR IMPRINTS which act as separate individual active units.

IF you still cannot realize the meaninglessness and utter folly involved in talking about SINGLE DRUGS, it is the blindness caused by your dogmatic learning and lack of scientific awareness.

Actually, the concept of SINGLE DRUGS in homeopathy evolved from
the primitive state of scietific knowlede available to our masters during the historical period they lived and developed the theoretical system of homeopathy.

BIOCHEMISTRY INVOLVED IN THE HOMEOPATHIC PRINCIPLE “SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR”

SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR is considered to be the most fundamental theory of homeopathy. It is the basic theoretical foundation upon which the whole superstructure of this therapeutic system is built up. Even though homeopaths consider it as a “natural law” of therapeutics, critics of homeopathy never accept such a law or pattern really rexists in nature. They use to portray it as a “natural fallacy” of Hahnemann!

When attempting to establish homeopathy as a scientific medical system, it is essential that we should be capable of providing a scientifically plausible explanation for the biological mechanism of cure involved in SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR, and prove it according scientific method.

Samuel hahnemann, great founder of Homeopathy, says that a substance can cure a disease, if the symptoms produced by that substance in healthy individuals are SIMILAR to the symptoms expressed by the person in disease condition.

Looking from a scientific perspective, similarity of symptoms indicate similarity of affected biomolecular pathways, similarity of Molecular inhibitions, similarity of target molecules, similarity of involved drug molecules and pathogenic molecules, and ultimately, similarity of their functional groups.

In order to be capable of explaining similia Similibus Curentur’ scientifically, first of all, we have to study carefully the phenomenon known as COMPETITIVE INHIBITIONS in modern biochemistry.

AS all of us know, competitive inhibition is the interruption of a biochemical pathway owing to one chemical substance inhibiting the effect of another by competing with it for binding or bonding with same targets, due to the SIMILARITY of their FUNCTIONAL GROUPS.

Several classes of competitive inhibition are especially important in biochemistry and medicine, such as the competitive form of enzyme inhibition, the competitive form of receptor antagonism, the competitive form of antimetabolite activity, the competitive form of poisoning etc.

In competitive inhibition of enzyme catalysis, binding of an inhibitor prevents binding of the natural target molecule of the enzyme, also known as the substrate. This is accomplished by blocking the binding site of the enzyme, also known as the active site, where the natural ligands or substrates are expected to bind with.

Competitive inhibition can be overcome by adding more substrate or natural ligands to the reaction, which increases the chances of the enzyme and substrate binding. This is is known as reversibility of competitive inhibitions.

Most competitive inhibitors function by binding reversibly to the active site of the enzyme. As a result, many sources state that this is the defining feature of competitive inhibitors.

In competitive inhibition, an inhibitor having FUNCTIONAL GROUP similar to the normal substrate or ligand binds to the enzyme, usually at the active site, and prevents the substrate from binding. At any given moment, the enzyme may be bound to the inhibitor, the substrate, or neither, but it cannot bind both at the same time.

During competitive inhibition, the inhibitor and substrate compete for the same active site. The active site is a region on an enzyme which a particular protein or substrate can bind to. The active site will only allow one of the two complexes to bind to the site therefore either allowing for a reaction to occur or yielding it. In a state of competitive inhibition, the inhibitor molecules resemble the substrate and therefore take its place, thereby binding to the active site of an enzyme.

Increasing the substrate concentration would diminish the “competition” and help the natural substrate to properly bind to the active site and allow a reaction to occur. When the substrate is of higher concentration than that of the competitive inhibitor, it is more likely that the substrate will come into contact with the enzyme’s active site than the inhibitor.

Methotrexate is a chemotherapy drug that acts as a competitive inhibitor. It is structurally SIMILAR to the coenzyme called FOLATE, which binds to the enzyme dihydrofolate reductase. This enzyme is part of the synthesis of DNA and RNA, and when methotrexate binds the enzyme, it renders it inactive, so that it cannot synthesize DNA and RNA. Thus, the cancer cells are unable to grow and divide.

Another example of competitive inhibition involves prostaglandins which are made in large amounts as a response to pain, and can cause inflammatory process. Essential fatty acids form the prostaglandins, and when this was discovered, it turned out that these essential fatty acids are actually very good inhibitors to prostaglandins. These fatty acids inhibitors have been used as drugs to relieve pain because they can MIMIC as the substrate, and bind to the enzyme, and block prostaglandins due to their SIMILAR functional groups.

An example of non-drug related competitive inhibition is in the prevention of browning of fruits and vegetables. For example, tyrosinase, an enzyme within mushrooms, normally binds to the substrate, monophenols, and forms brown o-quinones. Competitive substrates, such as certain substituted benzaldehydes for mushrooms, compete with the substrate lowering the amount of the monophenols that bind. These inhibitory compounds added to the produce keep it fresh for longer periods of time by decreasing the binding of the monophenols that cause browning. This allows for an increase in produce quality as well as shelf life of mushrooms.

Competitive form of enzyme inhibition, the competitive form of receptor antagonism, the competitive form of antimetabolite activity, and the competitive form of poisoning

Ethanol (C2H5OH) serves as a competitive inhibitor to methanol and ethylene glycol for the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase in the liver when present in large amounts. For this reason, ethanol is sometimes used as a means to treat or prevent toxicity following accidental ingestion of these chemicals.

Strychnine acts as an allosteric inhibitor of the glycine receptor in the mammalian spinal cord and brain stem. Glycine is a major post-synaptic inhibitory neurotransmitter with a specific receptor site. Strychnine binds to an alternate site that reduces the affinity of the glycine receptor for glycine, resulting in convulsions due to lessened inhibition by the glycine

After an accidental ingestion of a contaminated opioid drug desmethylprodine, the neurotoxic effect of 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP) was discovered. MPTP is able to cross the blood brain barrier and enter acidic lysosomes. MPTP is biologically activated by MAO-B, an isozyme of monoamine oxidase (MAO) which is mainly concentrated in neurological disorders and diseases. Later, it was discovered that MPTP causes symptoms similar to that of Parkinson’s disease. Cells in the central nervous system (astrocytes) include MAO-B that oxidizes MPTP to 1-methyl-4-phenylpyridinium (MPP+), which is toxic. MPP+ eventually travels to the extracellular fluid by a dopamine transporter, which ultimately causes the Parkinson’s symptoms. However, competitive inhibition of the MAO-B enzyme or the dopamine transporter protects against the oxidation of MPTP to MPP+. A few compounds have been tested for their ability to inhibit oxidation of MPTP to MPP+ including methylene blue, 5-nitroindazole, norharman, 9-methylnorharman, and menadione. These demonstrated a reduction of neurotoxicity produced by MPTP.

sulfanilamide competitively binds to the enzyme in the dihydropteroate synthase (DHPS) active site by mimicking the substrate para-aminobenzoic acid (PABA). This prevents the substrate itself from binding which halts the production of folic acid, an essential nutrient. Bacteria must synthesize folic acid because they do not have a transporter for it. Without folic acid, bacteria cannot grow and divide. Therefore, because of sulfa drugs’ competitive inhibition, they are excellent antibacterial agents.

An example of competitive inhibition was demonstrated experimentally for the enzyme succinic dehydrogenase, which catalyzes the oxidation of succinate to fumarate in the Krebs cycle. Malonate is a competitive inhibitor of succinic dehydrogenase. The binding of succinic dehydrogenase to the substrate, succinate, is competitively inhibited. This happens because malonate’s chemistry is similar to succinate. Malonate’s ability to inhibit binding of the enzyme and substrate is based on the ratio of malonate to succinate. Malonate binds to the active site of succinic dehydrogenase so that succinate cannot. Thus, it inhibits the reaction.

Competitive inhibition can be reversible or irreversible. If it is reversible inhibition, then effects of the inhibitor can be overcome by increasing substrate concentration. If it is irreversible inhibition, the only way to overcome it is to produce more of the target, and typically degrade, or excrete the irreversibly inhibited target.

In virtually every case, competitive inhibitors bind in the same binding site or active site as the substrate, but same-site binding is not an essential requirement for competitive inhibitions to happen. A competitive inhibitor could bind to an allosteric site of the free enzyme and prevent substrate binding, as long as it does not bind to the allosteric site when the substrate is bound. For example, strychnine acts as an allosteric inhibitor of the glycine receptor in the mammalian spinal cord and brain stem. Glycine is a major post-synaptic inhibitory neurotransmitter with a specific receptor site. Strychnine binds to an alternate site that reduces the affinity of the glycine receptor for glycine, resulting in convulsions due to lessened inhibition by the glycine.

Actually, it is this phenomenon of COMPETITIVE INHIBITIONS that works behind SIMILIMUM concept of homeopathy.

It actually means, a molecular inhibition produced by a particular pathogenic molecule could be removed by utilizing a drug molecule having competitive relationship with it due to the SIMILARITY of FUNCTIONAL GROUPS.

If the FUNCTIONAL GROUPS of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules are SIMILAR, they can bind to similar molecular targets and produce SIMILAR symptoms. That is why homeopathy tries to identify SIMILARITY between pathogenic molecules and drug molecules by observing the SIMILARITY of SYMPTOMS they produce.

Through the principle of SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR, hahnemann was actually trying to explain and utilize this phenomenon of COMPETITIVE INHIBITIONS for the purpose of developing his new therapeutic method.

When we try to remove pathological molecular inhibitions by using competitive inhibitors as done in ALLOPATHY, there is always a chance for developing new DRUG induced DISEASES due to their off target actions. This phenomenon underlies the dangerous side effects of most of the chemotherapeutic drugs. It means, when we use ‘molecular forms’ of SIMILIMUM or “competitive inhibitors” for treating a disease, it may lead to establishing new diseases that may be more harmful to the organism. Hahnemann also observed this possibility of drug induced diseases, and he tried to overcome this danger by using potentized forms of competitive inhibitors or SIMILIMUM.

In order to overcome this adverse effects of competitive inhibitors when used for therapeutic purpose, Samuel hahnemann developed the technology of drug Potentization. Homeopathic POTENTIZATION involves a process of preparing MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of drug molecules in water-ethyl alcohol medium using drug molecules as templates.

Molecular imprints are supra-molecular clusters formed in the imprinting medium, wherein the spacial conformations of template molecules remain engraved as nanocavities. Due to complementary conformations, these molecular imprints of competitive inhibitors can act as ARTIFICIAL BINDING POCKETS for the pathogenic molecules and deactivate them, thereby removing the pathological molecular inhibitions they had produced in biological molecules.

If SYMPTOMS produced in healthy persons by a DRUG substance taken in its MOLECULAR form are found to be SIMILAR to those expressed by an individual in a particular DISEASE condition, that drug substance if applied in MOLECULAR IMPRINTED form can cure the particular disease condition of that individual.

DISEASE symptoms and DRUG induced symptoms appear SIMILAR when disease-producing substance and drug substance contain SIMILAR chemical molecules with SIMILAR functional groups or moieties, which can bind to SIMILAR biological targets, produce SIMILAR molecular inhibitions that lead to SIMILAR errors in SIMILAR biochemical pathways in the living system.

SIMILAR chemical molecules can COMPETE each other in binding to the same molecular targets.

DISEASE molecules produce diseases by competitively binding with the biological targets by mimicking as the natural ligands due to their conformational SIMILARITY.

DRUG molecules having conformational SIMILARITY with DISEASE molecules can can displace them by COMPETITIVE relationship, and thereby remove the pathological inhibitions they have produced in the biological molecules.

Anybody who can think rationally and scientifically will understand that SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR is a natural objective phenomenon. It is not that much unscientific or PSEUDOSCIENCE as our skeptic friends try to make it appear!

This natural phenomenon was observed and described by Dr Samuel Hahnemann as ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’, the fundamental principle of homeopathy.

If symptoms produced in healthy individuals by a drug substance appear SIMILAR to the symptoms expressed in a disease condition, it obviously means that the particular drug substance as well as the particular disease-causing substance contain some chemical molecules having SIMILAR functional groups or moieties, so that both of them were capable of binding to same biological targets in the organism, producing SIMILAR molecular errors that are expressed through SIMILAR trains of symptoms.

MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of SIMILAR chemical molecules can act as ARTIFICIAL BINDING AGENTS for similar chemical molecules, and deactivate them due to their mutually complementary conformations.

It is obvious that Samuel Hahnemann was observing this phenomenon of COMPETITIVE relationship between SUBSTANCES in producing SIMILAR SYMPTOMS by acting upon living organisms.

Due to the historical limitations of scientific knowledge available to him, hahnemann could not understand that two different substances produce SIMILAR SYMPTOMS, only if both substances contain chemical molecules having functional groups or moieties of SIMILAR conformations, by which they could bind to SIMILAR biological targets and produce SIMILAR molecular inhibitions, that lead to SIMILAR deviations in SIMILAR biological pathways.

Remember, hahnemann was working during a period when modern biochemistry has not even evolved. It is obvious why hahnemann could not explain the phenomenon he observed using the paradigms of modern biochemistry. But his extraordinary genius could foresee its implications in therapeutics.

When a homeopath searches for a SIMILIMUM for his patient by matching DISEASE symptoms and DRUG symptoms, he is actually searching for a drug substance that contains some chemical molecules that have conformations similar to those of the particular chemical molecules that caused the disease, so that the drug molecules and disease-causing molecules will have a COMPETITIVE relationship in binding to the biological molecules.

Since MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of drug molecules contained in potentized forms of drug substance can act as ARTIFICIAL BINDING SITES for the disease-causing molecules having competitive relationship due to the CONFORMATIONAL affinity in between them and remove the pathological molecular inhibitions, post-avogadro dilutions of SIMILIMUM drug could be used as a therapeutic agent as per the principle SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR.

HOMEOPATHY or SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR is a therapeutic approach based on identifying drug molecules that are conformationally SIMILAR and capable of COMPETING with the disease-causing molecules in binding to their biological targets, by observing the SIMILARITY of disease symptoms as well as the symptoms drug substances could produce by applying on healthy individuals, and deactivating the disease-causing molecules by binding them using the MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of the similar drug molecules.

Once we could convince the scientific community that ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ is based on the natural phenomenon of ‘COMPETITIVE RELATIONSHIP’ between chemical molecules having SIMILAR conformations in binding to the biological molecules that is well explained in modern biochemistry, homeopathy will be inevitably recognised as SCIENTIFIC!

USE OF MOLECULAR IMPRINTS OF MICROBIAL PROTEINS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO ANTIBIOTICS FOR COMBATING THE THREAT OF ANTI MICROBIAL RESISTANCE (AMR)

Antimicrobial resistance or the increasing ability of pathogenic microbes to withstand and challenge antibiotic treatment is one of the major concerns faced by modern medical science. A lot of drug resistant strains of dangerous microbes that are called superbugs have emerged. Many of the viruses, bacteria, fungi and protozoa that were earlier susceptible to antibiotic treatments are becoming and more resistant now. Major cause of this increasing antimicrobial resistance is the uncontrolled availability and inappropriate usage of antibiotics, especially broad spectrum antibiotics even in minor and common infections. Widespread use of antiseptics in sanitation is also a reason. Antibiotics used in cattle and poultry industry as well as in agricultural products also play a role.

Reducing the usage of antibiotics as far as possible, as well as developing viable alternatives to antibiotics is an essential step in countering the threat of antimicrobial resistance. Use of phytochemicals and their derivatives is one alternative to antibiotics. But high levels of toxicity, as well as the chances of developing unwanted residual effects are some of the hindering facts.

Here I am proposing a new idea that may be used in developing alternatives to antibiotics for countering the threat of antimicrobial resistance.

All of us would have heard about molecular imprinted polymers. This is a new area of research in modern polymer chemistry. A molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) is a polymer that has been processed using the molecular imprinting technique which leaves cavities in the polymer matrix with an affinity for a chosen “template” molecule. The process usually involves initiating the polymerization of monomers through host-guest interactions in the presence of a template molecule that is extracted afterwards, leaving behind complementary cavities. These molecular imprinted cavities in polymers will have conformational affinity for the original molecules that were used as templates, and are used in applications such as chemical separations, catalysis, or molecular sensors.

It is obvious that currently available molecular imprinted polymers cannot be used as therapeutic agents, as they are not at all bio-friendly. But what I am saying is, if we could find out some substances having polymer-like properties in their supra-molecular level nanostructures, developing of bio-friendly molecular imprinted drugs will be a clear possibility. Once we could find a way to prepare bio-friendly molecular imprints that can act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules, a whole new range of molecular imprinted drugs will evolve. I think it is a new research area that has to be explored by scientific community involved in working upon innovative drug designing techniques.
Molecular imprints prepared by using microbial glycoproteins as templates can obviously act as antimicrobial agents, since they can bind to concerned microbial glycoproteins and inhibit their interactions with biological molecules. If these molecular imprints of microbial proteins are used instead of antibiotics and other chemical antimicrobial agents, chances of developing antibiotic resistance will not arise. Substituting antibiotics with molecular imprints of concerned microbial proteins will surely reduce the threat of antimicrobial resistance to a big extent.

The biggest challenge encountered in developing a protocol for preparing bio-friendly molecular imprinted drugs is to find out an appropriate material that could be used as imprinting matrix. Various biological polymers such as globulin proteins, carbohydrates, and nucleic acids are potential candidates. It was observed that concentrated solutions containing sucrose and fructose in water act as a good molecular imprinting medium. As far as our studies at ICLRMID (International Center for Learning and Research in Molecular Imprinted Drugs) has gone, water-ethanol mixture possess somewhat polymer-like properties at nanoscale supra-molecular levels, which could be utilized for preparing bio-friendly molecular imprints that could be used as therapeutic agents. Through a specially designed process involving the interaction between microbial glycoprotein protein molecules as templates and water-ethanol matrix as imprinting medium, we can produce hydrogen-bonded “host-guest complexes” wherein templates are “guests” and imprinting matrix is “hosts”. Removal of “guest” molecules from “host-guest” complexes were attained through a peculiar technique consisting of agitation, cavitation, nanobubble formation and precipitation. As the template molecules are removed by this process, supra-molecular networks of water-alcohol molecules carrying the three-dimensional imprints of templates in the form of nanocavities will remain. These nanocavities act as molecular imprints of glycoprotein molecules used as templates. These molecular imprints will act as Artificial Ligand Binds (MIALBS) for the specific glycoprotein molecules due to the conformational affinity between them. If we use viral glycoproteins or other essential microbial proteins as templates for this molecular imprinting protocol, the molecular imprints thus prepared can act almost similar to antibiotics.

I would appeal the scientific community to take this innovative humble idea of mine forward, and develop a whole new range of molecular imprinted drugs that can substitute antibiotics and other potentially dangerous drug substances currently used as therapeutic agents or prophylactics. By this technology, I hope we can produce a whole range of target-specific molecular imprinted drugs against almost any disease. It will obviously reduce the use of antibiotics, and it ultimately it will be a great step in combating the challenges posed by antimicrobial resistance.

THROW AWAY THE SCIENTIFICALLY OBSOLETE IDEAS FROM THE THEORETICAL SYSTEM OF HOMEOPATHY

Following NINETEEN statements I have quoted from footnote of aphorism 11, ORGANON MEDICINE, by Dr Samuel Hahnemann. He was trying to explain his concept of DYNAMIC ENERGY, which he utilises to construct the theoretical foundation of homeopathy.

Please read these statements carefully. If you are a person with minimum secondary school level scientific knowledge and a scientific temper arising therefrom, you can never resist laughing at homeopathy. Even if you are a great fan of homeopathy, it will be impossible for you to defend all these nonsense ideas put forward by Hahnemann in these statements.

Please read the quoted statements:

  1. “Our earth, by virtue of a hidden invisible energy, carries the moon around her”
  2. “moon raises our northern seas to flood tide and again correspondingly lowers them to ebb by a hidden invisible energy”
  3. “we see numerous other events about us as results of the action of one substance on another substance without being able to recognize a sensible connection between cause and effect.”
  4. “calls such effects dynamic, virtual, that is, such as result from absolute, specific, pure energy and action of the one substance upon the other substance.”
  5. “For instance, the dynamic effect of the sick-making influences upon healthy man, as well as the dynamic energy of the medicines upon the principle of life in the restoration of health is nothing else than infection and so not in any way material, not in any way mechanical. “
  6. “the energy of a magnet attracting a piece of iron or steel is not material, not mechanical.”
  7. “the piece of iron is attracted by one pole of the magnet, but how it is done is not seen.”
  8. “The magnet draws to itself and this acts upon the piece of iron or upon a steel needle by means of a purely immaterial invisible, conceptual, inherent energy, that is, dynamically, and communicates to the steel needle the magnetic energy equally invisibly (dynamically).”
  9. “a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected. A purely specific conceptual influence communicated to the near child small-pox or measles in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic property.”
  10. “Substances, which are used as medicines, are medicines only in so far as they possess each its own specific energy to alter the well-being of man through dynamic, conceptual influence, by means of the living sensory fibre, upon the conceptual controlling principle of life “
  11. “The medicinal property of those material substances which we call medicines proper, relates only to their energy to call out alterations in the well-being of animal life.”
  12. “Only upon this conceptual principle of life, depends their medicinal health-altering, conceptual (dynamic) influence, just as the nearness of a magnetic pole can communicate only magnetic energy to the steel, namely, by a kind of infection.”
  13. “every special medicinal substance alters through a kind of infection, that well-being of man in a peculiar manner exclusively its own and not in a manner peculiar to another medicine, as certainly as the nearness of the child ill with small-pox will communicate to a healthy child only small-pox and not measles. “
  14. “These medicines act upon our well-being wholly without communication of material parts of the medicinal substances, thus dynamically, as if through infection”
  15. “That smallest dose can therefore contain almost entirely only the pure, freely-developed, conceptual medicinal energy, and bring about only dynamically such great effects as can never be reached by the crude medicinal substances itself taken in large doses”
  16. “It is not in the corporal atoms of these highly dynamized medicines, nor their physical or mathematical surfaces that the medicinal energy is found. “
  17. “there lies invisible in the moistened globule or in its solution, an unveiled, liberated, specific, medicinal force contained in the medicinal substance which acts dynamically by contact with the living animal fibre upon the whole organism (without communicating to it anything material however highly attenuated) and acts more strongly the more free and more immaterial the energy has become through the dynamization.”
  18. “If one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this anti-peristaltic movement? Was it not solely the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination?”
  19. “And if one raises his arm, does it occur through a material visible instrument? a lever? Is it not solely the conceptual dynamic energy of his will which raises it?”

As a “classical homeopath”, you may say all these ideas are MOST SCIENTIFIC! But for a person having at least a basic knowledge of SCIENCE will say these are UTTER NONSENSE, ideas which reflect the most primitive state of scientific knowledge available to Hahnemann during his period more than 200 years ago!

We should not hesitate to throw away this kind of unscientific ideas from the theoretical system of homeopathy, and update it in accordance with modern scientific knowledge. Please do not think that homeopathy will collapse if these pre-scientific concepts are removed. Homeopathy will become more stronger, scientific and acceptable!

A HUMBLE CONFESSION OF SAMUEL HAHNEMANN REGARDING HIS LIMITATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE

Samuel Hahnemann was a wonderful human being, who many times demonstrated his extraordinary humility and truthfulness in recognising his limitations and mistakes.

There is a most wonderful and meaningful statement Hahnemann made in the footnote of Aphorism 11 in ORGANON:

“to think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner”.

It was actually a bold confession from Hahnemann regarding the LIMITATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE available to him during his period!

Please ponder over the implications of this statement, which amounts to a confession by Hahnemann: “think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner”. That clearly explains how Hahnemann happened to “think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal” It was only “since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner”! He never claimed his concept of dynamic energy is an ultimate truth of universe, but he used that concept only because he could not explain the phenomena of homeopathic cure “in any other way” at that point of time.

He was compelled to explain homeopathy using concepts of “dynamic energy” and “vital force”, only because he could not explain the phenomena of cure he observed, using “any other manner”! This statement constitutes a great historical truth.

That means, he would not have explained homeopathy in terms of “a non-corporeal dynamic energy”, if he could explain the natural objective phenomena of disease and cure he observed in “any other manner” !

By “any other manner” he actually means “by using scientific knowledge”. During that period, there were many “phenomena” that could not be explained scientifically, as scientific knowledge was in its very primitive stage. Superstitious concepts of “vital force” and “dynamic energy” had to be widely utilized to explain a lot of natural phenomena such as life, disease and cure. Hahnnemann could not be an exception.

Obviously, hahnemann himself realized the limitations of scientific knowledge available to him. We have to understand, concepts of “vital force” and “dynamic energy” are not inevitable parts of homeopathy, but only a part of its “limitations” of knowledge to explain “in any other manner” more scientific!

In the present knowledge environment, modern scientific knowledge has advanced to such a stage that it is possible to explain phenomena of life, disease and cure using modern biochemistry, without the help of “vital force” and “dynamic energy”, and we have enough knowledge to explain homeopathy in “other manner” more scientifically.